The Friendship Offensive

Peace activists on Capitol Hill hope to stave off war with Iran through cross-cultural contact between ordinary citizens. Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus show their support.

As George W. Bush focused his final presidential visit to Europe on Iran’s nuclear program, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus joined a group of peace activists on Capitol Hill at an event designed to foster dialogue between everyday Iranians and Americans.

On Tuesday afternoon, the activist groups Enough Fear and Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran set up a phone bank outside the Cannon House office building, inviting activists, reporters, and passersby to speak with people in Iran. Leaders of the two groups seek to build lasting person-to-person ties between Iranians and Americans in the hope of building sentiment against a military confrontation between the two nations.

“The main idea is that if more people in this country have friends in Iran the two countries are less likely to go to war,” explained Nick Jehlen, co-founder of Enough Fear. “It’s as simple as that.” The event, called “Time to Talk to Iran,” was Jehlen’s brainchild.

Jehlen invited every member of Congress to attend this week’s event, but only five, all from the House of Representatives, participated: Lynne Woolsey and Barbara Lee, both California Democrats, joined Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas. All are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which Woolsey and Lee co-chair. Ron Paul, the Republican presidential contender from Texas, crossed the aisle to appear with the congresswomen.

Barbara Lee has long advocated person-to-person contact as the solution to the current stand-off with Iranian leaders over their nuclear program, which President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice contend is a precursor to weapons development. In January, Lee, who also sits on the foreign affairs committee, introduced the Iran Diplomatic Accountability Act of 2008, which, she told the gathering, “directs the president to appoint a high-level envoy empowered to seek to conduct direct, unconditional, bilateral negotiations with Iran for the purpose of easing tensions and normalizing relations between the United States and Iran.” Her legislation has idled in committee for the last six months with 14 cosponsors. Proposals in both houses of Congress intended to block the administration from using force against Iran have similarly stalled.

The Washington, D.C., event marked the third staging of a “Time To Talk” phone bank. The first took place in Boston in November 2007, and the second in New York in January. “Having congresspeople here [at a ‘Time to Talk’ event] is really an aberration for us,” Jehlen explained. “If we can facilitate dialogue between members of the American and Iranian governments in the future, we’d like to.”

At each event, a bank of four or five old-fashioned red desk phones takes center stage, though the phones are actually fed through hand-held wireless devices. The set-up is designed to resemble the crisis lines that connected officials in Washington with their Moscow counterparts during tense moments in the Cold War. About 50 people — including students and Code Pink activists — braved wilting heat and humidity to participate Tuesday’s event. Many relied on interpreters, young volunteers fluent in both English and Farsi, who joined them on the line.

The conversations tended to be brief, and were often beset by technical problems. But they were substantive, too. Friendly chats quickly developed from exchanges of simple pleasantries (How’s the weather? What do you do?) into earnest discussions about the deteriorating political situation between the two countries.

The organizers put me on the line with Morteza Rassul-Shirazi, a 60-year-old engineer in Tehran who agreed to speak on the record with an American reporter. The connection was poor (the line dropped twice), but Shirazi, along with many of his peers, he said, is concerned that U.S.-Iran hostilities could mushroom into a violent conflict. “We should not talk about war at all,” he told me. “Instead, we should try to show Americans that we are peaceful people.” Rassul-Shirazi and his friends and family in Tehran are understandably nervous. Visiting with European leaders this week, Bush sent mixed signals, focusing his early remarks on rallying European support for sanctions on Iran if it did not agree to stop enriching uranium, leading some to speculated that he was backing off from earlier saber-rattling. Then, before he left the continent, he added, “All options are on the table.”

These latest remarks capped off several weeks of escalating anti-Iran rhetoric from the administration. In a last week’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the White House, Bush said, “It is very important for the world to take the Iranian threat seriously.” Speaking this week in Europe, Secretary Rice accused the Iranian regime of evading international oversight, saying,”I think that no one is of a mind to allow them to stall very much longer.”

A December National Intelligence Estimate found that the Iranian government suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Iran does, however, continue to pursue a uranium enrichment program, which its leaders contend is for use in peaceful projects, such as energy production.

No Tags

Live from Main Street/Minneapolis - Today!
Watch Laura Flanders, Amy Goodman and More, Here

At 3:00 EDT, tune in here for live streaming of The Media Consortium’s debut town-hall program,
Live From Main Street, moderated by GritTV’s Laura Flanders and KFAI/Insight News’s Al McFarlane, and featuring:

· Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!
· John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation
· Malkia Cyril, director of the Center for Media Justice
· Colleen Rowley, FBI whistleblower/2006 congressional candidate
· Joel Kramer, founder of the Minneapolis Post
· Paul Schmelzer, managing editor of Minnesota Monitor
· Marlina Gonzalez, program director of the Unconvention/Intermedia Arts

…and more of your Twin Cities favorites!

Inspired by the work of everyday activists, Live From Main Street’s premiere
town hall will explore what it takes to get heard in the era of big media
and diminished civil liberties.

Live Webcast by The Uptake

No Tags

A General’s False Testimony on KBR

Sen. Byron Dorgan, in a May 21, 2008, meeting with reporters, speaking about the April 2007 testimony of Major Gen. Jerome Johnson - 29 seconds.

Will the Pentagon correct Major Gen. Jerome Johnson’s tainted testimony on the contaminated water KBR provided to the troops?

By Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium

When Major Gen. Jerome Johnson appeared under oath before a congressional
committee last year, he told enough untruths about KBR’s work for the
military that the US Army took the unusual step of retracting a portion of
his testimony. Now it appears that Johnson also misled members of the Senate Armed Services Committee on another KBR-related matter: its provisioning of contaminated water to U.S. troops in Iraq.

Nearly three months ago Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chair of the
Democratic Policy Committee, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates
on the subject of Johnson’s testimony, but he has yet to received a reply.
“This was either an attempt by General Johnson to deliberately deceive the
Congress, or a display of negligent disregard for facts,” Dorgan wrote in
the March 12 letter. “I hope you will review this matter and take
appropriate action.”

In April 2007, Johnson, then the commanding general of the US Army
Sustainment Command, which is responsible for providing food, lodging, and a
range of logistical support to the troops, appeared before the Senate Armed
Services Committee to answer questions about the Pentagon’s primary
logistics contract in Iraq. During the hearing, the committee’s chairman,
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., alleged that the Army had reimbursed KBR, then a
Halliburton subsidiary, for the cost of overpriced trailers the company had
purchased through a subcontractor.

“[T]he [Defense] department has not paid KBR the $100 million for the
trailers,” Johnson told Levin. “As a matter of fact, KBR’s cost is still
suspended.” Johnson when on to say that the DOD document from which Levin
drew his information was “inaccurate.” But it was Johnson who didn’t have
his facts straight.

More than seven months passed before the Army acknowledged Johnson’s
misstatement. “We sincerely regret the confusion that arose during the
testimony and apologize for any impact to the Committee’s deliberations,”
wrote Claude Bolton, assistant secretary of the Army, to Levin. In his
“correction for the record,” Bolton wrote that the Army had indeed paid KBR
for the trailers, even though the Defense Contract Audit Agency had called
the purchase “unreasonable due to KBR purchasing the [trailers] from someone other than the low bidder without…adequate justification.”

The media paid little attention to the slip-up and subsequent correction,
perhaps in part because, as the Army Times noted, “Bolton’s letter ends the argument between the Army and Levin’s committee because there is no way to recoup the money.”

Overlooked entirely, though, was a different part of Johnson’s testimony,
when he claimed the Army was unaware of reports that KBR had also been
supplying military bases with contaminated water. Because of their
negligence, a 2006 investigation by Dorgan’s policy committee found,
soldiers had unwittingly bathed in and brushed their teeth with water that,
by the senator’s account, was more polluted than the Euphrates river. The
committee’s findings prompted Dorgan to request an investigation by the
Pentagon’s Inspector General.

When Levin raised Dorgan’s charge that water provided to troops in Iraq
had tested positive for E. coli and other bacteria common to animal feces,
Johnson disputed the allegations
[PDF]. Acknowledging the inspector general’s then-ongoing investigation,
Johnson told the committee, “No issues have been found thus far that I’m
aware of.” Johnson did confirm that allegations had been raised about
contaminated water at Camp Ar-Ramadi, a base about 70 miles west of Baghdad, but said “we found no issues with the water there. After an inspection, we did not confirm the allegations that were made.”

Johnson even denied that KBR had anything to do with the provision of
water to troops at the base. “KBR was not operating the water site,” he told
the panel. But this March, when the inspector general’s office released its
report, investigators noted that the Pentagon had been notified on March 31,
2007 — three weeks before Johnson’s testimony — of KBR’s role in
providing polluted water to military bases, which “may have degraded to the
point of causing waterborne illnesses among US forces.”

Investigators found that KBR was indeed in control of water quality at Camp Ar-Ramadi, and that at three of four US bases subject to inspection, including Ar-Ramadi, KBR had shirked its contractual obligation to test the water it supplied.

At a meeting with reporters last month, Dorgan described his efforts to
uncover the extent of the unsanitary water conditions at US bases in Iraq in
the face of denials from both the Army and its contractor, KBR. “It’s clear
everyone was lying, including [Gen. Johnson], who came to the Senate
committee and deceived the committee,” Dorgan said.

At press time, Levin had not responded to a request for comment.

Johnson now serves as deputy chief of staff at the U.S. Army Forces Command in Fort McPherson, Georgia. The Pentagon declined to comment on Johnson’s testimony or why Dorgan’s letter to Gates has gone unanswered.

More from Sen. Dorgan’s May 21 meeting with reporters - 1:51

No Tags

Looking For a Few Good Republicans:
Byron Dorgan’s Quest For Wartime Oversight

The North Dakota senator has made investigating contractor corruption his mission, but will he succeed in creating a congressional committee devoted to it?

By Brian Beutler

In the wake of a recent Defense Department report from the Office of Inspector General that documents (PDF file) the improper accounting of billions of dollars in war contracting funds, the issue of waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq is once again in the spotlight on Capitol Hill.

Those findings were amplified on Tuesday when the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based watchdog group, obtained a separate inspector general report that found that the number of Pentagon auditors overseeing military contracts has not kept pace with defense spending, which has doubled under the Bush administration — creating conditions that are ripe for corruption and abuse.

While Congress has launched sporadic inquiries into contracting fraud, one legislator, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., has made it his mission to investigate contractor corruption.

Dorgan chairs the Democratic Policy Committee, a Senate entity tasked with gathering and distributing policy, strategy, and oversight information to congressional staff and other Democratic officials. (There is also a Republican Policy Committee.) Since 2003, the DPC has held 14 hearings dedicated to exposing the corruption of the Iraq reconstruction effort, and last month the committee released an encyclopedic report detailing major examples of fraud.

When the war in Iraq began, says Dorgan, “no one really [decided] to say, ‘All right, now we’re going to be an investigative committee so there’s accountability.’” In order to fill the void, Dorgan decided to use his committee for that purpose — though its oversight authority is somewhat diminished by the fact that the panel, as a partisan committee, lacks subpoena power. In light of this, since 2005 Dorgan has attempted to establish a congressional committee with full oversight clout to oversee military contracting. Dubbed the Special Committee on War and Reconstruction Contracting, the proposed panel is modeled on the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program (commonly known as the Truman committee), which was charged with investigating the waste and corruption of billions of dollars of World War II-era defense contracts.

So far legislation to create a committee to oversee contracting for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq hasn’t gained traction. During the previous Congress, which ended in December 2006, Dorgan’s resolution was swatted down three separate times along partisan lines. (In each case, presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain voted with the Republican majority to nix the committee.)

A Dorgan aide says that the third-term senator plans to introduce his proposal again within the year, and is currently looking for Republican co-sponsors, which he believes will improve his chances of passing the bill. In the past, the only Republican to vote in favor of the commission was Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, who lost his seat during the Democratic landslide in November of 2006. So Dorgan’s contracting committee is still a long shot.

Other senators have taken a milder approach to the idea of a modern-day Truman committee. Last year, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va. — along with all of his fellow freshman Democrats in the Senate — sponsored a measure mandating the creation of an independent bipartisan commission (distinct from a congressional committee, which has subpoena power) to “investigate U.S. wartime contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The measure passed unanimously last September as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, only to be written out of existence by a presidential signing statement when the bill hit President Bush’s desk in January.

If Dorgan gets his way, it could substantially bolster the Democrats’ efforts to uncover and deter acts of fraud and corruption in war contracting. Currently those efforts have been driven almost exclusively by House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich. Since taking the House oversight gavel in January 2007, Waxman has held a host of hearings on defense contracting fraud, with a particular emphasis on the companies, like Blackwater and KBR, that have been some of the biggest beneficiaries of the war in Iraq.

Levin has spotlighted the issue of contractor fraud on a number of occasions, but, like Waxman, the focus of his committee extends well beyond contracting oversight. The existing congressional committees, Dorgan says, “have not had the investigators and the time,” to give this issue the focus it deserves. “So, we have held these hearings, and the waste, the fraud, and the abuse is staggering.”

——–
Brian Beutler is the Washington correspondent for The Media Consortium, a network of progressive media organizations.

No Tags

Border Harassment

On May 11, the Rio Grande Guardian reported that customs agents in the Rio Grande Valley have devised a plan to check the documents of evacuees who attempt to board evacuation buses in the event of a hurricane.

The article [no link] reads reads:

Anyone who is not a citizen or is not a legal resident will be held in specially designed areas in the Valley that are ‘made to withstand hurricanes’ said Dan Doty, a Border Patrol spokesperson for the Valley sector.

When the weather clears, of course, they’ll be deported.

This incident–and with several other examples of the threat the national security state poses to civil liberties–have come to the attention of Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), who chairs the House Judiciary committee. On Friday, he brought the issue up before the Congress: “[T]he Border Patrol [has] said that they have reassessed the policy in light of last week’s exercise. They told us that [their] ‘primary role in such events will be the safeguarding of life. No enforcement role will be undertaken that will in any way impede the safe and orderly evacuation of any member of the south Texas population.’”

That’s a slightly different tune. And unfortunately, we may only learn the Border Patrol’s true intentions when a real disaster strikes.

See more tagged with: Homeland Security and john conyers

Lost Iraq Funds

An Inspector General report released today confirms what just about everybody already knew–that the Department of Defense has squandered billions of American dollars due to contracting fraud and abuse in Iraq.

In response, House Oversight and Government Reform committee chairman Henry Waxman held a hearing today to spell out some of the reports findings, which include:

• That of the $8.2 billion in contracting funds audited by the IG between April 2001 and June 2006, 95 percent were improperly accounted for, and $1.4 billion in payments “were missing critically important documentation.” Some commercial payments were distributed without the documentation of any promised service. As a result IG officials have referred 28 suspicious cases to criminal investigators
• That of the $2.7 billion congress has appropriated for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP)–created to help foreign agents to provide humanitarian relief–the IG found that $134.8 million was distributed without a complete audit trail. The IG was “unable to ensure that CERP funds provided to Coalition Partners have been used for their intended purposes. In other words, the money was handed to foreign governments without any meaningful strings.
• That none of the $1.8 billion in seized Iraqi assets–intended for humanitarian purposes, and audited by the IG–was adequately accounted for.

To these findings, Waxman intoned that “there is something very wrong when our wounded troops have to fill out forms in triplicate for meal money while billions of dollars in cash are handed out in Iraq with no accountability.”

Though concerned with the potential for corruption and waste, Republicans on the committee sought to downplay the importance of the IG’s findings, and to divorce the issue of waste from any questions about the conduct of the war itself.

“Few people operating in an active combat zone would refer to the documentation requirements…as ‘mission critical’ work,” said Ranking Member Tom Davis. “Similarly,” he went on, “no one should deny the imperative to tell American taxpayers how their money is being spent. So we need to balance these two truths…. We should not let a focus on the war blind us to the government-wide need for veteran finance officials to watch over large, and growing, expenditures.”

Waxman invited Defense officials to testify at today’s hearing, but the department refused to cooperate. At the end of the hearing, Rep. John Tierney–who chairs the National Security subcommittee–suggested that the committee consider compelling their appearance. “I think we have subpoena power, and I’d ask [Chairman Waxman] and the ranking member at some point in time to consider using it where appropriate so the Department of Defense wouldn’t think they can avoid… public scrutiny.”

Perhaps in an echo of hearings to come, Waxman responded: “I think you make an excellent point. I think we need to hear from the Defense Department. “

See more tagged with: Blackwater, iraq and Rep. John Tierney

Torture at Guantanamo

Murat Kurnaz, a young Turkish citizen born and raised in Germany, traveled to Pakistan to learn more about Islam in October 2001, weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. In short order, arrested and held by U.S. forces in Kandahar, and then shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Bad timing was his only crime.

By 2002, according to documents obtained by his attorneys, both the U.S. and German governments had determined conclusively that Kurnaz was neither a terrorist, nor a terrorist sympathizer or supporter, but American military officials nonetheless refused to release him and instead held him in solitary confinement for five years. For much of that time, he was unaware that anybody in his family knew where he was or if he was alive. And for the entire stretch he was subjected to torture.

In his account before the House Foreign Affairs’ Oversight Subcommittee on Tuesday, Kurnaz detailed a technique visited upon him in Kandahar called “water treatment”–a perverse twist on a more widely known technique called waterboarding–wherein the victim’s head is forced into a bucket of water while he’s punched repeatedly in the stomach, causing him to inhale water.

Additionally, he said, he was subjected to religious and sexual humiliation, administered unknown drugs against his will, and electrocuted via wires attached to his feet.

In a bitter irony, Kurnaz’s innocence became the rationale for his continued incarceration. He was told repeatedly that he’d be held forever unless he signed a statement admitting his role in a suicide bombing that was alleged to have happened in 2003. Kurnaz was, of course, in prison in 2003, and the suicide bombing he supposedly helped to orchestrate turned out to be a fiction.

“America’s adherence to the rule of law… and American values [have been] ignored. The treatment of these detainees–both in Gitmo and elsewhere–has been appalling,” said William Delahunt, the subcommittee chairman.

The two committee Republicans to attend the hearing were sympathetic to Kurnaz’s plight, but ranking member Dana Rohrbacher remained incredulous that the treatment he faced was anything other than an aberration. “I don’t believe it,” Rohrbacher intoned, suggesting that torture is not part of the military’s detainee treatment policy. To support his contention, Rohrbacher noted that none of the congressmen who have visited Guantanamo–Democrat or Republican–has returned with any evidence that torture is a systemic problem

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who sits on the House Judiciary committee scolded Rohrbacher, noting that American politicians are not allowed access to prisoners when they visit the installation, and have no other way of ascertaining how endemic the torture problem really is.

Rohrbacher’s disbelief also flies in the face of scores of media and watchdog reports, which show that prisoner abuse has been a matter of policy at Guantanamo and other U.S.-operated facilities around the world for years. And on the same day as the hearing, the FBI’s inspector general released a report praising the Bureau for not participating in the abusive interrogations conducted by other agencies–a direct insinuation that other agencies do indeed torture prisoners.

For his part, Kurnaz says stories like his are common among the prisoners who’ve been held at Guantanamo, 250 of whom remain in captivity. “Often people were released because their countries demanded it,” he said. “Others remain because their countries do not.”

See more tagged with: civil rights and torture

Torture Overseas

The ACLU–conducting more oversight these days than Congress and the mainstream media combined–has gotten a hold of some previously unreleased documents detailing the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and other overseas facilities. Here (PDF file), for instance:

[Wisam] Abd-Al-Rahman described his reported period of detention in Afghanistan from January 2002 until April 2003 as moving from ‘one American prison to another’, staying in cold, dark, and crowded rooms. He said he stayed, without charges or interrogation, with nine other persons in a 25 square foot room without sunlight and fed only bread and rice for a period of about 77 days. He said that sanitary and hygiene conditions were terrible, and that he did not receive medical care nor see the sun during the period of detention in Afghanistan. He also reported sleep deprivation, undressing in front of female soldiers, desecration of the Koran by a dog, beatings, and threats of harm from barking dogs while blindfolded.

Abd-al-Rahman was later found to be innocent.

Here’s a series of accounts (PDF file) of the deaths of four detainees killed in captivity in Iraq.

Here’s a list of talking points (PDF file) about torture, as conveyed in a State Department cable transmission. Note that the people who received them were warned that they should “not be given to non-usg [U.S. Government] persons or left behind after meetings.”

And there’s plenty more that I haven’t read through yet. Give them a look yourself, and I’ll post anything interesting I come across as I peruse them.

See more tagged with: civil liberties and torture

Contempt In Court

On Friday, White House lawyers filed a motion in civil court, arguing
against the House’s own filing last month in its attempt to enforce
subpoenas against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers. As I reported at the
time, the White House appears to be arguing that the courts ought to
stay out of the fight and let the House use other means of leverage
to get the information it seeks from the executive branch.

the Legislative Branch may vindicate its interests
without enlisting judicial support: Congress has a variety of other
means by which it can exert pressure on the Executive Branch, such as
the withholding of consent for Presidential nominations, reducing
Executive Branch appropriations, and the exercise of other powers
Congress has under the Constitution.

The entire document runs 83 pages. I’ll try to get my hands on a
copy, to see what other dubious arguments the administration is making.

See more tagged with: contempt citation and house judiciary

Senate Leader Reid: No “Mad Rush for Immunity”

Subscribe Free
Add to my Pageaudio courtesy Talk Radio News ServiceSubscribe Free
Add to my Page

In a meeting this morning with reporters and bloggers, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled that civil libertarians may have less to fear than expected from a surveillance bill currently being negotiated in a conference of House and Senate committees.

Reid made the remarks during a meeting with reporters in the U.S. Capitol building, in answer to my question about current negotiations between House and Senate committees on legislation governing wiretapping in terrorism investigations. The legislation would renew post-9/11 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that expired last year. At issue between the House and Senate bills is the question of retroactive immunity from prosecution for telecom companies who provided customer data to the government, without a court order to do so.

Earlier this year, the Senate passed a version of the legislation, known as the Protect America Act, that provided immunity to the telecoms, effectively shielding from scrutiny government officials who ordered the collection of such data. Critics contend that the immunity provisions in the Senate bill ultimately protects President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney from prosecution for civil rights violations. The House version confers no such immunity. The Senate bill also grants, with little judicial involvement or oversight, for widespread surveillance involving Americans. The conference committee is working to reconcile the two versions.

Even though the Senate version contains the immunity language, Reid’s heart, he says, is in another place. “I personally don’t believe that the phone companies should have immunity,” he told reporters, “and I certainly don’t believe that Bush and Cheney should have immunity.”

When the House passed a version of the bill that failed to include the immunity provisions, President Bush accused House Democrats of leaving the United States vulnerable to attack by terrorists. “Everyone was in a panic,” Reid said. “If we didn’t pass FISA…the world was going to fall apart — and it didn’t.” Because of that, Reid said, “I think the mad rush for immunity is not as intense as it was.”

Critics of the bill, such as leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have suggested that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who leads the negotiations for the Senate bill, was ready to side with the administration on the matter of immunity for telecom companies. Reid appeared to suggest this is not necessarily the case.

Until the legislation is passed, wiretapping on matters concerning foreign intelligence is governed by the FISA law as it was written in 1978.

See more tagged with: FISA, harry reid, Surveillance, telecoms and warrantless wiretapping