« The North Koreans have developed a nuclear weapon, tested nuclear weapons (…) If North Korea continues on this course, it should be wiped off the face of the map. It would be an excellent message and a very clear one to the rest of the world and especially to the Iranians... » (Dan Gillerman)
Personne ne semble avoir réagi le moindrement à cette claire incitation au génocide. Ce genre de discours haineux est toléré et vite oublié s'il sort de la bouche d'un juif sioniste, car on sait que l'indignation d'un sioniste est toujours juste et vertueuse (!). Mais imaginez si ces mêmes propos sortaient de la bouche d'un homme politique musulman: la nouvelle aurait alors fait le tour du monde des millions de fois et serait à jamais immortalisée dans les livres d'Histoire, tout comme la fameuse déclaration délibérément déformée et mal interprétée du Président iranien d'alors Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, qui annonçait tout simplement (en citant Khomeini), la chute prochaine et inévitable du régime sioniste oppresseur qui occupe Jérusalem et dénie aux Palestiniens leur droit d'exister.
Enfin, on est en droit de se demander ce que le lobby israélien a à voir avec la Corée du Nord, qui est passablement éloigné du Moyen-Orient. Ce n'est pas seulement le nucléaire qui les préoccupe. Ce qui préoccupe le lobby israélien c'est qu'ils voient très bien que la Corée du Nord pourrait décider de faire comme Saddam Hussein et l'Iran en apportant une aide militaire et économique aux Palestiniens et autres voisins (ennemis perçus) d'Israël...
Rappelons aussi que comme l'Inde, le Pakistan et la Corée du Nord, l'État israélien possède un important arsenal nucléaire et n'a jamais signé le traité de non-prolifération. Cependant Israël et l'Inde ne sont pas considérés comme faisant partie de l'" Axe du mal" ; la Corée du Nord en revanche en fait partie selon la définition du juif néocon David Frum qui est tenu pour l'inventeur du concept.
Rappel: THE WAR PARTY (BBC documentary | May 2003)
@2:14: Michael Ledeen (néocon, sioniste, père
de la doctrine de "destruction créatrice" appliquée au Moyen-Orient): "nous
devons faire tomber un certain nombre de régimes qui apportent leur
soutien à un réseaux de d'organisations terroristes..." "Syrie, Arabie
Saoudite, Iran, Corée du Nord, et puis il y a la Libye." (...)"
Rappelons enfin les liens privilégiés entre la Corée du Sud et
Israël, fondés notamment sur la coopération des services secrets
américains et sudcoréens, mais aussi sur les réseaux néoconservateurs
(agents d'Israël) dans les milieux de droite et les médias du sioniste Rupert Murdoch
et de Sun Myung Moon (leader spirituel de la secte sudcoréenne des
"Moonies"). La secte Moon a une grande influence politique, utilisant
même des techniques de contrôle mental, ce qui n'est bien sûr pas sans rappeler l'influence de la Scientologie.
Leurs agents sont souvent utilisés pour infiltrer et prendre le
contrôle des mouvements nationalistes ou antijuifs, soit pour les récupérer, soit pour les détruire.
Réussiront-ils à NOUS entraîner dans toutes ces guerres par procuration qu'ils veulent faire contre LEURS ennemis?
[Jerusalem Post] When Israel fought North Korea One could be forgiven for thinking that Israel does not have a dog in this fight. After all, North Korea is some 8,000 kilometers away and would appear to be too busy stirring up trouble with its own neighbors to bother with the Jewish state. But that is far – very, very far – from being the case.
[Wikipedia] Israel–North Korea relations Israeli-North Korean relations are very hostile, and North Korea does not recognise the state of Israel, denouncing it as an "imperialist satellite".[1] Since 1988 it recognises the sovereignty of the State of Palestine over the territory held by Israel.
[Israel National News] Op-Ed: North Korea's Enemy: Israel North Korea is not even near Israel, but it has directly participated in a war against it. North Korea’s anti-Israel actions have surpassed those of Iran, even though it is not anywhere near Israel. And it is not alone.
Israel's North Korea Problem by Mitchell Bard, Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE), foreign policy analyst, director of the Jewish Virtual Library
Arnon Milchan Pulls the Plug on North Korean Film : New Regency Chairman, Arnon Milchan has ditched plans to produce a paranoid thriller starring Steve Carell that was to be set in North Korea.
The decision came after hackers calling themselves the 'Guardians of
Peace' threatened to attack theaters showing “The Interview,” which
centers on an assassination attempt against dictator Kim Jong-un. The
country has denied involvement but praised the hackers.
Amy Pascal is stepping down as co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.
Pascal’s departure, which was announced Thursday
morning, comes roughly two months after Sony was revealed to be the
victim of a massive hacking scandal that exposed trade secrets, employee
information and embarrassing emails at the alleged direction of North
Korea over Sony’s film “The Interview.”According to statements issued by
Pascal, who is Jewish, and Sony, Pascal will step down in May... (...)
However, the studio had recently faced questions
from its investors about its financial practices, and its movies had
not performed well in 2013. In addition, Pascal’s reputation was badly
damaged when the cyber attack raised fundamental questions about the
company’s security practices and revealed emails between Pascal and
other executives that included insulting assessments of big-name talents
such as Angelina Jolie and racially insensitive jokes about President
Obama, whom Pascal had supported politically. Pascal was presented with the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Humanitarian Award in 2008.
Est-ce que ça va la protéger d'une enquête approfondie sur le
"hacking" de Sony Pictures (qui était clairement une intox dans le but
de démoniser la Corée du Nord)?
LES MOTS PARLENT!
Au risque de vous surprendre, soulignons qu'Israël considéré par l'État américain comme le 4e pays au comportement le plus "inacceptable" dans le monde, du moins si l'on compare la fréquence d'utilisation de ce mot ("inacceptable"), qui donne 87 résultats lorsqu'on fouille le moteur de recherche du Département d'état américain. Dans ce top 10 des pays les plus "inacceptables" aux yeux de l'État américain, Israël (4e position) est immédiatement précédé par nul autre que... la Corée du Nord (3e position), tout de suite après l'Iran (2e position) et la Syrie (1re position)!
US finds Israel fourth most ‘unacceptable’ country La politique d'Israël fut 87 fois "inacceptable" en 2014
La politique de Jérusalem arrive en 4ème position sur la liste des pays condamnés par le Département d'Etat USAu cours de l'année 2014, le département d'Etat américain a qualifié 87 fois d'"inacceptables" les actions d’Israël, révèle une enquête du journal américain Foreign Policy. Le journaliste Micah Zenko a exploré le site Internet du département d'Etat à la recherche du terme "inacceptable" et a publié son top dix. Israël se trouve en 4ème position, juste après la Corée du Nord et avant le Pakistan. Le Syrie est le pays à la politique la "plus inacceptable" avec 147 mentions, suivie de l'Iran (118). La plupart des condamnations américaines à l'encontre de l'Etat hébreu concerne la construction de logements en Cisjordanie et à Jérusalem-Est. Les porte-paroles du département d'Etat ont également condamné Jérusalem plusieurs fois pour le nombre élevé de victimes civiles à Gaza durant l'opération Bordure protectrice l'été dernier. A titre d'exemple, le secrétaire d'Etat John Kerry, a récemment utilisé le mot "inacceptable" pour qualifier le piratage présumé de Sony Corporation par Pyongyang. Mais le département d'Etat américain n'est pas le seul, dans le domaine de la diplomatie, à recycler certaines phrases. Le site israélien Ynet a constaté que le secrétaire général des Nations-Unies, Ban ki-Moon, a utilisé 140 fois le mot "concerné" en 2014 dans 19 communiqués de presse différents au sujet du conflit israélo-palestinien.
Extrait de l'article qui a révélé ces chiffres:
"This would provide diplomatically interesting results. For example,
using the State Department search engine, the top 10 countries for whom
“unacceptable” was most often used in conjunction with since the start
of the Obama administration: Syria (147), Iran (118), North Korea (115),
Israel (87), Pakistan (83), Russia (78), Egypt (77), China (74),
Afghanistan (66), and Iraq (63)." (Source: Sorry, But North Korea Isn’t a State Sponsor of Terrorism, by Micah Zenko)
Ce n’est pas une plaisanterie. Les États-Unis invoquent les
précédents israéliens et les violations des Droits de l’Homme par Tel
Aviv pour justifier la torture de détenus par ses propres agences de
renseignement, comme cela est apparu dans un rapport publié par la
Commission des Services Secrets du Sénat des États-Unis. Les médias
israéliens ont repris les points les plus importants du rapport.
Nous ne sommes pas au bout des révélations au sujet de l’utilisation
de la torture par la CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). Un rapport
publié par la Commission des Services Secrets du Sénat des États-Unis
donne une nouvelle information - reprise hier par le site Web Times of Israel – puisqu’il y est affirmé que la torture est légitime et légalement basée sur les tortures israéliennes infligées aux détenus.
Voici donc comment Israël est devenu une autorité juridique
internationale à laquelle la CIA s’est rapportée afin de légitimer la
torture qu’elle pratique. Selon le site Times of Israel, après
les attaques du 11 septembre 2001 la CIA a commencé à chercher des
justifications juridiques pour des techniques coercitives
d’interrogation.
En dépit du fait que ces méthodes étaient considérées comme
inefficaces parce qu’elles pouvaient « avoir comme conséquence des
réponses fausses, » une note publiée en novembre 2001 par la CIA a fait
référence au modèle israélien, lequel justifie la torture sous le
prétexte qu’il est « nécessaire d’empêcher… un mal imminent…, quand il
n’y a le pas d’autre moyen disponible pour empêcher ce mal. »
La CIA a invoqué l’acte de la Cour Suprême israélienne publié en 1999
permettant à des interrogateurs du service de la sécurité intérieure
d’Israël - Israel Security Agency, appelée également Shin Bet ou
Shabak - d’employer certaines techniques tant qu’elles étaient un
sous-produit de l’interrogatoire et non pas des moyens en et par
eux-mêmes.
En plus grave, la cour a stipulé que les interrogateurs qui dépassent
les limites indiquées pendant les interrogatoires pourraient éviter les
poursuites juridiques en invoquant « la nécessité de défense » qui est
un principe de droit coutumier permettant à quelqu’un de violer la loi
dans les situations urgentes, telles qu’une attaque imminente qui
pourrait avoir comme conséquence un grand nombre de morts et blessés.
Le site Web israélien a précisé que cet acte prenait le pas sur les
résultats de la Commission de Landau de 1987, qui recommandait
d’autoriser les interrogateurs du Shin Bet d’employer « une mesure
modérée de pression physique, » sous une surveillance et dans les cas où
les interrogateurs supposeraient que les détenus avaient connaissance
d’attaques imminentes.
Le site Times of Israel a ajouté qu’en 2005, faisant face à la
pression du Congrès à propos des techniques d’interrogation, un juriste
de la CIA travaillant à la direction du Renseignement National s’est
référée à l’acte de la Cour Suprême israélienne sur la « nécessité de
défense, » sous le prétexte qu’il est justifié dans le cas des scénarios
d’un tic-tic de bombe [ticking-bomb].
Le site Web israélien a indiqué que deux ans plus tard, une note
interne de la CIA a argué du fait que des techniques plus violentes
d’interrogation « sont autorisées et justifiées par l’autorité
législative, » en se basant sur des actes de justice publiés en Israël,
selon le rapport du Sénat. Il a également indiqué que la CIA a étudié
les précédents israéliens pour fournir une couverture juridique et
législative à ces pratiques. Il a aussi argué du fait que « plusieurs…
des techniques étaient probablement permises, mais que cela demande une
certaine forme de sanction législative » et que le gouvernement
israélien « a finalement obtenu l’autorisation législative, limitée à
quelques techniques, » selon le rapport.
Voulant ajouter des justifications mais avec un angle de vue
sécuritaire, le rapport a indiqué que la CIA criait à qui voulait
l’entendre que l’information tirée des détenus [torturés] « avait fourni
une bonne quantité d’informations au sujet des complots d’Al-Qaïda, »
dont le cerveau derrière l’attaque du 11 septembre 2001 qui aurait
révélé un « complot terroriste en Arabie Saoudite contre Israël. » Le
site Web israélien cependant, a précisé que les enquêteurs du Sénat ont
accusé la CIA de pratiquer la torture au delà des limites juridiques et
de tromper la nation avec des affabulations au sujet des séances
d’interrogatoire censées avoir sauvé des vies mais sans que cela soit
réellement étayé, pas même par des enregistrements des services des
renseignements.
D’ex-officiels de la CIA et et d’anciens élus du Parti républicain au
Sénat ont contesté les conclusions du rapport et ont accusé Les
Démocrates d’inexactitudes, d’analyse sans méthode et de preuves de
pacotille pour arriver à une conclusion établie à l’avance.
'CIA cited Israeli court rulings to back torture' 'Israeli example' cited as possible justification for use of torture when interrogating terror suspects 'where there is no other available means to prevent the harm' they might inflict.
(...)Le 9 décembre, elle fut évoquée -sous couvert d'anonymat- dans le rapport sénatorial consacré au programme de détention et d'interrogatoire dit "renforcé" (ayant conduit à produire des aveux fabriqués) de
la CIA entre 2001 et 2009. Le principal grief qui lui est adressé :
avoir exagéré -ou délibéremment menti- sur l'efficacité de pratiques
-apparentées à de la torture- pour obtenir des informations sur la
menace terroriste d'Al Qaïda. En outre, elle aurait été indirectement
responsable -en 2000/2001- d'une collaboration défectueuse avec le FBI
au sujet des futurs pirates de l'air présumés du 11-Septembre.
Enfin, il faut rappeler ici que le rapport de la commission d'enquête du 11-Septembre, qui entérina ce qu'il convient de dénommer factuellement la "version officielle" (en désignant Oussama Ben Laden comme le commanditaire des attentats), est principalement construit sur
ces témoignages basés sur la torture. Ce détail avait été souligné en
2009 par l'auteur de ces lignes, lors d'un entretien avec Jean-Charles Brisard, consultant à la fois proche des services secrets français et des think-tanks emblématiques de la mouvance américano-sioniste.(...)
Âgée de 49 ans, AFB dirige aujourd'hui l'unité de la CIA chargée du "jihad mondial".
Un élément d'information n'a pas été rapporté par les médias traditionnels : sa connexion avec la faction pro-israélienne.
Le 19 janvier, le site américain Cryptocomb, spécialisé dans la divulgation de documents officiels relatifs à la CIA, publia un article consacré au passé d'AFB -dont l'identité avait déjà été divulguée, fin 2011, sur un site animé par Sibel Edmonds, ex-agente du FBI.
When the CIA looked for legal cover for
its post-9/11 torture programme, it is little surprise it looked to
Israel. Washington's ally has its own Guantanamo, Camp 1391, which the
Israeli Supreme Court has consistently shielded from investigation.
Footnotes in government reports are often the place where disgruntled
bureaucrats leave clues. It is where bits of information that lead
elsewhere are suggestively placed. Senior officials might not allow
potentially controversial information into the body of a report.
In
the Senate report on CIA torture there is such a footnote. Early in the
report’s more than five hundred pages, footnote 51 concerns the
November 26, 2001 Draft of Legal Appendix, Hostile Interrogations: Legal
Consideration for CIA Officers.
US law is fairly clear: torture is illegal in all cases... The Israeli judiciary has been kinder on torture.
This draft memorandum, according to the Senate report, “cited the
‘Israeli example’ as a possible basis for arguing that ‘torture was
necessary to prevent imminent, significant, physical harm to persons,
where there is no other available means to prevent the harm.’”
US law is fairly clear: torture is illegal in all cases. There is no
“ticking-time bomb” scenario that allows for the cruel and inhuman
treatment of prisoners. If it has no basis in US law, the CIA suggests,
then its officers could use Israeli practice as a precedent. The Israeli
judiciary has been kinder on torture.
In 2007, the CIA was
worried: could they be held accountable for the torture their officers
had been conducting at the so-called “black sites”?
Correspondence
between the Principal Deputy Attorney General Steven Bradbury (of the
US Justice Department) and Acting General Counsel of the CIA, John
Rizzo, testifies to that anxiety. Rizzo sought justification in the
“Israeli example.”
The US Congress had been discussing the
McCain Amendment – to prohibit the “inhumane treatment of prisoners".
Rizzo wrote there was a “striking” similarity between the US discussions
and those held in Israel in 1999. Rizzo wrote the Israeli Supreme Court
ruled “that several techniques were possibly permissible, but require
some form of legislative sanction". He hoped Congress would provide such
sanction. If not, Rizzo invoked the “necessity defense” – imported from
Israel – that if it became necessary, it was acceptable to use torture.
Why did the CIA seek justification in the Israeli example? After all, says Laleh Khalili, author of Time in the Shadows,
the CIA has its own history of torture. It was used in Latin America to
decisive effect and enshrined in the CIA’s 1963 KUBARK
Counterintelligence Interrogation manual.
That manual is not for
the faint of heart. Its style makes torture appear decidedly banal –
“the electric current should be known in advance, so that transformers
and other modifying devices will be on hand if needed”, it notes in a
section on electric shocks.
Sections of the current Senate
report on Torture could very well have been lifted from the 1963 manual:
detainees should be imprisoned “in a cell which has no light”; although
“an environment still more subject to control, such as water-tank or
iron lung, is even more effective". The more honest justification for
CIA torture in the War on Terror should not have been in Israeli
practice, but in what historian Greg Grandin calls “empire’s workshop",
Latin America.
Nevertheless, Khalili notes, the CIA likely wanted
legitimacy in the courts – Israeli if not American – rather than
referring to its history. The Israeli Supreme Court is staffed by people
who have had distinguished fellowships from Princeton and Harvard –
“and whose supposedly liberal rulings nevertheless leave room for a
range of methods of torture". It seemed an ideal place to seek a
precedent.
Normal Torture
However, the
1999 Israeli Supreme Court ruling has a massive hole in it. It assumes
that only in extraordinary circumstances can Israeli officials use
torture. However, as lawyers for the Public Committee Against Torture in
Israel confirm, there is “normal” torture and then “extraordinary”
torture.
Lawyer Bana Shoughry-Badarne says that when she
interviews Palestinians who have been released from Israel’s prisons,
they often say that the treatment was ‘adi, normal or as usual.
But what is usual for them has been described by attorney Lea Tsemel:
“Almost every Palestinian who was interrogated can tell you about the
sleep deprivation, the denial of access to a toilet or shower, the
hunger, the physical pressures, including being made to sit tied to a
small stool for days, the beatings and the kicks, the threats, the
hanging, the bending, the shaking (sometimes) to death, etc.”
The sheer length of the list of routine tortures Tsemel rattles off should concern the reader.
The justification for CIA torture in the War on Terror should not have been Israel, but it's own history in Latin America.
What is an ‘adi detention? Shoughry-Badarne tells the story
of a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship held for thirty-three days in
incommunicado detention. Toward the end of his time in prison, four or
five members of Israeli intelligence (GSS) interrogated him, “while he
was being humiliated and handcuffed painfully". GSS officers threatened
his family, told him that his twin babies would not have a father – and
then told him that his father had been arrested. He was knocked about a
bit. This is ‘adi.
I asked Laleh Khalili if she saw any
similarities between CIA torture techniques and the ‘adi methods of the
GSS. She made a list for me: “placing people inside boxes in which they
have to contort their bodies to fit; sleep-deprivation; food control;
extremes of cold and hot. Dogs have been used in all cases, as has loud
music and darkness. A mid-1990s lawsuit by two Lebanese detainees
accused their jailers of using tools to anally rape the men, which is
remarkably reminiscent of the 'rectal hydration' torture.”
Israel
has its own Guantánamo: Camp 1391 – between Hadera and Afula in
northern Israel. In 2009, the UN Committee Against Torture asked for
access to this Camp, but their request was summarily denied. Remarkably,
the Israeli Supreme Court has prevented any investigation of Israel’s
Guantánamo. Unspeakable treatment of prisoners was the norm in 1391.
Shoughry-Badarne
notes that none of the seven hundred complaints of torture made to the
GSS authorities have resulted in any serious investigation, let alone
criminal charges. In 2009 Israel’s High Court of Justice decreed that
the Supreme Court ruling of a decade earlier was unenforceable. In other
words, Israel’s policy of torture could continue without any legal
barrier.
No wonder the CIA lawyers salivated over the Israeli example.
The Chanukah Miracle and CIA Torture
The Guardian accusé d'antisémitisme pour avoir choisi une photo de Bush devant un chandelier de la Hannoukha pour illustrer l'approbation de la torture par l'administration Bush:
The Observer (sister site of the Guardian) published an official editorial today (The Observer view on torture,
Dec. 14) in response to a report issued by the US Senate Intelligence
Committee into the CIA’s interrogation of terror suspects in the years
after the 9/11 attacks.
Whilst there’s nothing especially
noteworthy in the editorial itself, which condemned “America’s most
senior leaders, from former president George W Bush down”, for directing
and condoning “the use of abhorrent illegal techniques against
terrorism suspects that plainly amounted to torture”, the photo editors
chose to accompany the piece is quite curious.
Guardian editors chose the photo of Bush in front of a menorah (from a 2008 White House Hanukkah ceremony) despite the absence of any references to Jews in the text, and the fact that the media group no doubt has countless other photos of the former president – which don’t include eye-catching symbols evoking one particular religion which isn’t the focus of the editorial – that they could have used instead.
No, we’re not accusing the Guardian of antisemitism, just extremely poor editorial judgment.
VIDEO - DAVID DUKE: Who Taught America to Torture? This video will shock any American and well it should. It is not the America that we middle-aged grew up in. The architects of the new America are destroying every value sacred to our Forefathers.
Cette jeune femme se doutait-elle qu'on allait faire d'elle le bouc émissaire de la torture à Abou Ghraib?
Le véritable cerveau des opérations à Abou Ghraib se nommait en fait John Israel. Ce n'est pas un nom irlandais ou italien...
What Are Those Contractors Doing in Iraq?
But Taguba's report also mentions four civilian contractors, all of whom
were assigned to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. Two of those
civilians, Steven Stephanowicz and, John Israel, were "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses" at Abu Ghraib, the report says.
Contractors Implicated in Prison Abuse Remain on the Job
(...)The other contractor implicated, John Israel,
identified as a civilian translator assigned to the same brigade, is
described in one place in the Army report as a CACI employee and in
another as an employee of Titan, which provides translators for the Army
throughout Iraq.(...)
Ralph Williams, a spokesman for the Titan
Corporation in San Diego, said Tuesday that John Israel, one of the
contract employees implicated in the prison abuse scandal, worked for a
Titan subcontractor that he would not name.
The Army's classified
report on the abuse at Abu Ghraib identifies Mr. Israel as a translator
who was, with others, "directly or indirectly responsible for the
abuses" at the prison and recommended "immediate disciplinary action."
Article disparu du web: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004May8.html What Are Those Contractors Doing in Iraq?
By Deborah Avant
Sunday, May 9, 2004; Page B01
The alleged U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, and the
suggestion that contract employees may have been among those
responsible, has cast a spotlight on the military's extraordinary
reliance on civilian contractors to perform even the most sensitive
jobs. Consider this: During the first Gulf War, U.S. forces employed one
civilian contractor in Iraq for every 60 active-duty personnel. At the
start of the current Iraq war, that figure was about one in 10.
Contractors, in Iraq and elsewhere, are doing a lot more than building
and maintaining camps, preparing food and doing laundry for troops. They
support M1 tanks and Apache helicopters on the battlefield; they train
American forces, Army ROTC units and even foreign militaries under
contract to the United States. And they have flooded into Iraq to
provide the military with security and crime prevention services. Having
closely followed this explosion of military contracting since the end
of the Cold War, I thought I knew the extent of it. But I have to admit
that I did not know the government was also outsourcing the
interrogation of military prisoners.
The information was far from secret. Indeed, CACI International, a
defense firm based in Arlington whose employees were implicated in an
Army investigation in February and in a subsequent report by Maj. Gen.
Antonio M. Taguba, had advertised on its Web site for interrogators in
Iraq. Thousands of such contracts are issued by a long list of offices
within the Pentagon, and even by the Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA) in Baghdad, to a wide range of companies for innocuous-sounding
services. (The prisoner interrogators were hired under an "intelligence
services" category.) This illustrates some of the difficulties in
tracking what has become a vast web of military contracting.
When the United States deploys its military forces, the process is
easily understood: Active or reserve officers, who report up the chain
of command to the president according to rules set by Congress and
governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, go overseas. The media
cover deployments and the public is informed. But there are no standard
procedures for deploying private security workers under military
contracts, which makes it far more difficult to gather information about
who they are, what they're doing and for whom. They are not part of the
military command; they are not covered by the code of military justice.
The events of the last few days illustrate those differences well. When
reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib surfaced, it was clear that the 800th
Military Police Brigade (which includes the 372nd Military Police
Company, home to many of the accused) was in charge of the prison;
prisoner interrogations were run by the 205th Military Intelligence
Brigade. But Taguba's report also mentions four civilian contractors,
all of whom were assigned to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade.
Two of those civilians, Steven Stephanowicz and John Israel, were
"either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses" at Abu
Ghraib, the report says. A third contractor, Adel Nakhla, is named as a
translator -- and a suspect. A fourth, Torin Nelson, was said to be a
witness. Both Nakhla and Nelson are listed as employees of Titan Corp., a
security contractor based in San Diego.
The report identified Stephanowicz as an interrogator working for CACI;
Israel, an interpreter, was also said to be working for CACI, although
the company has denied that. Some news reports have identified Israel as
an employee of Titan, which in turn has said he works for one of its
subcontractors.
So, we are not even sure for whom these contractors work or worked. Nor
do we know how many other contract employees were -- and may still be --
working at the prison. (In his testimony before the Senate Armed
Services Committee on Friday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld put
the number of contract interrogators and linguists at Abu Ghraib at
about 40; other Pentagon officials cited different figures in their
testimony.) We do not know precisely what roles these contract employees
had at the prison or to which group or agency they were accountable. To
trace that, we would need to know the contracting agent -- someone
representing a group within the Army, probably, but which one? Military
Intelligence? The Iraqi Survey Group (a Defense Intelligence Agency unit
responsible for investigating weapons of mass destruction and
reportedly in charge of the most important Iraqi prisoners)?
And how would civilians such as Stephanowicz and Israel have become such
a dominant force at a military facility? To whom did they answer on a
daily basis? We cannot simply consider where they sat in the chain of
command (as we can with military forces). We need to know who issued the
contract and what it said. And that is not easy information to obtain.
A General Accounting Office review of contracted military services last
year cited problems stemming from this lack of information. The agency's
report, which focused on services delivered in the Balkans and
Southwest Asia, found that Department of Defense management of
contractors varied widely. Smooth operations require that commanders in
the field be able to oversee contractors, but in fact the officer who is
expected to ensure that a company meets the terms of its contract may
be back in the United States. Field commanders have no easy way to find
out what exactly a contractor has been sent to do. All of this makes
oversight difficult even among the executive agencies that hire private
security.
These problems with oversight in Iraq are not limited to Abu Ghraib
prison. While we know how many military forces are in the country, even
the federal government doesn't seem to know how many contractors are
there. In an April 2 letter to Rumsfeld, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.)
requested information about the number of private security personnel and
their role in Iraq. In a May 4 letter in response, L. Paul Bremer, head
of the CPA, put that number at "approximately 20,000," most of whom, he
said, were under contract to Iraqi companies or foreign private
companies -- not to American forces. His list of the private security
companies working in Iraq, though, included neither CACI nor Titan,
which suggests that the real number may be far higher.
The uncertainties extend to the handling of suspected crimes. In the
wake of allegations of abuse at the prison, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski,
commander of the 800th MP Brigade, was admonished and suspended; six
others have been reprimanded; one has been admonished; and six
additional soldiers face more serious charges. We can argue about
whether this is an adequate response, but at least we know what the
response is.
Months after Taguba issued his report to the Pentagon's central command,
we still don't know what legal action, if any, the civilian contractors
may face. CACI claims that it has not been contacted formally by the
Army on this matter, and its employees are still working in Iraq. The
Pentagon now says that it began an investigation of the Military
Intelligence Brigade, civilian contractors and the Iraqi Survey Group --
but not until April 24. What accounts for the delay? And where are
these civilian contractors in the meantime? Are they still working in
the prison?
It is also hard to gauge how individuals employed by contracting
companies might be prosecuted. (See the article below.) The government
could prosecute the company or companies that employed them under the
Federal Acquisition Regulations for material breach, which includes
criminal behavior by employees. The companies could also be prevented
from bidding on future U.S. contracts.
Congress is justifiably concerned about the abuses that may have been
committed by American forces. Congressional questions about the role of
contractors, though, also illustrate the high hurdle Congress faces in
overseeing contracts. While Congress has access to the ins and outs of
the military -- indeed, it passes the laws under which the military is
regulated -- its access to information about contracts (in Iraq and
elsewhere) is more circumscribed.
For example, the United States often hires contractors to train foreign
militaries, but the annual consolidated report on military assistance
and sales, which informs Congress about foreign training efforts, does
not include information on which companies are conducting the training
or what precisely they are being paid to do. This is simply the nature
of contracting. Indeed, while some critics say that Congress should
increase its oversight, keeping track of contracts and subcontracts
among many agencies and from countless companies would be a huge job and
require a dramatic (and costly) change in congressional oversight.
Individual citizens have even less access to such information.
Government reporting (and media coverage) on the war in Iraq focuses on
military forces. The word "soldier" evokes a set of common
understandings. It is harder to comprehend the structure of military
contractors, their relationship with other contractors and their
involvement in so many different military jobs. Even the language is
confusing. When four private security contractors were brutally killed
and mutilated in Fallujah, some Americans heard "contractors" and
imagined that they were construction workers, not armed guards.
The alleged Abu Ghraib abuses raise central questions about the training
of U.S. forces and the chain of command, questions that rightly
dominate the current national discussion. Yet the role of military
contractors adds an important new dimension that should encourage more
searching questions about this march toward privatizing military
services and its implications for what is knowable about how sensitive
military jobs are being performed -- and whether adequate controls are
in place for the innumerable private contractors who are now doing a
soldier's job.
The actual interrogators accused of encouraging U.S. troops to abuse Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail were working for at least one company with extensive military and commercial contacts with Israel. The head of an American company whose personnel are implicated in the Iraqi tortures, it now turns out, attended an "anti-terror" training camp in Israel and, earlier this year, was presented with an award by Shaul Mofaz, the right-wing Israeli defense minister.
According to J.P. London's company, CACI International, the visit of London -- sponsored by an Israeli lobby group and including U.S. congressmen and other defense contractors -- was "to promote opportunities for strategic partnerships and joint ventures between U.S. and Israeli defense and homeland security agencies."
The Pentagon and the occupation powers in Iraq insist that only U.S. citizens have been allowed to question prisoners in Abu Ghraib but this takes no account of Americans who may also hold double citizenship. The once secret torture report by U.S. Gen. Antonio Taguba refers to "third country nationals" involved in the mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq.
Taguba mentions Steven Stephanovic and John Israel as involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Staphanovic, who worked for CACI -- known to the U.S. military as "Khaki" -- was said by Taguba to have "allowed and/or instructed MPs (military police), who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate interrogations by 'setting conditions' ... he clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse." One of Staphanovic's co-workers, Joe Ryan -- who was not named in the Taguba report -- now says he underwent an "Israeli interrogation course" before going to Iraq.
We know the Pentagon asked Israel for its "rules of engagement" in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Israeli officers have briefed their U.S. opposite numbers and, according to The Associated Press, "in January and February of 2003, Israeli and American troops trained together in southern Israel's Negev desert ... Israel has also hosted senior law enforcement officials from the United States for a seminar on counter-terrorism."
Stephanovic of CACI, who may also be Australian, was accused by Taguba's army report of making "a false statement to the investigation team regarding ... his knowledge of abuses." Another outside interrogator, Adel Nakhla, who may be of Egyptian origin, was a witness to the "stacking" of naked prisoners in Abu Ghraib. John Israel "misled" investigators by denying he had witnessed misconduct and did not have "security clearance."
Israel, according to Titan -- two of whose employees were mentioned in Taguba's report -- works for one of the company's "sub-contractors." Titan refused to name the "sub-contractor."
Why? Among the company's former directors is ex-CIA director James Woolsey, one of the architects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a friend of Ahmed Chalabi and a prominent pro-Israeli lobbyist in Washington. London says CACI "does not condone or tolerate or endorse in any fashion any illegal, inappropriate behavior on the part of its employees in any circumstances at any time anywhere." (...)
(...) A reasonable interpretation of Taguba’s somewhat garbled answer is that, yes,
the MPs and soldiers who committed sadistic outrages against detainees
acted under the influence and at the instigation of those they believed
to be intelligence officers, some of whom were “third country
nationals.”
Senator Akaka follows up with a question for
Secretary Cambone: “What kind of training,” he wanted to know, “did the
U.S. civilian contractors have prior to going to Iraq?”
The look on Cambone’s face made the whole dreary procedure worth it, I thought his eyebrows were going to fly right off.
It is no secret
that the Israelis have been “advising” the Americans on how to run the
occupation: after all, they have so much experience in the matter, and
are more than eager to impart their hard-won expertise. The methods
employed by Israeli security forces are quite different from those
utilized by the U.S. military: the use of “limited” torture is okay by them,
and the Palestinians are no strangers to the sort of treatment meted
out to the inmates at Abu Ghraib. So when Senator Akaka asked Cambone
what kind of training the contractors had received, my first thought
was: The very best!
The Mossad is rightly feared throughout the Middle East, and the world, as the most ruthless
(and daring) intelligence agency of them all. Only the KGB ever rivaled
its reputation. That they would not hesitate to employ the sort of
interrogation methods used to “soften up” the prisoners of Abu Ghraib is beyond dispute: just ask the Palestinians – and Human Rights Watch. That we have imported them, along with their methods, into Iraq seems altogether likely.
But,
hey, wait a minute, how is it that American soldiers were taking orders
from civilian contractors, never mind “third country nationals”? Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) cleared that up when he put the question to Taguba pointblank:
SEN.
GRAHAM: “Part of the defense that we’re going to be hearing about in
these court martials is that the people that we’re charging are going to
say this system that we see photographic evidence of, was at least
encouraged if not directed by others. Do you think that’s an accurate
statement?”
GEN. TAGUBA: “Sir, I would say that they were probably influenced by others –”
SEN. GRAHAM: “Okay –”
GEN. TAGUBA: ” – if not necessarily directed specifically by others.”
As U.S. and, in all likelihood, Israeli intelligence officers looked on approvingly, Trailer-Park Lynndie and her ex-prison guard boyfriend,
with the active collaboration of the other MPs, systematically abused
and degraded the inmates. So much of this nightmare scenario – the
hooded prisoners forced to engage in behavior looked on with utter
horror in Muslim society – seems like such a gift to Osama bin Laden
that the revelation of Israeli involvement gives the whole affair a
surreal quality.
(...)"Unlike the seven reservist guards facing criminal trials and military intelligence officers under investigation, interrogator Steven Stefanowicz and translator John Israel face no accountability, let alone punishment. Being civilians, they are not subject to military law nor to the Geneva Convention.
By Pratap Chatterjee and A.C. Thompson May 7, 2004
(...)"According to the Army report: "Stephanowicz, a CACI interrogator, "[m]ade a false statement to the investigation team regarding the locations of his interrogations, the activities during his interrogations, and his knowledge of abuses." Further, investigators found, Stephanowicz encouraged Military Police to terrorize inmates, and "clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse."
"Israel, apparently misled investigators, denying that he witnessed any misconduct. The report says that Israel should not even have been in the place because, he "[d]id not have a security clearance." (It's not clear whether Israel works for CACI or Titan but CACI officials have denied employing Israel.)
Israeli link possible in US torture techniques In
exchange for interrogation training, did Washington
award security contracts? By Ali Abunimah Special to The Daily Star
CHICAGO, Illinois: The head of
the American defense contracting firm implicated in
the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison has
close ties to Israel and visited an Israeli
"anti-terror" training camp in the occupied West
Bank earlier this
year.
Their
treatment does not reflect the nature of
the American people. That's not the way we
do things in
America.
APART from the failings
of the senior officers who should have
done more to prevent the abuse, General
Taguba names four individuals as key
suspects.
"Specifically," Taguba wrote, "I
suspect that Col. Thomas M. Pappas, LTC
Steve L. Jordan, Mr. Steven
Stephanowicz, and Mr. John
Israel were either directly or
indirectly responsible for the abuses at
Abu Ghraib and strongly recommend
immediate disciplinary action."
Jordan is former director of the Joint
Interrogation and Debriefing Center and
Liaison Officer to the 205th MI
Brigade.
Stephanowicz is a "civilian
interrogator" employed by CACI
International of Chantilly, Va., and
"John Israel" is said to be a "civilian
interpreter."
Both were working with the 205th MI
Brigade at the time of the abuse.
According to the report these private
contractors were at times supervising the
interrogations.
"In general," Taguba wrote, "U.S.
civilian contract personnel (Titan Corp.,
CACI, etc.) third country nationals, and
local contractors do not appear to be
properly supervised within the detention
facility at Abu Ghraib."
The third country nationals are not
identified in the report.
Although Stephanowicz and Israel are
both named as being "directly or
indirectly responsible for the abuses at
Abu Ghraib," very little has been said
about either of them in the mainstream
media. Why are they being overlooked?
Jack London, chairman, president and CEO
of CACI International Incorporated, traveled to
Israel in January this year
[2004] as part
of a high-level delegation of US Congressmen,
defense contractors and pro-Israel lobbyists,
sponsored and paid for in part by the Jerusalem
Fund of Aish HaTorah, a pro-Israel lobbying and
fundraising group, and Greenberg Traurig, LLP, a
prominent Washington law and lobby firm.
The purpose of the visit, according to a CACI
press release, was
"to promote
opportunities for strategic partnerships and
joint ventures between US and Israeli defense
and homeland security companies."
As one of the highlights of the visit, London
was presented with the Albert Einstein Technology
Award by Israeli Defense Minister
[Lieutenant-General]
Shaul Mofaz (above right, with
friend) at a gala dinner at Jerusalem city
hall, for "achievements in the field of defense and
national security."
Delegates also spent several hours in the
occupied Syrian Golan Heights with Housing and
Construction Minister Effie Eitam, a former
Israeli general, who is notorious for his view that
Israel should "transfer" -- that is, expel -- all
the Palestinians.
According to the official itinerary for the Jan.
11-17 Defense Aerospace Homeland Security Mission,
obtained from the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah,
London's trip included a
visit to Beit Horon, "the central training camp for
the anti-terrorist forces of the Israeli police and
the border police," in the occupied West Bank. The
visitors were also "briefed by top experts," and
were able to "witness exercises related to
anti-terror warfare."
Two CACI employees, Steven Stephanowicz
and John Israel, were named in the leaked
report [download
pdf] by US Major General Antonio M.
Taguba (above) on the abuses
at Abu Ghraib prison. Taguba wrote that
Stephanowicz, a "contract US
civilian interrogator,"
"allowed and/or instructed MPs
(military police), who were not trained in
interrogation techniques, to facilitate
interrogations by 'setting conditions' which
were neither authorized or in accordance with
applicable regulations/policy. He clearly knew
his instructions equated to physical abuse."
John Israel, an interpreter, did not have the
appropriate security clearance, according to
Taguba.
Although Taguba
recommended that Stephanowicz be
terminated
and his security clearance revoked, a May 5
[2004]
statement from CACI confirmed, "at present, all
CACI employees continue to work on site
providing the contracted for services to our
clients in that location." It added: "We have
not received any information to stop any of our
work, to terminate or suspend any of our
employees."
Although no evidence has emerged directly
linking CACI's involvement in the Abu Ghraib
atrocities to Israel, it has long been known that
the US military has been interested in "learning"
from Israel's experience attempting to suppress the
Palestinian uprising. In March 2003, for example,
the AP reported that the "the (US) military has
been listening closely to Israeli experts and
picking up tips from years of Israeli Army
operations in Palestinian areas and Lebanese
towns."
This cooperation has included briefings of US
personnel by Israeli officers, and, according to
AP,
"In January and February (2003),
Israeli and American troops trained together in
southern Israel's Negev Desert ... Israel has
also hosted senior law enforcement officials
from the United States for a seminar on
counterterrorism."
Meanwhile, more evidence has emerged undermining
the US thesis that the abuses at Abu Ghraib was the
work of a "few bad apples." The Guardian
reported that the "sexual humiliation of Iraqi
prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was not an invention
of maverick guards, but part of a system of
ill-treatment and degradation used by special
forces soldiers that is now being disseminated
among ordinary troops and contractors."
This system, known to insiders as "R2I," short
for resistance to interrogation, also includes such
methods as "hooding, sleep deprivation, time
disorientation and depriving prisoners not only of
dignity, but of fundamental human needs, such as
warmth, water and food." These are all techniques
long employed by Israel.
The visit of the US delegation that included the
CACI head exposes a rarefied web of influence
sharing in which US government officials and
congressmen, defense contractors and lobbyists
parcel out huge contracts, and siphon significant
portions off to Israel.
As Batya Feldman of Israel's Globes
financial news service put it, the visit provided
Israeli companies with "an
excellent opportunity to encounter big bucks in
homeland security."
To help Israeli companies pry some of these "big
bucks" loose, the visit included seminars for
Israeli companies given by US pro-Israel lobbyists
called "How to Approach the Homeland Security
Department," and "How to Sell to the US Defense
Department."
Israeli participants would have had a chance to
test the helpful tips, since present on the trip
were Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security
Robert Liscouski and many leading US
legislators, including top members of the US House
and Senate Armed Services Committees, which jointly
oversee tens of billions of dollars in military
spending.
By Dr. David Duke, Probably no event in
recent history has been more damaging to the image of America than the
tortures that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. President Bush
claimed that one of the justifications of attacking Iraq, was that
people were being tortured by Saddam Hussein in that country.
Now that the graphic, disgusting pictures of Abu Ghraib reveal
unspeakable tortures of Iraqi men and women in American custody (and the
world only saw a very small portion of them), it is certain that
America’s enemies will use Bush’s own logic to inspire and justify
murderous attacks on Americans.
What happened at Abu Ghraib is as unAmerican and as damaging to
America as any attack by al-Qaeda . The tortures that occurred there are
symbolic of the fact that America has lost its way and that those in
control of our nation have no sense of American justice or our honorable
traditions.
No appeal to patriotism is any excuse for the tortures. I am a
Patriot. I love America. I even instructed anti-Communist officers for
the U.S. Government in Laos during the Viet Nam War. But, what happened
at Abu Ghraib is symbolic that America has lost her heart and soul, and I
grieve for our lost sense of morality and justice. Any government that
would spawn those kinds of injustices on other peoples will someday
commit them on its own. Once the line is crossed, there is no going
back.
From the beginning of the Abu Ghraib
scandal (which we came perilously close to not even finding out about), I
was shocked by the sickening sexual nature of the tortures: anal and
oral rape of male prisoners, vaginal and oral rape of girls and women,
helpless nude Iraqi males tying to protect their genitals from vicious
police dogs. Can there be a more horrible image of Americans than what
these photos reveal? The whole sordid tale seems like something from the
pen of the Marquis de Sade.
The abuse at Abu Ghraib is certainly
foreign to traditional concepts of American justice, so how did it come
about? After sifting through mountains of evidence, I believe that
question can be definitively answered: The same Jewish supremacist
forces that orchestrated the Iraq War also brought to Iraq the torture
methods of the Israeli State. The tortures of Abu Ghraib are completely
consonant with the history of Jewish supremacism. As Jewish manipulators
exercise their supremacy over our political and media establishment,
America becomes more and more their agent in these crimes. We do so at
the risk of all we hold dear.
War has frequently brought horrendous consequences on prisoners of
war, but in American history most of those consequences were due to the
poor conditions of prison camps, not on a purposeful implementation of
tortures. In the War for Southern Independence, both Northern and
Southern prisoners of war suffered terrible loses from malnutrition and
disease in the prison camps of both sides.
It wasn’t until the aftermath of the
Second World War that America suffered the scandal of prison torture.
The Jewish media supremacy makes few Americans of today aware of the
scandals surrounding the Nuremberg and other war crimes tribunals
against the Germans. Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio held congressional
hearings that documented the widespread torture of German detainees long
after the ending of hostilities.
Army investigators discovered, for
instance, that in a group of 139 German detainees, 137 had endured
testicular damage at the hands of their interrogators. An American judge
who was a member of the Simpson Army Commission that investigated the
methods used at the Dachau Concentration Camp spoke out against these
policies. In the January 9, 1949, Washington Daily News and in the
January 23, 1949, London Sunday Pictorial he told of some examples of
the use of torture.
. . .The investigators, he said, “would
put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him in the face
with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. . . . All
but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been
kicked in the testicles beyond repair.”
John F. Kennedy talks about Sen. Taft in his bestselling book, Profiles in Courage.
A widely popular Senator and the front runner for nomination to
President of the United States, Taft risked and ultimately sacrificed
his own presidential ambitions to stand up on what he felt was a vital
principle of American morality, and it earned him a place in Kennedy’s
popular book. Taft ‘s congressional inquiries made very obvious the
Jewish elements behind these outrages.
Iowa Supreme Court justice Charles F.
Wenersturm resigned his appointment in the War Crimes Tribunal in
disgust at the proceedings. He contended that Jews, many of whom were
refugees from Germany and newly made “naturalized” American citizens,
dominated the staff of the Nuremberg apparatus and were more interested
in revenge than justice.
The entire atmosphere is
unwholesome. . . . Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were
employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds
were embedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.
Even American military hero George S. Patton weighed in on the whole process saying:
I am frankly opposed to this war
criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to
sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands, where many will be
starved to death. (The Patton Papers by Blumenthal)
Prolific use of torture by Jewish
supremacists is easy to historically document. For instance, in the
early days of the Soviet secret police, the Jews thoroughly dominated
the greatest torture and mass murder machine in the history of mankind,
one that claimed at least 15 million victims and easily eclipsed the
alleged Nazi crimes. The fact that every American is extremely cognizant
of the “Holocaust” but profoundly ignorant of Soviet mass murder and
torture is another fact that pointedly reveals Jewish press power.
Israeli historian Louis Rapaport in his popular book,Stalin’s War Against the Jews, casually admits what we Gentiles are not supposed to know:
Under Lenin, Jews became involved in all
aspects of the Revolution, including its dirtiest work. Despite the
Communists’ vows to eradicate Anti-Semitism, it spread rapidly after the
revolution — partly because of the prominence of so many Jews in the
Soviet administration, as well as in the traumatic, inhuman
Sovietization drives that followed. Historian Salo Baron has noted that
an immensely disproportionate number of Jews joined the new Soviet
secret police, the Cheka…. And many of those who fell afoul of the Cheka
would be shot by Jewish investigators.
When one fast forwards to the State of
Israel, from its very beginning torture has been an integral part of the
Jewish state. One of the factors that drove the British from Palestine
was the torture and murder of British soldiers. Even at present, there
is copious evidence that the relatively small populated nation of Israel
is the biggest violator of human rights in the world and has one of the
highest prison populations in the world. Torture is accepted as a
perfectly legal routine against Palestinians.
A feature article by Joel Greenburg in the very pro-Israel New York Times titled
“Israel Rethinks Interrogation of Arabs”, stated matter-of-factly that
Israel tortures 500 to 600 Palestinians every month. That figure, which
is probably too low as it comes from the pro-Israel New York Times,
means that each year at least 6,000 Palestinians are tortured in
Israel. Torture of Palestinians has been going on in Israel since 1948.
Even if one uses just one-half of the number of Palestinians that Mr.
Greenburg says suffer torture each year — at least 150,000 human beings
have been tortured in Israeli jails since the founding of the Jewish
state, and likely the numbers are a lot higher.
Two years before the Abu Ghraib abuses
came to light I wrote an article about how the Israelis force
Palestinians, under the coercion of torture, to sexually abuse each
other, including the rape of young Palestinian girls. They photograph
the outrages so as to blackmail the detainee when he is released. If the
Palestinian will not become an agent for Israel, the Israelis will
circulate photos showing him engaged in homosexuality. If he has been
forced to rape a Palestinian girl, they will threaten to send pictures
of the rape to her family. Such pictures would result in disgrace and
probably even death for the offender in the strongly religious
Palestinian community.
This established Israeli tactic answers the question of why the
thousands of photos were taken at Abu Ghraib. The Israeli interrogators
(contractors) at Abu Ghraib instructed our soldiers to commit sexual
perversions and to photograph these sordid crimes.
There is clear and ample evidence of
direct Israeli involvement at Abu Ghraib. A courageous journalist of the
CBC National News did a report showing Israel’s connection to the
abuses.
On the May 4 2004, a broadcast of CBC TV’s National News correspondent Neil Macdonald delivered the lead story from Washington:
the occupation of Iraq and
George Bush’s unprecedented alliance with the right wing government of
Israel has placed Americans overseas in danger.
Macdonald then focuses the camera on a
retired US diplomat, Eugene Bird, who makes the suggestion that the
Mossad was behind the tortures:
We know that the Israeli
intelligence was operating in Baghdad after the war was over. The
question should be: Were there any foreign interrogators among those
that were recommending very, very bad treatment for the prisoners?
The key figure at Abu Ghraib is a
shadowy, “third country national” named John Israel. Have any guess as
to what nationality he is? Here are excerpts from an article by Robert
Fisk of Britain’s The Independent titled The re-writing of Iraqi history is now going on at supersonic speed - 26 May 2004:
And let’s cast our eyes upon
that little, all-important matter of responsibility. The actual
interrogators accused of encouraging U.S. troops to abuse Iraqi
prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail were working for at least one company with
extensive military and commercial contacts with Israel. The head of an
American company whose personnel are implicated in the Iraqi tortures,
it now turns out, attended an “anti-terror” training camp in Israel and,
earlier this year, was presented with an award by Shaul Mofaz, the
right-wing Israeli defense minister…
In the torture report by U.S.
Gen. Antonio Taguba refers to “third country nationals” involved in the
mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq.
Taguba mentions Steven
Staphanovic and John Israel as involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
Staphanovic, who worked for CACI — known to the U.S. military as “Khaki”
— was said by Taguba to have “allowed and/or instructed MPs (military
police), who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate
interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ … he clearly knew his
instructions equated to physical abuse.” One of Staphanovic’s
co-workers, Joe Ryan — who was not named in the Taguba report — now says
he underwent an “Israeli interrogation course” before going to Iraq…
In a July 3, 2004 report by Britain’s
BBC entitled Israeli interrogators ‘in Iraq’ and subtitled The US
officer at the heart of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal says she has
evidence that Israelis helped to interrogate Iraqis.
The American in charge of Abu Ghraib itself, Gen. Janis Karpinski, claimed that Israeli interrogators were in Iraq
In a detailed article titled “WHO IS
JOHN ISRAEL? THE MASTERMIND BEHIND THE ABU GHRAIB OUTRAGE”, Justin
Raimondo gives detailed reporting on the Senate hearings on the Abu
Ghraib scandal which clearly point to Israeli involvement at every level
and the figure of John Israel who has now fled from investigators (to
the nation of his surname presumably).
Now in the latest story we learn from
morally responsible FBI agents of the torture and abuse of prisoners at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
FBI agents back up abuse allegations
December 21, 2004 in the Detroit Free Press
BY CAROL ROSENBERG and FRANK DAVIES
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
MIAMI — FBI agents in the prison
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, witnessed abuses of prisoners that included
being left in their own feces, chained in ice-cold or super-hot cells
and other interrogation techniques that caused one prisoner to pull his
hair from his head, documents released Monday show…
The agents’ accounts, contained in e-mails to their superiors to
distance the FBI from the behavior, are the first by U.S. officials
confirming Guantanamo prisoners’ complaints of sleep deprivation,
temperature manipulations, strobe lights and loud music…
Yet on July 30, in one of the e-mails the American Civil Liberties Union
made available Monday, an FBI agent wrote that he had seen an almost
identical event at the prison, describing, among other things, a
prisoner draped in an Israeli flag…
In August, a Boston-based agent described incidents such as this: “I
entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a
fetal position on the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times,
they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for
18-24 hours or more.
Torture victims wrapped in the Israeli
flag is very appropriate symbol, for our policies in the Mideast and
elsewhere are actually Israeli policies rather than truly American ones.
We are spending a king’s ransom in Iraq, we are losing the lives and
limbs of thousands of our military personnel, we are making the
terrorists around the world more popular than ever. We are endangering
America. And, for what? For Israel, that’s what.
And now with the irreparable harm done
by the Israeli-orchestrated tortures in Iraq, when will the American
people realize that unless we remove these Israeli fifth columnists in
government and media we and our children will pay a horrendous price?
Former “civil rights activist,” Jewish
supremacist Alan Dershowitz, now has gone beyond his advocacy of torture
for those pesky little Palestinians. Now he wants it for American
citizens too. In the cosmic scheme of things perhaps every people pays
for its sins. What happened at Abu Ghraib, any way you cut it, is evil.
If Americans continue to let themselves be used to do evil to others at
the behest of Israel, who is to say that the evil won’t eventually fall
back upon ourselves and our own children. Look at what is happening to
the land of our founding fathers. Every good foundation of our European
American forebears is being eroded. Who is to say that the cosmic wheel
is not turning right now.
The American people can still avoid
being crushed by that wheel. But to survive and thrive will take a great
love of truth and a great deal of courage. We must begin by standing up
for what is right and good. And that means we must stand up
forthrightly against the Jewish supremacists and their pariah state of
Israel and tell them that we won’t do their bidding any more!
a
visit to Beit Horon, "the central training camp for
the anti-terrorist forces of the Israeli police and
the border police," in the occupied West Bank. The
visitors were also "briefed by top experts," and
were able to "witness exercises related to
anti-terror warfare."
