Where Are the Good Americans?

Where Are the Good Americans?
by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith
The Nation

Anyone who sees the photographs of the victims of the Nazi concentration camps must wonder how human beings could ever have allowed such things to happen.

They must wonder how people of good will could have stood by while their government committed atrocities in their name. In the wake of that nightmarish era, people often asked, "Where were the good Germans?"

After the publication of the long-suppressed pictures of Abu Ghraib victims and the United Nations finding that torture and abuse are still taking place at the US prison in Guantánamo Bay, America has fashioned its own nightmare. We now must ask ourselves, "Where are the good Americans?"

After an eighteen-month study, five independent experts appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights have just concluded that practices currently conducted at the US prison in Guantánamo amount to torture: excessive violence, force-feeding of hunger-striking detainees and arbitrary detention of prisoners that violates their right under international law to challenge the legality of their captivity before an independent judicial body.

The Bush Administration has condemned the publication of the Abu Ghraib photos and has rejected the UN report as "fundamentally flawed."

But Americans should be grateful that people in the rest of the world are helping us discover what the Administration is trying to conceal from its own citizens: It is conducting war crimes in our name.

The UN report makes recommendations that are simple and obvious:

• Immediately allow international inspection and supervision to insure an end to force-feeding and special interrogation techniques approved by the Defense Department but condemned under international law.
  
  
• Bring the detainees to trial or release them without delay.
  
  
• Conduct an investigation by an independent authority of all allegations of abuse to insure that all perpetrators of torture and other crimes are brought to justice--even high-level military and political officials.
  
  
• Close the Guantánamo prison.

The demand to close Guantánamo was quickly seconded by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. And the European Union Parliament voted 80 to 1 to ask the United States to close Guantánamo and give every prisoner "a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, impartial tribunal" without delay.

The Bush Administration has placed the responsibility for prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere on a few "bad apples" in the lowest ranks.

But since the Nuremberg Tribunal of Nazi war criminals, international law has maintained the principle of "command responsibility," which makes top officials who ordered the crimes or failed to prevent them accountable.

It's not just a question of international law. Administration officials are well aware that the US War Crimes Act makes it a serious crime for any American--including top government officials--to commit any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions, including "willful killing, torture, or inhuman treatment" of detainees. Perhaps that has something to do with the Administration's eagerness to discredit the UN report.

If President Bush won't halt the abuse of US captives, Congress stands next in line for responsibility.

Last December, it passed the so-called McCain amendment, which supposedly abolished all torture by US forces anywhere in the world. But the UN report makes clear that torture is continuing at Guantánamo.

The law's sponsor, Senator John McCain, promised that Congress would establish oversight over Guantánamo and other US prisons abroad to assure enforcement. But where's Senator McCain now?

If he really wants to stop torture, why doesn't he fly to Guantánamo immediately and make sure no one is being abused? Isn't that what McCain would have wanted US senators to do when he was being tortured in a prison cell in Vietnam?

If Congress won't act, then it is up to the people.

We must make every family dining table, every house of worship and every town meeting a place to stand up and speak out.

Only then will those who come after us know where the "good Americans" were.

Legal scholar Brendan Smith and historian Jeremy Brecher are the editors, with Jill Cutler, of In the Name of Democracy: American War Crimes in Iraq and Beyond (Metropolitan/Holt, 2005) (www.americanempireproject.com), and the founders of www.warcrimeswatch.org.

Mahatma Bush

Mahatma Bush

Evidently the president's trip to India created an option too perfect to pass up: The man who has led the world in violence during the first years of the 21st century could pay homage to the world's leading practitioner of nonviolence during the first half of the 20th century. So the White House announced plans for George W. Bush to lay a wreath at the Mahatma Gandhi memorial in New Delhi this week.

While audacious in its shameless and extreme hypocrisy, this PR gambit is in character for the world's only superpower. One of the main purposes of the Bush regime's media spin is to depict reality as its opposite. And Karl Rove obviously figured that mainstream U.S. media outlets, with few exceptions, wouldn't react with anywhere near the appropriate levels of derision or outrage.

Presidential rhetoric aside, Gandhi's enthusiasm for nonviolence is nearly matched by Bush's enthusiasm for violence. The commander in chief regularly proclaims his misty-eyed pride in U.S. military actions that destroy countless human lives with massive and continual techno-violence. But the Bushian isn't quite 180 degrees from the Gandhian. The president of the United States is not exactly committed to violence; what he wants is an end to resistance.

"A conqueror is always a lover of peace," the Prussian general Karl von Clausewitz observed. Yearning for Uncle Sam to fulfill his increasingly farfetched promise of victory in Iraq, the U.S. president is an evangelist for peace -- on his terms.

Almost two years ago, in early April 2004, the icy cerebral pundit George Will engaged in a burst of candor when he wrote a column about the widening bloodshed inside Iraq: "In the war against the militias, every door American troops crash through, every civilian bystander shot -- there will be many -- will make matters worse, for a while. Nevertheless, the first task of the occupation remains the first task of government: to establish a monopoly on violence."

The column -- headlined "A War President's Job" in the Washington Post -- diagnosed the problem and prescribed more violence. Lots more: "Now Americans must steel themselves for administering the violence necessary to disarm or defeat Iraq's urban militias, which replicate the problem of modern terrorism -- violence that has slipped the leash of states." For unleashing the Pentagon's violence, the rationales are inexhaustible.

In an important sense, it's plausible to envision Bush as a lover of peace and even an apostle of nonviolence -- but, in context, those sterling invocations of virtues are plated with sadism in the service of empire. The president of the United States is urging "peace" as a synonym for getting his way in Iraq. From Washington, the most exalted vision of peace is a scenario where the occupied no longer resist the American occupiers or their allies.

The world has seen many such leaders, eager to unleash as much violence as necessary to get what they want, and glad to praise nonviolence whenever convenient. But no photo-op can change the current reality that the world's most powerful government is also, by far, the most violent and the most dangerous.

Norman Solomon's latest book is "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com

Worldwide Poll Shows 60% Fear Terror Threat is Worse after War

Worldwide Poll Shows 60% Fear Terror Threat is Worse after War

by Ewen MacAskill

One of the biggest polling exercises ever conducted has uncovered an overwhelming belief that the Iraq war has increased rather than decreased the chances of terrorist attacks. The survey of 41,856 people in 35 countries, commissioned by the BBC World Service and published today, found about 60% of those polled shared this view. Only 12% thought the war had reduced the chances of an attack, with 15% saying it had no effect either way. In Britain, 77% of those questioned thought the terrorist threat had risen since the 2003 invasion. There was overall support in 20 countries for US-led forces to withdraw from Iraq in the next few months unless there was a specific request by the Iraqi government for them to stay. The removal of Saddam Hussein was branded a mistake by a majority in 21 of the countries. On average, 45% of those questioned agreed that removing him was a mistake, with 36% supporting the action. In Britain, 40% of those polled said it was a mistake, while 49% backed it. Steven Kull, director of the Programme on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, which helped conduct the survey between last October and January, said: "Though the Bush administration has framed the intervention in Iraq as a means of fighting terrorism, all around the world most people view it as having increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks." The biggest pullout call came in Argentina, where 80% favoured this. Those most in favour of US-led forces staying until Iraq was stable were the US and Afghanistan 58%, Australia 57% and Britain 56%. In Baghdad yesterday, three people were killed and 11 wounded when a motorcycle packed with explosives blew up outside a Sunni mosque. In a separate incident, the Iraqi Islamic party, the largest Sunni political group, said the body of one of its officials, Waad Jassim al-Ani, had been found with signs of torture after being detained by a security agency.

Incomes Fall, Hunger Worsens as Bush Says 'We're Doing Fine'

Incomes Fall, Hunger Worsens as Bush Says 'We're Doing Fine'

Denial is a River in Egypt, and George is paddling upstream.

WASHINGTON - The average American family has taken a financial tumble and millions in the country go hungry despite President George W. Bush's sunny assessment of the U.S. economy, say federal data and economists.

Stagnant wages and skyrocketing healthcare, education and housing costs, plus greater job instability has pushed America's families right to the limit, and they're borrowing on high-cost credit just to make ends meet.

Tamara Draut, director, economic opportunity program, Demos

Bush talked up the nation's wealth last week during a speech in Milwaukee. ''We're doing fine,'' he said and described the economy as ''strong and gaining steam.''

Economic growth had clocked a respectable 3.5 percent, unemployment had been held down to 4.7 percent with more than four million new jobs created in the past 30 months, and after-tax income had risen eight percent since 2001, he said.

Within days, however, the Federal Reserve reported that average incomes after adjusting for inflation actually had fallen between 2001 and 2004.

At the same time, the number of Americans who need emergency food aid to survive had swollen to more than 25 million even before hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck, the nation's largest network of food banks said in a separate report.

Many families continued to struggle in the wake of the 2000 stock market collapse and 2001 recession, the central bank said in its latest triennial ''Survey of Consumer Finances,'' released Thursday.

Inflation helped to eat away at the average American family's income, reducing the total to $70,700 in 2004--a loss of 2.3 percent from 2001. That followed a 17.3 percent gain in average incomes between 1998 and 2001 and 12.3 percent in 1995-98, the Fed said.

Median family income showed a slight increase of 1.6 percent to reach $43,200 in 2004, up from $42,500 in 2001.

Half of all households are understood to stand above, and half to fall below, the median point, which is used to represent the ''typical'' rather than ''average'' family.

Economic analysts said the latest Fed's findings confirmed earlier research showing that the average American family's finances were deteriorating.

''Every American should be able to achieve middle class economic security, a hallmark of national and household stability in this country,'' said Tamara Draut, director of the economic opportunity program at research and advocacy group Demos.

''But the Federal Reserve's findings spotlight trends that are causing economic fragility in today's middle class and are closing the door on low-income Americans.''

The income situation appears to be worsening.

Last year proved to be the worst one on record for inflation-adjusted income, said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

''Wages and compensation for the average worker are lagging inflation despite strong productivity growth,'' Bernstein said, citing figures from last month's ''Employment Cost Index'' report from the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

''Averaging over all of 2005, real wages fell 0.9 percent--the lowest annual result on record--while compensation's essentially unchanged rate from 2004 provides its worst year on record as well,'' Bernstein added in an analysis of the BLS report. The term ''compensation'' refers to wages plus benefits.

Draut, at Demos, said she was worried by the latest Fed report's findings that ''growing numbers of American households face mounting debt and financial instability.''

In particular, more than 76 percent of households carry debt, up since 2001. Of households in debt, the median amount of debt, $55,300, amounts to 128 percent of the median household income.

''A greater number of people reported not saving money in 2004 than in 2001. Only 41 percent save regularly,'' Draut said, citing the Fed's figures. ''That's a foreboding number for a nation with 76 million people reaching retirement age over the next 25 years.''

The Fed found that four in 10 senior citizens older than 75 years shouldered debts in 2004, up from 29 percent in 2001.

Americans also have been piling up credit card debt, which grew 10 percent in the median household and 15.9 percent in the average household. Most of the increase occurred in the ''middle class,'' which the Fed defined as the fifth of the population with a median income of $42,500.

''Stagnant wages and skyrocketing healthcare, education and housing costs, plus greater job instability has pushed America's families right to the limit, and they're borrowing on high-cost credit just to make ends meet,'' said Draut.

Home equity loans also have become bigger and more common, with many homeowners using the cash-out refinancing to pay down their credit card debts and to recover expenses they can't cover with their earnings, she added.

Rising household debt and stagnant real wages sapped median net worth, a tally of assets and liabilities. Median net worth grew by 1.5 percent in 2001-04, down from 10.3 percent in 1998-2001, the Fed report said.

The gap between wealthy and poor also has widened, the Fed said. America's wealthiest 10 percent saw their net worth rise by 6.1 percent to an average of $3.1 million while the bottom 10 percent saw theirs fall from zero in 2001 to minus $1,400--meaning they owed this much more than the value of all their assets--in 2004.

Data on net worth would have proven even more anemic were it not for big gains in the notional value of real estate--something that, at least hypothetically, boosted homeowners' financial standing, the Fed and analysts agreed.

''Americans are keeping their families afloat by putting their greatest asset at risk,'' said Draut.

Yet they appear to be among the fortunate, according to America's Second Harvest, which supports 50,000 food-aid charities nationwide.

More than 25 million Americans were forced to resort to food donations from the organization's affiliates last year, an 8 percent increase over 2001, it said.

Nine million children younger than 18 and three million senior citizens stood among the hungry, America's Second Harvest said in its ''Hunger in America 2006'' report.

''About 70 percent of the clients seeking emergency food assistance are living below the federal poverty line,'' the private philanthropy said.

''Nearly 40 percent have at least one adult working in their household,'' it added.

Those figures suggest that increasing numbers of working Americans do not earn enough to feed their families.

Global Issues

Anup Shah
http://www.globalissues.org

In this update:
---------------
1) The accumulated global foreign aid shortfall since 1970 totals to
over $2.5 trillion (at 2003 prices)

2) A White House memo reveals early decision to invade Iraq even
without a second UN resolution

3) U.S. and world military spending numbers have been updated

4) Hundreds of new plant and animal species discovered in western
New Guinea
---------------
1) The accumulated global foreign aid shortfall since 1970 totals to
over $2.5 trillion (at 2003 prices).

In 1970, the rich countries of the OECD agreed at the United Nations
(resolution 2626) to donate 0.7% of their GNP as official
development aid to help with long term development of the poorest
countries. The vast majority of the 20 or so OECD countries have
never met that target (agreed to be reached early to mid 1970s),
many not coming close. Since 1970 then, the total shortfall in aid
(at 2003 figures) is over $2.5 trillion, a similar amount to total
third world debt. However, considering that in recent years
official aid has included items not intended for long term aid as
originally defined, and that most aid does not go to the poorest
countries (Sub-Saharan Africa has on average only received 18% of
delivered aid, for example), the short fall is potentially much
higher.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Development/aid/shortfall/

2) A White House memo reveals early decision to invade Iraq even
without a second UN resolution.

A White House memo reveals details of a meeting between George Bush
and Tony Blair confirming what many critics charged-that the US and
UK had decided to go to war against Iraq regardless of if they got a
second UN resolution, or not, and even considered using illegal
deception if they needed to.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/WhiteHouseMemo.asp

3) U.S. and world military spending numbers have been updated.

The U.S. has requested $462.7 billion for the 2007 for the military
budget (this does not include Iraq and Afghanistan operations). The
next country, China, spends around $62.5 billion. Updated graph
reflecting the U.S. and world military spending in more recent
years.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

4) Hundreds of new plant and animal species discovered in western
New Guinea.

New species of birds, frogs, butterflies, palm trees, and many other
plants yet to be classified, as well as animals extremely rare in
other parts of the world were discovered recently in a remote
mountain rainforest region of western New Guinea (Indonesia). This
further highlights that conservation is more than just conserving
animals; it is also about conserving their habitat.
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/Nature.asp



Other Information:
------------------
http://www.globalissues.org/WhatsNew/

Help the Fight to Impeach Bush

We know George Bush has lied to us, spied on us, broken the law and sent Americans to fight an illegal war. The time for just debate and protest is over. We need real action to save our country and our Constitution – Congress must consider the impeachment of George W. Bush. Click here to take action: www.ccr-ny.org/impeachment We outline the legal case for impeaching Bush in an important new book, Articles of Impeachment Again George W. Bush, published by Melville House this week. We want to share special information about the book with our supporters – click here to learn more. Legal experts from the Center for Constitutional Rights propose four articles of impeachment in the book, explaining the case clearly and precisely. This is essential reading for all Americans. The book is part of our campaign to demand Congress show the President he is not above the law – please join us in urging Congress consider impeachment today: www.ccr-ny.org/impeachment Why now? The President’s illegal domestic spying program has been exposed - CCR is currently fighting it in federal court – and a majority of Americans now say Bush lied about the war in Iraq and it is a mistake. A growing number of U.S. Representatives now support a resolution to investigate impeachment. Take a moment to act today and encourage even more representatives to join the fight – click here to act. Together, we can beat back Bush’s illegal actions through Congress and the courts. Thank you for taking the time to act today, and help us spread the word.

Veterans Report Mental Distress

Veterans Report Mental Distress

About a Third Returning From Iraq Seek Help

This should be posted on War Crimes since its just as much of a crime to young americans being exposed to trauma and horror every day in Iraq.

More than one in three soldiers and Marines who have served in Iraq later sought help for mental health problems, according to a comprehensive snapshot by Army experts of the psyches of men and women returning from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.

The accounts of more than 300,000 soldiers and Marines returning from several theaters paint an unusually detailed picture of the psychological impact of the various conflicts.

Those returning from Iraq consistently reported more psychic distress than those returning from Afghanistan and other conflicts, such as those in Bosnia or Kosovo.

Iraq veterans are far more likely to have witnessed people getting wounded or killed, to have experienced combat, and to have had aggressive or suicidal thoughts, the Army report said. Nearly twice as many of those returning from Iraq reported having a mental health problem -- or were hospitalized for a psychiatric disorder -- compared with troops returning from Afghanistan. Some HAVE comitted suicide or murdered their families, girlfriends, etc.

In questionnaires filled out after their deployment, more than half of all soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq reported that they had "felt in great danger of being killed" there, and 2,411 reported having thoughts of killing themselves, the report said. It did not have comparable data from earlier conflicts.

Earlier research has suggested that 12 to 20 (more) percent of combat veterans develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which produces flashbacks, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts that disrupt work and home life. The new study found that Iraq veterans have mental disorders diagnosed at the rate of 12 percent per year.

Experts cautioned, however, that they do not have good ways to predict how many people will need help over time. Researchers have found that nearly two-thirds of Iraq veterans who "screened positive" for PTSD and other psychiatric disorders are not receiving treatment.

The new report comes at a time when budget constraints are causing worries about the cost of caring for large numbers of veterans seeking help for mental problems; the Department of Veterans Affairs is already contending with a recent surge in demand for help with PTSD from troops whose combat experiences go as far back as the Vietnam War or World War II.

The war in Iraq has also set off a debate over how to define trauma itself, and whether it is appropriate to distinguish those who see combat firsthand from those who do not. The traditional definition of post-traumatic stress disorder, a diagnosis developed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, involved directly experiencing or witnessing a horrifying event, but some experts are asking whether the constant fear of being killed in places such as Iraq might create problems both for people restricted to bases as well as for those who head outside.

"There is no front line in Iraq," said Col. Charles W. Hoge of the division of psychiatry and neuroscience at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, the lead author of the report published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Individuals who are patrolling the streets will be at higher risk of being involved in combat, but folks who are largely located at one base are also targets of mortar and artillery, and everyone in convoys is a target."

Hoge said it is more important to treat the problems that troops report and to evaluate how they function than to argue about whether there were clear-cut events that triggered a trauma, as the definition of PTSD demands.

Other mental health experts disagree. Harvard psychologist Richard J. McNally said that although just being in Iraq might cause chronic stress, it is not the kind of sudden, horrifying experience that is thought to lead to PTSD.

"Being in the war zone does not constitute exposure to trauma," said McNally, who helped write the definition of PTSD for the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual. "It is just stressful."

Michael J. Kussman, principal deputy undersecretary for health at the Department of Veterans Affairs, said the department spends $3.2 billion a year on mental health care. Although large numbers of soldiers and Marines are seeking help, Kussman emphasized that most did not immediately receive a psychiatric diagnosis.

"Readjustment and reintegration issues are very common among servicemen returning from any combat," he said. "A large portion of people have this temporary reaction. These are normal reactions to abnormal situations and are not considered mental illnesses."

The president of the American Psychiatric Association, Steven S. Sharfstein, said that though it is too early to say how or whether the conflict in Iraq might change notions of PTSD -- the Institute of Medicine is currently reviewing PTSD diagnosis, treatment and procedures for veterans disability compensation -- he is not surprised by the number of people seeking help.

Some even thought the number cited in the study is too low. Steve Robinson, who heads the National Gulf War Resource Center, a nonprofit organization that advocates for veterans, said the military would have found far larger numbers of troubled former soldiers and Marines if it had done a better job reaching out.

"Upwards of 80 to 85 percent of people serving there have witnessed or been a part of a traumatic event, including engaging the enemy, killing people, or friends or themselves being involved in IED attacks," he said, referring to improvised explosive devices. "In Vietnam, there were safe areas where people could go to rest and recuperate. That doesn't happen in Iraq; every place is a war zone."

Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Afghanistan

Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Afghanistan

His old pals....

NEW DELHI, March 1 -- President Bush made a previously unannounced visit to Kabul Wednesday to rally U.S. troops in Afghanistan and praise embattled Afghan leader Hamid Karzai at a time of rising violence from the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists.

After a four-hour visit, Bush landed in New Delhi Wednesday evening for two days of high-level talks about India's nuclear program and its booming economy.

President Bush walks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the Presidential Palace in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Jim Young -- Reuters) Thursday, March 2, at 2 p.m. ET Bush Visits South Asia Stephen P. Cohen, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, discusses President Bush's trip to South Asia and his visits with leaders in Afghanistan and India. VIDEO | Presidents Bush and Karzai in Kabul Bush Abroad An overview of events during President Bush's tour of Southeast Asia: WEDNESDAY Surprise visit to Kabul, joint news conference with President Karzai Arrives New Delhi, no scheduled events THURSDAY/FRIDAY: New Delhi and Hyderabad, India FYI Meeting, joint press availability and lunch with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Meetings with opposition leader L.K. Advani of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party and with Indian National Congress party chairman Sonia Gandhi State dinner hosted by President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Agricultural event and meeting with Indian high-tech entrepreneurs SATURDAY: Islamabad, Pakistan Meeting and joint media availability with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf Meeting on earthquake reconstruction efforts State dinner hosted by Musharraf SUNDAY Arrives back in Washington Now you know his schedule all week ;) TRANSCRIPT Transcript: Remarks by President Bush and President Karzai of Afghanistan in a Press Availability Presidential Palace, Kabul, Afghanistan Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. memeorandum AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth [signal to noise] - [signal to noise] Full List of Blogs (20 links) » Most Blogged About Articles On washingtonpost.com | On the web Next

At a joint news conference with President Karzai, Bush expressed his hope that the United States and India could reach an agreement for the cooperative development of nuclear power to help fill the energy gap in India and fuel its rapid economic development.

"Hopefully, we can reach an agreement," Bush said. "If not, we'll continue to work on it until we do. It's in our interests and . . . in the interests of countries around the world that India develop a nuclear power industry because that will help alleviate demand for fossil fuels. . . . So what we are trying to do is have an international consortium that will enable countries to develop nuclear power industries in safe ways, ways that will prevent proliferation."

Iran is free to develop a nuclear power industry as well, he said. However, "Iran must not have a nuclear weapon," he said. "The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and in the world is for Iran to . . . develop a nuclear weapon."

Saying that the world is "speaking with one voice to the Iranians," Bush added, addressing Iran, "it's okay for you to have a civilian . . . nuclear power operation, but you shall not have the means, the knowledge, to develop a nuclear weapon."

In his second unannounced visit to a war zone since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacks in the United States, Bush flew to Bagram air base north of Kabul, then boarded a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter for a 20-minute flight to the presidential palace compound in the Afghan capital. As the helicopters carrying Bush and his entourage flew low over the landscape to thwart any attempts to shoot them down, a gunner on a chopper carrying journalists and military personnel fired a machine gun burst from a front window. Reporters were later told it was a routine "test fire" at a predesignated location.

After a meeting and a working lunch with Karzai, Bush rode in a motorcade through largely empty streets to the heavily secured U.S. Embassy for a ceremonial ribbon-cutting attended by about 200 people.

Accompanied by first lady Laura Bush and top U.S. officials, the president then choppered back to Bagram for a rally with about 500 mostly American troops. Then the presidential party reboarded Air Force One and flew to India.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the idea of stopping in Afghanistan was first brought to Bush about two months ago and quickly approved. He said planning for the trip -- a closely held secret that was revealed to the accompanying press corps only after departure from the United States -- had been underway for the past month.

Bush said at the brief joint news conference with Karzai that he wanted to send a message of appreciation to Afghans for their progress in building a democracy. "I hope the people of Afghanistan understand that as democracy takes hold, you're inspiring others," he said.

Asked why al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is still on the loose more than four years after U.S.-backed Afghan forces and American air power toppled the radical Islamic Taliban movement and drove him out of Afghanistan, Bush said: "I am confident he will be brought to justice. . . . We're making progress of dismantling al-Qaeda. Slowly but surely, we're bringing the people to justice." He said later that it was not a matter of "if" bin Laden and the deposed Taliban leader, Mohammad Omar, would be captured or brought to justice, but "when."

When Americans No Longer Own America

When Americans No Longer Own America

by Thom Hartmann

The Dubai Ports World deal is waking Americans up to a painful reality: So-called "conservatives" and "flat world" globalists have bankrupted our nation for their own bag of silver, and in the process are selling off America. Through a combination of the "Fast Track" authority pushed for by Reagan and GHW Bush, sweetheart trade deals involving "most favored nation status" for dictatorships like China, and Clinton pushing us into NAFTA and the WTO (via GATT), we've abandoned the principles of tariff-based trade that built American industry and kept us strong for over 200 years. The old concept was that if there was a dollar's worth of labor in a pair of shoes made in the USA, and somebody wanted to import shoes from China where there may only be ten cents worth of labor in those shoes, we'd level the playing field for labor by putting a 90-cent import tariff on each pair of shoes. Companies could choose to make their products here or overseas, but the ultimate cost of labor would be the same. Then came the flat-worlders, led by misguided true believers and promoted by multinational corporations. Do away with those tariffs, they said, because they "restrain trade." Let everything in, and tax nothing. The result has been an explosion of cheap goods coming into our nation, and the loss of millions of good manufacturing jobs and thousands of manufacturing companies. Entire industry sectors have been wiped out. These policies have kneecapped the American middle class. Our nation's largest employer has gone from being the unionized General Motors to the poverty-wages Wal-Mart. Americans have gone from having a net savings rate around 10 percent in the 1970s to a minus .5 percent in 2005 - meaning that they're going into debt or selling off their assets just to maintain their lifestyle. At the same time, federal policy has been to do the same thing at a national level. Because our so-called "free trade" policies have left us with an over $700 billion annual trade deficit, other countries are sitting on huge piles of the dollars we gave them to buy their stuff (via Wal-Mart and other "low cost" retailers). But we no longer manufacture anything they want to buy with those dollars. So instead of buying our manufactured goods, they are doing what we used to do with Third World nations - they are buying us, the USA, chunk by chunk. In particular, they want to buy things in America that will continue to produce profits, and then to take those profits overseas where they're invested to make other nations strong. The "things" they're buying are, by and large, corporations, utilities, and natural resources. Back in the pre-Reagan days, American companies made profits that were distributed among Americans. They used their profits to build more factories, or diversify into other businesses. The profits stayed in America. Today, foreigners awash with our consumer dollars are on a two-decades-long buying spree. The UK's BP bought Amoco for $48 billion - now Amoco's profits go to England. Deutsche Telekom bought VoiceStream Wireless, so their profits go to Germany, which is where most of the profits from Random House, Allied Signal, Chrysler, Doubleday, Cyprus Amax's US Coal Mining Operations, GTE/Sylvania, and Westinghouse's Power Generation profits go as well. Ralston Purina's profits go to Switzerland, along with Gerber's; TransAmerica's profits go to The Netherlands, while John Hancock Insurance's profits go to Canada. Even American Bankers Insurance Group is owned now by Fortis AG in Belgium. Foreign companies are buying up our water systems, our power generating systems, our mines, and our few remaining factories. All because "flat world" so-called "free trade" policies have turned us from a nation of wealthy producers into a nation of indebted consumers, leaving the world awash in dollars that are most easily used to buy off big chunks of America. As www.economyincrisis.com notes, US Government statistics indicate the following percentages of foreign ownership of American industry: · Sound recording industries - 97% · Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79% · Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75% · Metal ore mining - 65% · Motion picture and video industries - 64% · Wineries and distilleries - 64% · Database, directory, and other publishers - 63% · Book publishers - 63% · Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62% · Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57% · Rubber product - 53% · Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53% · Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52% · Plastics product - 51% · Other insurance related activities - 51% · Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50% · Glass and glass product - 48% · Coal mining - 48% · Sugar and confectionery product - 48% · Nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying - 47% · Advertising and related services - 41% · Pharmaceutical and medicine - 40% · Clay, refractory, and other nonmetallic mineral products - 40% · Securities brokerage - 38% · Other general purpose machinery - 37% · Audio and video equipment mfg and reproducing magnetic and optical media - 36% · Support activities for mining - 36% · Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation - 32% · Chemical manufacturing - 30% · Industrial machinery - 30% · Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities - 30% · Other food - 29% · Motor vehicles and parts - 29% · Machinery manufacturing - 28% · Other electrical equipment and component - 28% · Securities and commodity exchanges and other financial investment activities - 27% · Architectural, engineering, and related services - 26% · Credit card issuing and other consumer credit - 26% · Petroleum refineries (including integrated) - 25% · Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments - 25% · Petroleum and coal products manufacturing - 25% · Transportation equipment manufacturing - 25% · Commercial and service industry machinery - 25% · Basic chemical - 24% · Investment banking and securities dealing - 24% · Semiconductor and other electronic component - 23% · Paint, coating, and adhesive - 22% · Printing and related support activities - 21% · Chemical product and preparation - 20% · Iron, steel mills, and steel products - 20% · Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery - 20% · Publishing industries - 20% · Medical equipment and supplies - 20% Thus it shouldn't surprise us that the cons have sold off our ports as well, and will defend it to the bitter end. They truly believe that a "New World Order" with multinational corporations in charge instead of sovereign governments will be the answer to the problem of world instability. And therefore they must do away with quaint things like unions, a healthy middle class, and, ultimately, democracy. The "security" implications of turning our ports over to the UAE are just the latest nail in what the cons hope will be the coffin of American democracy and the American middle class. Today's conservatives believe in rule by inherited wealth and an internationalist corporate elite, and things like a politically aroused citizenry and a healthy democracy are pesky distractions. Everything today is driven by profits for multinationals, supported by the lawmaking power of the WTO. Thus, parts for our missiles are now made in China, a country that last year threatened us with nuclear weapons. Our oil comes from a country that birthed a Wahabist movement that ultimately led to 14 Saudi citizens flying jetliners into the World Trade buildings and the Pentagon. Germans now own the Chrysler auto assembly lines that turned out tanks to use against Germany in WWII. And the price of labor in America is being held down by over ten million illegal workers, a situation that was impossible twenty-five years ago when unions were the first bulwark against dilution of the American labor force. When Thomas Jefferson wrote of King George III in the Declaration of Independence, "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation…" he just as easily could have been writing of the World Trade Organization, which now has the legal authority to force the United States to overturn laws passed at both local, state, and federal levels with dictates devised by tribunals made up of representatives of multinational corporations. If Dubai loses in the American Congress, their next stop will almost certainly be the WTO. As Simon Romero and Heather Timmons noted in The New York Times on 24 February 2006, "the international shipping business has evolved in recent years to include many more containers with consumer goods, in addition to old-fashioned bulk commodities, and that has helped lift profit margins to 30 percent, from the single digits. These smartly managed foreign operators now manage about 80 percent of port terminals in the United States." And those 30 percent profits from American port operations now going to Great Britain will probably soon go to the United Arab Emirates, a nation with tight interconnections to both the Bush administration and the Bush family. Ultimately, it's not about security -- it's about money. In the multinational corporatocracy's "flat world," money trumps the national good, community concerns, labor interests, and the environment. NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO tribunals can - and regularly do - strike down local and national laws. Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" are replaced by Antonin Scalia's "Rights of Corporate Persons." Profits even trump the desire for good enough port security to avoid disasters that may lead to war. After all, as Judith Miller wrote in The New York Times on January 30, 1991, quoting a local in Saudi Arabia: "War is good for business." Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author of over a dozen books and the host of a nationally syndicated noon-3pm ET daily progressive talk show syndicated by Air America Radio. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "What Would Jefferson Do?" and Ultimate Sacrifice.

Bush Should Not Visit Gandhi Memorial, Says Peaceniks

Bush Should Not Visit Gandhi Memorial, Says Peaceniks

A group of peaceniks here has demanded that President George W. Bush be kept out from the Mahatma Gandhi memorial at Rajghat during his India visit as "George Bush knows nothing about non-violence".

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pours rose petals at Rajghat, memorial of Mahatma Gandhi, on Gandhi's death anniversary in New Delhi January 30, 2006. Mahatma Gandhi, father of Indian nation, was assassinated in 1948. India observes Gandhi's death anniversary as Martyr's day. REUTERS/Kamal Kishore

Peace Action, an organisation based in the Greater Washington Area, said it "denounced" the plan for President Bush to lay a memorial wreath in honour of the champion of non-violence at the Gandhi memorial in New Delhi during his three-day visit beginning Wednesday.

"Mahatma Gandhi was a man of non-violence and peace and is a hero to people all over the world. As his war-strewn presidency shows, George Bush knows nothing about non-violence. Gandhi would in no way condone his actions. Bush should reconsider this cynical, disrespectful display of symbolism," said Kevin Martin, executive director of Peace Action, in a press release.

Furthermore, the group maintained, that Bush was seeking to sign a nuclear deal with India, which was even more contradictory of Gandhi's views.

"Does Bush think Gandhi would bless one of the main purposes of this trip -- to promote nuclear aid to India?" questioned Martin. "Gandhi abhorred nuclear weapons and would surely call for the US and India to pursue the abolition of nuclear weapons."

Peace Action, in its release, claims to be the largest peace and disarmament organisation founded in 1957, and says it has more than 90,000 members nationwide.