Be On the Lookout For Portland, Oregon or Why the TSA is a farce.

" [O]ur government is incompetent and it doesn't matter whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, even as the latter circle the wagons. This many years after 9/11 and we still can't get it down that someone on a terrorist watch list should have extra screening?"--Taylor Marsh. (http://bit.ly/6fx6JT)

"Mr Abdulmutallab's file was marked for a full investigation should he ever reapply for a visa.

His name was also added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (Tide) watch list, which contains the details of around 550,000 people with suspected connections to terrorism but does not prevent them from flying internationally." BBC News (http://bit.ly/70fn5l)

In these two quotes one has the gist of why TIDE, the so called terrorist watch list, is a non-starter. Look at that number hard; the government is supposed to be watching half a million individuals. That is near the population of Portland, Oregon in 1998. (http://bit.ly/7mP1uh) Name one democratic institution that could accomplish such a herculean task with even an iota of competence. Name one democratic nation that would even attempt such a Sisyphean task other than the U.S.

After the 9/11 attacks, the conventional wisdom wanted an organization like DHS in the worst way; and that is exactly what we as a nation got. George W. Bush did not want DHS in the first place, so when forced to create the Department, he made it as dysfunctional as possible. Remember that Bernard Kerrick came within inches of being the first Head of DHS. In a way, it is a shame he did not get the nod. A mobbed-up incompetent at least would have a good excuse for his failure to deliver. As it was, the U.S. got Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff. Janet Napolitano continues in the fine tradition of political trivia quiz answers that run DHS.

The problems with DHS go deeper than the political mediocrities that run it. There is a fatal flaw in the very design of the Department; it is just too big. The shear mass of DHS, the multitude of agencies that it oversees, are too much for even the best of leaders. DHS is very much a remake of that 1958 cult movie classic The Blob. Under its purview are TSA, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration Customs Enforcement, The Secret Service, FEMA, and the Coast Guard. Thus DHS is less an organic whole than a metastatic cancer.

DHS is systemically unable to perform its multiple mandates. It cannot execute its deliverables. It is going in too many directions at once. As a governmental institution, DHS is very much like the old H.E.W. Health Education and Welfare workers used to describe their (dis)organization as Halls of Eternal Warfare. When Education was peeled off as its own department, Health and Human Services, as the new department was called, was a less unfocused and dysfunctional department.

Truth be told, it is a good thing that DHS is such an entropic mess; the Department, if it was ever functional, would be an existential threat to democracy. The very idea of the "homeland" has a creepy authoritarian feel to it. It carries a faint whiff of fascism, a slight flavor of Nazi toxin.

Take a good, long, hard look at the Continental United States. Look at the east, gulf and west coasts, look at the northern and southern borders, how do you defend it? How do you lock down the myriad Ports of Entry, the rivers, lakes and streams? How do you keep people from crossing the trackless desserts to the south or the deep woods to the north? How do you secure the Sea Ports, the Air Ports, the Bus Stations and the Rail Stations? How do you do this without shredding freedom of movement? You don't.

You certainly cannot do it with a laundry list of "persons of interests" that numbers more than half a million. Abdulmutallab was able to waltz onto a plane because our security apparatus was flooded with white noise. There is no way even the most vigilant of TSA employees could possibly be on the lookout for a list of names the size of Portland, Oregon. That is not a workable scenario; it is an absurdity that even Kafka could not dream up on one of his more depressive days.

The only way one makes an institution like DHS "work" is if you copy the writ, strategy and tactics of the NKVD or the Gestapo. You would have to toss our constitutional protections out the window. You would have to turn just about every U.S. citizen into a snitch like the East German Stasi used to do. Granted with Gitmo, FISA, Extraordinary Rendition, Sneak and Peek Warrants, and Military Tribunals the U.S. is well on its way to such a state, but is that really where we want to go? Are we really going to surrender our unalienable rights to a bunch of nere-do-well nihilists? Are we really going to submit our freedoms to the tender mercies of some modern day Visigoths who hide behind the religion of Islam? Will we really concede our freedoms to bunch of feckless bureaucrats for a mumbled promise of security? Remember the words of the third President of the United States "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." The system that really worked on that fateful flight was of an aware and proactive citizenry. Given a choice which would you prefer as your security DHS, or a sucker punch to a terrorist delivered by a pissed-off Missouri gal of Scotch-Irish ancestry? Go with the Missouri gal every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Supporting The Troops--Not a Drop to Drink

Undersupplied US soldiers forced to steal water in Iraq
By David Edwards and John Byrne (Raw Story)

Published: May 13, 2009
Updated 9 hours ago


You thought the lack of armor-plated Humvees was bad.

US soldiers are now being forced to steal water in Iraq. With supplies tight, and the number of trucks carrying potable water even tighter, troops have resorted to stealing water from civilian contractors. Many have also reportedly suffered from dysentery because they were forced to drink untreated water from Iraqi wells.

The shocking news aired Wednesday on Houston-based CBS affiliate KHOU.

It gets worse. Soldiers say the situation has become so dire they were forced to raid the United States’ own airbase in Baghdad for bottled water. They found the water stored in pallets held by civilian contractors, who were supposed to be distributing it.

“It really hit me the day I was with my commander and we’re stealing water,” Army Staff Sgt. Dustin Robey told the station, describing his mission to collect water at the Baghdad International Airport. A second soldier said he’d also stolen water from civilian contractors: “We’d just run out and start grabbing cases of water and start throwing them in the gunner’s hatch,” Private Bryan Hannah quipped.

Soldiers averred that they’d been given two to three liters of water per day by their commanders. But according to the Army’s own field manual, the human body can lose as much as four gallons of water daily in the desert.

Two to three liters isn’t enough, Robey said. “You’ll see guys throw up, you’ll see them pass out.”

Who’s supposed to be maintaining the water supply? At least in some parts of Iraq, it’s the US engineering contractor KBR. KBR is a spinoff of Halliburton, which it separated from in 2007.

Al-Qaeda 'hijack' led to Mumbai attack

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

MILAN - A plan by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that had been in the pipelines for several months - even though official policy was to ditch it - saw what was to be a low-profile attack in Kashmir turn into the massive attacks on Mumbai last week.

The original plan was highjacked by the Laskar-e-Taiba (LET), a Pakistani militant group that generally focussed on the Kashmir struggle, and al-Qaeda, resulting in the deaths of nearly 200 people in Mumbai as groups of militants sprayed bullets and hand grenades at hotels, restaurants and train stations, as well as a Jewish community center.

The attack has sent shock waves across India and threatens to revive the intense periods of hostility the two countries have endured since their independence from British India in 1947.

There is now the possibility that Pakistan will undergo another about-turn and rethink its support of the "war in terror"; until the end of 2001, it supported the Taliban administration in Afghanistan. It could now back off from its restive tribal areas, leaving the Taliban a free hand to consolidate their Afghan insurgency.

A US State Department official categorically mentioned that Pakistan's "smoking gun" could turn the US's relations with Pakistan sour. The one militant captured - several were killed - is reported to have been a Pakistani trained by the LET.

More at Asia Times Online

File under "Blowback" and "Unintended Consequences" cross reference to "When you sleep with dogs expect to catch fleas."

Cpl Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan

Birth: Feb. 12, 1987
Death: Aug. 6, 2007, Iraq

Spc. Kareem R. Khan of Manahawkin, N.J. enlisted July 21, 2005 right after graduating from Southern Regional High School. As a freshman at Southern Regional High School, Khan enrolled in the district's Air Force Junior ROTC program. During his one year in the program, he proved himself to be solid student and citizen. He wanted to show that not every Muslim was a fanatic and that some would risk their lives for America. Though his father "spoiled him rotten," Kareem was always a polite teenager, who respected his elders. His father's favorite memory is when Kareem used to wake up at 5 a.m. on weekends to accompany his dad at work at a local marina. He loved to watch football with his dad, cheering on the Dallas Cowboys during Sunday afternoon or Monday night games, while munching on popcorn. He also used to challenge his little stepsister to video games. The two would spend hours sprawled out on the living room floor and sometimes Kareem would try to show her how to do certain moves, and ended up taking over the controller. Aliya looked up to her stepbrother and she was proud when he came with her to school and talked to her class at Southern Regional Intermediate School during his leave. Later, he came with her to the school book fair. The family used to send two large bags of Starbursts in his care packages, because Kareem would pick out all the orange ones and leave the rest for his Army buddies. He was also a big fan of Disneyworld, as was the entire family. The family would take at least one trip to Disneyworld every year, and the living room and dining room of the family's split-level home is filled with souvenirs from those trips, like a wall hanging of Cinderella, figurines of Mickey Mouse and Disney-themed snow globes. Kareem was so crazy about Disneyworld that when he had a two-day leave following his graduation from Fort Benning, Ga., he had a backpack full of clothes stashed in the bush, so the family could immediately drive to Florida. Khan was sent to Iraq in July 2006, after spending a year at Fort Lewis near Tacoma, Wash. He came home for two weeks in September 2006 and was supposed to be home permanently last month, but his tour was extended through the end of September 2007. At the end of his tour, Kareem was considering re-enlisting or going to medical school. He worked with a medic unit when he first got to Iraq. When he came home to visit, he was happy to stay at home, even asking his mother, who lives in Maryland, to come up to New Jersey to visit. He had been awarded the Purple Heart for injuries from previous combat. His awards and decorations include the Purple Heart and Army Commendation Medal. His family received a purple heart, a bronze star, and a good conduct medal he received during his tour of duty. He died in Baqubah, Iraq, of wounds suffered from an improvised explosive device at age 20.

Army
1st Battalion
23rd Infantry Regiment
3rd Brigade
2nd Infantry Division
Stryker Brigade Combat Team
Fort Lewis, Wash.


Burial:
Arlington National Cemetery
Arlington
Arlington County
Virginia, USA
Plot: Sec 60 Site 8441


Next time some one spouts off about Muslim Terrorists remind them about Cpl Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, United States Army.

H/T To By GottaLaff at the Political Carnival
H/T To Caroline (#46561848) at Find A Grave
H/T To The New Yorker

Bush had no plan to catch Bin Laden

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - New evidence from former United States officials reveals that Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders were able to skip Afghanistan for Pakistan unimpeded in the first weeks after September 11, 2001, as the George W Bush administration failed to plan to block their retreat.

Top administration officials instead gave priority to planning for war with Iraq, leaving the United States with not nearly enough troops or strategic airlift capacity to close the large number of possible exit routes through the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area where Bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

More at Asia Times Online

The buried lead

"Rumsfeld and deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9-11 Commission, at four deputies' meetings on Iraq between May 31 and July 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have US troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.

Even after September 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead."

Guantanamo prosecutor quits amid controversy

By Josh Meyer, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 25, 2008

GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA -- Contending that the government had suppressed evidence that could help a young man facing life in prison, a prosecutor has quit the war crimes tribunals here, several military defense lawyers said Wednesday.

Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld quit the case -- and the Office of Military Commissions -- after growing increasingly concerned about the lack of due process afforded to Mohammed Jawad and his legal team, according to Michael J. Berrigan, deputy chief defense counsel for the commissions.

Vandeveld, an Army reservist, said in a four-page declaration filed with the court that "potentially exculpatory evidence has not been provided" to the defense.

Jawad, now about 23, was arrested in 2002 near Kabul. He is charged with attempting to commit murder in violation of the law of war for allegedly throwing a grenade into a jeep transporting troops, injuring two soldiers and an interpreter. His trial is set for December.

More News From the Front Lines

Deadly attack on Pakistani convoy

A suicide bomber has attacked a Pakistani army convoy in a restive northwest region near the Afghan border, killing at least six people.

The bomber struck near Miranshah in North Waziristan - an area renowned as a haven for militants involved in attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan.

The US has accused Pakistan of not doing enough to eliminate Taleban and al-Qaeda sanctuaries in the area.

A child and two other civilians were among the victims, the army said.

It said three soldiers were killed and five more had been injured as the attacker crashed a car filled with explosives into the convoy.

Spate of attacks

In recent months, US forces based in Afghanistan have stepped up attacks against suspected Taleban targets in Pakistan's tribal region, prompting reports of civilian casualties that have angered the predominantly Muslim nation.

Pakistani government officials say such tactics seriously undermine their own counter-insurgency operations.

The country's army has warned direct US action could rally more tribesmen behind the Taleban and incite a wider uprising.

Pakistan has deployed 100,000 of its own troops in an attempt to flush out insurgents in its restive north-western border regions, and says recent military operations have killed hundreds of suspected militants.

No group has yet claimed responsibility for Saturday's blast, although the Pakistani Taleban have said they were behind a spate of recent suicide bombings which they said were carried out in revenge for the military offensives.

Newly elected President Asif Ali Zardari was expected to discuss the security situation in a key speech later on Saturday.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7626668.stm

Published: 2008/09/20 09:03:58 GMT

Oh Joy

Pakistan troops 'repel US raid'

Pakistani troops have fired warning shots at two US helicopters forcing them back into Afghanistan, local Pakistani intelligence officials say.

The helicopters flew into the tribal North Waziristan region from Afghanistan's Khost province at around midnight, the reports say.

Tensions have risen after an increase in US attacks targeting militants.

The incident comes amid mounting security fears after a militant bomb attack on the Islamabad Marriott hotel.

Pakistan's army has said it will defend the country's sovereignty and reserves the right to retaliate to any border violations.

The government has said it will take targeted action against the militants, promising raids in some "hotspots" near the border with Afghanistan.

Meanwhile in the city of Peshawar, Afghan consul Abdul Khaliq Farahi was kidnapped after six unidentified men ambushed his car, officials say. His driver died in the attack.

'Firing in the air'

Last week Pakistani troops fired into the air to prevent US ground troops crossing the border into South Waziristan.


BORDER TENSIONS
3 Sept: First reported ground assault by US troops in Pakistan - Islamabad responds furiously
15 Sept: Pakistani troops reportedly fire in air to stop US troops crossing in S Waziristan
17 Sept: Top US military chief Adm Mike Mullen visits Pakistan to calm tensions
16 Sept: Pakistan says it was not told of fresh US missile strike
22 Sept: Pakistani troops in fresh firing to deter US incursion into N Waziristan, officials say

The latest confrontation between US and Pakistani forces took place in North Waziristan's sparsely populated Ghulam Khan district, west of the main town in the region, Miranshah, local officials say.

They told the BBC that troops at border posts in the mountainous region fired at two US helicopters which crossed into Pakistani territory.

The helicopters returned to Afghanistan without retaliating.

A senior security official based in Islamabad told the AFP news agency that the helicopters had been repelled by both army troops and soldiers from the paramilitary Frontier Corps (FC).

"The helicopters were heading towards our border. We were alert and when they were right on the boundary line we started aerial firing. They hovered for a few minutes and went back," the official said.

"About 30 minutes later they made another attempt. We retaliated again, firing in the air and not in their direction, from both the army position and the FC position, and they went back."

A Pakistani military spokesman, Maj Murad Khan, said he had no information "on border violation by the American helicopters".

The US military in Afghanistan also said it had no information on the incident.

The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says after increased American incursions this month, the army stressed that it reserved the right to retaliate.

Our correspondent says standard procedure would be to first fire warning shots.

'Crisis in relations'

The two countries held talks last week on anti-militant co-ordination.

America's top military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, flew to Islamabad to try to calm the crisis in relations but tensions remain high, our correspondent says.

As well as reported incursions, there have been a number of US missile attacks aimed at militants in Pakistan territory in recent weeks.

The Americans stepped up their strikes after criticism that Pakistani troops were unable or unwilling to eliminate Taleban sanctuaries along the border.

Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.

It emerged earlier this month that US President George W Bush has in recent months authorised military raids against militants inside Pakistan without prior approval from Islamabad.

Pakistan reacted with diplomatic fury when US helicopters landed troops in South Waziristan on 3 September. It was the first ground assault by US troops in Pakistan.

Pakistan's army has warned that the aggressive US policy will widen the insurgency by uniting tribesmen with the Taleban.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/7628890.stm

Published: 2008/09/22 15:05:39 GMT

Pakistan army 'fires on US forces'

Pakistani troops fired at US military helicopters forcing them to turn back to Afghanistan after they crossed into Pakistani territory, according to Pakistani security officials.

The incident took place near Angoorada, a village in the tribal region of South Waziristan, on Monday amid growing anger in Pakistan over US strikes on Pakistani soil.

At least 20 people, including women and children, were killed in a US strike earlier this month in South Waziristan, sparking outrage and prompting a diplomatic protest.

"The US choppers came into Pakistan by just 100 to 150 metres at Angoorada. Even then our troops did not spare them, opened fire on them and they turned away," a security official said.

Another Pakistani security official said that US armoured vehicles were also seen moving on the Afghan side of the border, while US warplanes were seen overhead.

He also said that Pakistani soldiers had fired into the air, forcing the helicopters back across the border.

Involvement denied

However, Major Murad Khan, a Pakistani military spokesman, said that although there had been shooting it did not involve Pakistani troops and the American helicopters had not crossed into Pakistani airspace.

"The US choppers were there at the border, but they did not violate our airspace," Khan said.

"We confirm that there was a firing incident at the time when the helicopters were there, but our forces were not involved."

Last week, General Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani army chief, said that Pakistan would not allow foreign troops on its soil and Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be defended at all cost.

The New York Times newspaper reported last week that George Bush, the US president, had given clearance for US raids across the border.

South Waziristan, in the southern part of the country bordering Afghanistan, is seen by the US as a safe haven for supporters of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

From Al Jazeera English

7 Years After 9/11, What Awaits in Pakistan?

BY TAYLOR MARSH

President George W. Bush has failed this country miserably in the most important job of a president. Securing the safety of the American people. What awaits us over one future sunrise is frightening.

Seven years after the September 11 attacks, the US government gets mediocre grades for work to prevent a future attack involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a bipartisan panel said Tuesday. In a report card to be formally issued on Wednesday, the Partnership for a Secure America (PSA) said the government had failed to do its utmost to curb such a threat on its soil and check the spread of WMD overseas....

Bush hasn’t a clue, but he’s worried enough to have shifted his policy dramatically. Once Musharraf’s demise was certain, panic set in. According to the New York Times, raids into Pakistan:

President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials. The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants-?? increasingly secure base in Pakistan-??s tribal areas.

What was it Obama said? Oh, right: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."

Feeling any safer yet? McCain’s Iraq centric obsession won’t get that job done.

Guantanamo testimony: U.S. let bin Laden's top bodyguard go

By Carol Rosenberg | The Miami Herald

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — Soon after Osama bin Laden's driver got here in 2002, he told interrogators the identity of the al Qaeda chief's most senior bodyguard — then a fellow prison camp detainee.

But, inexplicably, the U.S. let the bodyguard go.

This startling information was revealed in the fourth day of the war crimes trial of Salim Hamdan, 37, facing conspiracy and material support for terror charges as an alleged member of bin Laden's inner circle.

Michael St. Ours, an agent with the Naval Criminal Intelligence Service, NCIS, provided the first tidbit. He testified for the prosecution that his job as a prison camps interrogator in May 2002 was to find and focus on the bodyguards among the detainees.

And Hamdan helped identify 30 of them — 10 percent of the roughly 300 detainees then held here. They had just been transferred to Camp Delta from the crude compound called Camp X-Ray, and U.S. intelligence was still trying to unmask them.

Chief among them was Casablanca-born Abdallah Tabarak, then 47, described by St. Ours as ''a hard individual,'' and, thanks to Hamdan, ``the head bodyguard of all the bodyguards.''

St. Ours said he was eager to speak with Tabarak. But the Moroccan was ''uncooperative,'' and St. Ours moved on to other intelligence jobs — and never learned afterward what became of him.

Then, on cross-examination, Hamdan defense attorney Harry Schneider dropped a bombshell:

''Would it surprise you to learn he was released without ever being charged?'' St. Ours looked stunned.

''Yeah,'' he said.

Prison camp and Pentagon spokesmen did not reply Thursday to a request for an explanation. Tabarak's name was gone from an official prison camp roster drawn up by the Defense Department in September 2004, after some 200 captives had been sent away. A month before, Morocco's state news agency said all five of its nationals had been repatriated from the camps, for investigation.

For two days, FBI and other federal agents have testified about the extent -- and limits -- of Hamdan's cooperation in a string of interrogations since his November 2001 capture by U.S.-allied Afghan forces at a checkpoint in southern Afghanistan.

Defense lawyers have sought to portray the father of two with a fourth-grade education as ultimately helpful to the Americans — after he initially covered up his relationship with bin Laden.

Prosecutors have called him truculent, a loyal and trusted member of bin Laden's inner circle who grudgingly spoke with interrogators — and never came clean on why there were two surface-to-air missiles in his car when he was captured.

Hamdan said at his Nov. 25, 2001, battlefield interrogation that he borrowed the car, and the missiles happened to be inside it.

From the only real news organization left standing McClatchy

Obama urges focus on Afghanistan

US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, on a visit to Kabul, has said Afghanistan should be the main focus of the "war on terror".

Speaking during his first trip to the country, Mr Obama called the situation in Afghanistan "precarious and urgent".

Earlier, in talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, he vowed to fight terror "with vigour".

Mr Obama's trip is part of a tour that will also include Iraq, other parts of the Middle East and Europe.

"We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent and I believe this has to be the central focus, the central front, in the battle against terrorism," Mr Obama said in an interview with the CBS programme "Face the Nation".

More troops

He said President George W Bush's administration had allowed itself to be distracted by a "war of choice" but now was the time to correct the mistake.

Senator Obama conveyed his commitment to... supporting Afghanistan and to continue the war against terrorism with vigour Humayun Hamidzada Afghan president's spokesman

Mr Obama said the US needed to start planning to send in more troops. He has called for an extra one to two brigades to be sent to Afghanistan.

Rival presidential hopeful John McCain has criticised him for announcing a strategy before visiting the region.

Earlier, in talks with President Karzai, Mr Obama vowed to fight terror "with vigour".

Mr Obama, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and Democrat Senator Jack Reed also discussed the drugs trade and US-Afghan ties with Mr Karzai, officials said.

Mr Obama is later expected to visit Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and Britain.

Correspondents say the Illinois senator is hoping to boost his foreign policy and security credentials, seen as the weakest aspects of his bid to win the presidency in November's election.

Opinion polls suggest Americans regard Mr McCain, Republican senator for Arizona, as a better potential commander-in-chief.

'Shared experiences'

The senators spent almost two hours in talks with Mr Karzai at the presidential palace in Kabul, officials said.

TRUSTED ON MIDDLE EAST Americans with more trust in one candidate than the other to handle the situation involving - Iraq: McCain 47%, Obama 45% Iran: McCain 46%, Obama 44% Israel and the Palestinians: McCain 44%, Obama 42% Source: Washington Post/ABC News, 10-13 July

A spokesman for Mr Karzai, Humayun Hamidzada, told reporters the senators had pledged continued strong ties with Afghanistan no matter which party won the US election.

He said the discussions had been at a "broad level", rather than going into detail, and had focused on the challenges facing Afghanistan and the region, including terror, the illegal drugs trade and corruption.

Mr Obama had conveyed "his commitment to... supporting Afghanistan and to continue the war against terrorism with vigour", Mr Hamidzada said.

Mr Obama, on his first visit to Afghanistan, made no public comment after the lunch meeting.

The three senators had earlier talked to US troops over breakfast inside Camp Eggers in Kabul.

"They sat with the soldiers, shared stories with the soldiers about what is going on in Afghanistan... shared experiences," said US military spokesman Lt Col Dave Johnson.

In an interview with CNN last week, Mr Obama criticised Mr Karzai's government, saying it had "not gotten out of the bunker" and had done too little to rebuild the country's institutions.

However, asked ahead of his visit what message he would convey to Afghan and Iraqi leaders, Mr Obama said: "I'm more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7516063.stm

Published: 2008/07/20 15:40:20 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

The Real State of Iraq

By Juan Cole

American television loves natural disasters. The Burmese cyclones that may have carried off as many as 200,000 people offered the cameras high drama.

The floods in Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri along the Mississippi River, which have wiped out thousands of homes, have been carefully detailed hour by hour

But American television is little interested in the massive disaster blithely visited upon Iraq by Washington. Oh, there is the occasional human interest story. Angelina Jolie's visit sparked a headline or two. Briefly.

By now, summer of 2008, excess deaths from violence in Iraq since March of 2003 must be at least a million. This conclusion can be reached more than one way. There is not much controversy about it in the scientific community. Some 310,000 of those were probably killed by US troops or by the US Air Force, with the bulk dying in bombing raids by US fighter jets and helicopter gunships on densely populated city and town quarters.

In absolute numbers, that would be like bombing to death everyone in Pittsburgh, Pa. Or Cincinnati, Oh.

Only, the US is 11 times more populous than Iraq, so 310,000 Iraqi corpses would equal 3.4 million dead Americans. So proportionally it would be like firebombing to death everyone in Chicago.

The one million number includes not just war-related deaths but all killings beyond what you would have expected from the 2000-2002 baseline. That is, if tribal feuds got out of hand and killed a lot of people because the Baath police were demobilized or disarmed and so no longer intervened, those deaths go into the mix. All the Sunnis killed in the north of Hilla Province (the 'triangle of death') when Shiite clans displaced from the area by Saddam came back up to reclaim their farms would be included. The kidnap victims killed when the ransom did not arrive in time would be included. And, of course, the sectarian, ethnic and militia violence, even if Iraqi on Iraqi, would count. And it hasn't been just hot spots like Baghdad, Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk. The rate of excess violent death has been pretty standard across Arab Iraq.

As for the Iraqis killed by Americans, like the 24 civilians in Haditha, the survivors are not going to be pro-American any time soon. The US can always find politicians to come out and say nice things on a visit to the Rose Garden. But the people. I don't think the people are saying nice things in Arabic behind our backs.

The wars of Iraq-- the Iran-Iraq War, the repressions of the Kurds and the Shiites, the Gulf War, and the American Calamity, may have left behind as many as 3 million widows. Having lost their family's breadwinner, many are destitute.

Although it is very good news that the number of Iraqis killed in political violence fell in May to 532 according to official sources, the number was twice that in March and April. And,it should be remembered that independent observers have busted the Pentagon for grossly under-reporting attacks and casualties. If someone shows up dead and they aren't sure exactly why, it isn't counted as political violence, just as an ordinary murder. Attacks per day are measured by whether the mortar shell scratches any US equipment when it explodes. If not, it didn't happen. McClatchy estimated a year and a half ago that attacks were being underestimated by a factor of 10.

By the way, isn't is a little odd that the death rate fell in the month of the Great Mosul Campaign? I conclude that either it can't have been much of a campaign or someone is cooking the death statistics.

More at Informed Comment.

US court backs Guantanamo detainees

The US Supreme Court has ruled that foreigners held at the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay have the right under the constitution to challenge their detention in civilian courts.

The decision is a setback for George Bush, the US president, who said on Thursday that he disagreed but would abide by it.

The court, by a vote of five to four, ruled that detainees in the US jail in southern Cuba "have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus".

"The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court.

Snip

Just one justice between us and utter depravity people. Still want John McCain as president?

The Surge is Working?

John McCain has been out and about on the campaign trail extolling the Surge. It is well past time to look at the claim of how the Surge is a “success.”

First off what is the Surge and what are its goals? The military part was rather simple; the Surge is essentially a rebranded troop escalation. 21,000 more service members were added into Iraq. This was done by extending the deployments of service members already in Iraq, deploying more Marines to the area and by changing National Guard rotation policies. The end results were more boots on the ground in Iraq.

Tactically it worked- more physical presence did help with security. The extra boots on the ground were very helpful in hunting down foreign insurgents. However the big change on the ground was the attitude of the Sunni leaders. The Al Qaeda wanna-bes in Iraq had worn out their welcome. Tribal leaders in Iraq were tiered of the murder, mayhem, and brutality of their guests. The Jhadies were killing far too few “crusaders” and far too many Iraqis. Enter the Americans with the “awakening councils.” The American Military came in with respect, money, and arms. Tribal leaders lent a sympathetic ear. But the real tipping point came with the political murders of a few Sunni leaders. The killing of the Sheiks by the foreign Jhadies decided the matter for the local tribal leaders. The leaders came to the conclusion that the Jhadies were more trouble than they were worth.

Thus was the back of “Al Qaeda in Iraq” broken. The Sunnis cooperated with the Americans because they shared a goal with them—ejecting one set of foreign fighters. Still what cooperation the Sunnis gave and give the US occupation rests mainly on the money and arms the US military provides. The Sunnis find the arms and training provided by the US useful for the present. Unfortunately for long term U.S. goals, the tribal leaders have no compelling interest in supporting either the central Shia government or in even staying peaceful with other Sunni tribes. At best the U.S. has purchased a temporary respite in the tribal and sectarian conflict.

The other thing that has brought about a respite in the civil conflict has been ethnic cleansing. Shia and Sunnis no longer live together. The surge has done nothing for either the two million internally displaced Iraqis or for the two million external refugees. It has been a brutal rearrangement of the map. Baghdad has now become a Shia city. The south of Iraq is now exclusively Shia also. Other areas of Iraq have become exclusively Sunni. Sectarian murder and mayhem has gone down because the aims of the sectarians have been largely accomplished.

The only area still undetermined is around Mosul. Will the Kurds manage a land grab of the city and the surrounding oil fields or will the Arabs and Turkmens be able to join together and prevent getting cleansed by the Kurds? The other players in the North are Iran, our bête noire in the area, and Turkey our great friend and NATO ally –who are working together to the disadvantage of our other ally the Kurds. It is a situation that would try the patience and skill of the brightest of diplomatic minds. Unfortunately the Republicans are extremely short of any kind of diplomatic minds at all. They are chock-a-block full of NeoCons who have an inordinate fondness for military solutions and hatred for reasoned diplomatic discourse.

Seeing as McCain still can not figure out the difference between Sunnis and Shia, it is not likely that he has any answer of how to handle the Kurds. Not to blame him too much for this; there was nary a peep out of any of our so called leaders about the Kurds. The administration has turned a blind eye to Turkish incursions into Kurdish territories. Turkey has bombed Kurdish areas in Iraq and has sent in troops into those areas also. So much for the sovereign territory of the nation of Iraq; both Turkey and Iran have been allowed to ignore it.

Enough about the Gordian knot of the Kurds, back to the Surge. Let us remember why the surge was proposed in the first place. The Surge was supposed to help bring about political unity by providing a breathing space. Calm would be imposed and then political healing would begin. As we have seen calm came mainly by either purchasing it via the awakening councils or by ethnic cleansing. The underlying divides of Iraq: religious, tribal, and ethnic were not addressed. The so called government of Iraq has been a rump leadership of Shia sectarians backed by the mullahs in Iran. The Sunnis have boycotted the legislative process. Even the Shias are not united. There is a power struggle between the Sadristes and Badristes in the government for supremacy. The unity of the Shia central government (pretty much an oxymoron at the moment) is also being challenged by the break-away Kurds and the “awakened” Sunni militias. The battles in the parliament are being reflected on the streets with frequent militia clashes.

Much of the happy talk about Iraq ignores the central fact of continued political fragmentation. True, several material factors are up; power, trade, short-term security. But it all depends on what your baseline is. If the baseline is 2007-the height of the surge and the ethnic cleansing then things have improved. It is very much an issue of not being able to fall off the floor. If your baseline was pre-invasion Iraq then things are still much worse. The promised benefits of George W. Bush’s war have failed to materialize.

Iraq is culturally, physically, and governmentally in much worse shape now than it was five years ago. No one in Iraq is ready to make nice with anyone. Politics remains a zero sum game among all the factions. Most days the Iraqi parliament can not even muster a quorum. Power has devolved down to the local tribal level. Law has regressed to the old tribal notions too. Honor killings and vendetta have become the norm. Central authority has evaporated and with it any notion of modernity. The Iraq brain drain continues apace. Anyone with the means or the skill has left Iraq. While there maybe improvement here and there, we have seen these up-ticks before. McCain has ballyhooed these "improvements" before; the corporate media has talked up the "good news" before. Both have been wrong; both have indulged themselves in wishful thinking. Unfortunately the modern, secular, tolerant if autocratic state Iraq has been replaced by a shattered, retrograde, religious fundamentalist polity.

With Iraq a shattered tribal shell what exactly does “victory” look like? McCain keeps claiming that we are “winning” in Iraq. But he has been saying that ever since we first invaded. His short, quick war has morphed into something a little longer and more expensive than what he first promised. But still “Victory” is only a Friedman Unit away. What is the definition of victory? John McCain has been a little vague on that item. Still we will definitely have it no later than 2013. Then again maybe not, there will be setbacks according to McCain. You know setbacks, like the Iraqi government and people rejection the idea of 50 permanent bases in their country. Setbacks, like the possibility of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani coming out and declaring an open fatwa against the occupying forces. Sistani is already half-way there by declaring private fatwas against the occupation. There is also the possibility that when Sistani finally joins Allah that his replacement might have a much harder line on US force presence.

The Kurdish north is another possible “setback” to McCain. A massive invasion of the Iraqi north by the Turks is not beyond the realm of possibility. The Turkish people are at the breaking point with the PKK guerrillas. One more PKK strike may force the Turkish government to invade and occupy northern Iraq. The PKK strikes against the Turkish army had become a matter of national rage among the Turkish people. How do we prevent Turkey from finding common cause with Iran against the Kurd? Senator McCain, exactly what does victory look like when thousands of Turkish troops are bringing death and destruction to innocent Kurdish civilians on our watch? Neither the Turks nor the Kurds are going to be the least bit interested in helping in the Global war on terror that much is for sure.

Even if the Kurds find a way to play well with others there are still the awakened Sunnis. They are the enemies of our enemies, they are not our friends. When the insurgency first started they were fighting against the occupation. Just a few short months ago they were killing and maiming coalition servicemembers by any means available. They stopped because we offered them money, training and a way to eject the foreign Jhadies. They will not stand for a long-term foreign presence on their land. They tolerate us because we arm them, we train them, and we pay them. They can go back to fighting each other, the Shia or the U.S. at anytime. It is not a question of if they will double cross the U.S. but when.

Never mind all that, McCain says the “surge is working” He has “seen the progress on the ground” The indications of progress are there for everyone to see. Its progress when McCain can no longer revisit the Shorja market even with his retinue of 100 servicemembers and five helicopters. Interesting measurement of progress that McCain wants to show to Barack Obama. “Yes Barack, things are going so great in Iraq that you can not leave the Forward Operating Base under any circumstances!”

Pakistan has condemned US-led forces in Afghanistan for an "unprovoked and cowardly" air raid near the border that killed at least 11 Pakistani soldiers.

The Pentagon offered a different interpretation of events on Wednesday, saying US-led forces were acting in self-defence after they had come under fire.

The deaths come at a tense moment in US-Pakistan relations and threaten the already fragile ties.

Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Islamabad, said that the US and Pakistan had had a very strong relationship under the previous administration dominated by supporters of Pervez Musharraf, the president.

But Pakistan now had a civilian government, where there is opposition to the alliance in the so-called "war on terror", he said.

Nielson-Green refused to comment on whether it was Pakistani soldiers who were firing on US-led forces but said video footage of the incident was in the process of being declassified.

A statement from the US military said the air and artillery assault was aimed at Taliban fighters nearby and that they had informed Pakistani authorities about the operation.

"Coalition forces informed the Pakistan army that they were being engaged by anti-Afghan forces," the US military said, adding that the operation "had been previously co-ordinated with Pakistan".

Geoff Morrell, a US defence department spokesman, said "every indication we have is that our guys came under attack and they responded".

Affront to sovereignty

In Pakistan, politicians and military officials issued a furious denunciation of the US response as people wounded in the attack were being treated in a Peshawar hospital.

Major-General Athar Abbas, a Pakistan military spokesman, told Al Jazeera there was no provocation from the Pakistani side before the attack.

The US said the Pakistani and American militaries would "look into the matter and review how to prevent a recurrence" and that officials from both sides had already met to "discuss the incident".

The US has given Pakistan $10bn in military aid since 2001, but US officials complain Pakistan has done little to crack down on al-Qaeda or the Taliban in the rugged and largely lawless region along the Afghan border.

The soldiers were killed at a border post in the volatile Mohmand province, a tribal region in Pakistan opposite Afghanistan's Kunar province.

'Returning fire'

The senior US military spokesperson in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-Colonel Rumi Nielson-Green, told Al Jazeera that US-led forces had hit the "right target".

"The people involved in this incident … were firing on coalition forces and they were well inside of Afghanistan when they began the firing," she said.

"This is an absolutely baseless allegation or explanation. We have co-ordination, we have intelligence sharing. If there was some doubt about any post they should have informed us before taking up any strike," he said.

Asked whether Pakistan would continue to co-ordinate with coalition forces, Abbas said: "That is not the point. We have handed over our protest to the coalition forces.

"We will wait for their reply. And whatever is their reply we would like them to consider it seriously."

This was "unprovoked and cowardly … we blame the collation forces … it has hit hard at the basis of our co-operation", he said.

Yousaf Raza Gilani, Pakistan's prime minister, said it was an affront to national sovereignty.

"We will take a stand for sovereignty, integrity and self-respect and we will not allow our soil [to be attacked]," he told parliament.

'Legitimate' strike

The US military in Kabul, Afghanistan, said the operation was aimed at what were described only as "anti-Afghan forces" who had engaged US–led forces inside Afghan territory.

The Pentagon said the strike was "legitimate".

A US military statement said pro-Taliban fighters were sighted in a wooded area near the border post and US-led forces struck with artillery fire.

Maulvi Omar, a Pakistani Taliban spokesman, said that his fighters had attacked US and Afghan forces as they were setting up a position on the Pakistan side of the border.

Eight Taliban fighters were killed and nine others wounded in the subsequent US bombing, he said.

The incident came after Kabul and Western forces in Afghanistan raised doubts about Pakistan's efforts to negotiate pacts with tribal fighters to end violence on its side of the border.

Nato says such deals lead to more violence in Afghanistan.

Read It And Weep

Combating Terrorism: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas

GAO-08-622 April 17, 2008

Highlights Page (PDF) Full Report (PDF, 32 pages) Accessible Text

Since 2002, destroying the terrorist threat and closing the terrorist safe haven have been key national security goals. The United States has provided Pakistan, a key ally in the war on terror, more than $10.5 billion for military, economic, and development activities. Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), which border Afghanistan, are vast unpoliced regions attractive to extremists and terrorists seeking a safe haven. GAO was asked to assess (1) the progress in meeting these national security goals for Pakistan's FATA, and (2) the status of U.S. efforts to develop a comprehensive plan for the FATA. To address these objectives, GAO compared national security goals against assessments conducted by U.S. agencies and reviewed available plans.

The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven in Pakistan's FATA. Since 2002, the United States relied principally on the Pakistan military to address U.S. national security goals. Of the approximately $5.8 billion the United States provided for efforts in the FATA and border region from 2002 through 2007, about 96 percent reimbursed Pakistan for military operations there. According to the Department of State, Pakistan deployed 120,000 military and paramilitary forces in the FATA and helped kill and capture hundreds of suspected al Qaeda operatives; these efforts cost the lives of approximately 1,400 members of Pakistan's security forces. However, GAO found broad agreement, as documented in the National Intelligence Estimate, State, and embassy documents, as well as Defense officials in Pakistan, that al Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in establishing a safe haven in Pakistan's FATA. No comprehensive plan for meeting U.S. national security goals in the FATA has been developed, as stipulated by the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), called for by an independent commission (2004), and mandated by congressional legislation (2007). Furthermore, Congress created the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) in 2004 specifically to develop comprehensive plans to combat terrorism. However, neither the National Security Council (NSC), NCTC, nor other executive branch departments have developed a comprehensive plan that includes all elements of national power--diplomatic, military, intelligence, development assistance, economic, and law enforcement support--called for by the various national security strategies and Congress. As a result, since 2002, the U.S. embassy in Pakistan has had no Washington-supported, comprehensive plan to combat terrorism and close the terrorist safe haven in the FATA. In 2006, the embassy, in conjunction with Defense, State, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and in cooperation with the government of Pakistan, began an effort to focus more attention on other key elements of national power, such as development assistance and public diplomacy, to address U.S. goals in the FATA. However, this does not yet constitute a comprehensive plan.

From the GAO by way of the LA Times

McCain and Torture

“‘Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,-- George Washington at the battle of Trenton.

On that cold December day in New Jersey the future president of the United States set a standard that lasted through the long Revolutionary struggle and to well beyond. The policy saved lives in many wars. For over 200 years the official policy that forbade torture stood as a guiding American principle. While there were exceptions to this rule; official policy was to punish people who tortured. All that changed with the presidency of George W Bush. Thanks to freedom of information releases we now know that torture was routinely used and routinely authorized at the highest levels of the Bush White House. Of course no one actually called it torture; it was called aggressive interrogation techniques.

Of all the people in American Politics no one has a more intimate knowledge of how those techniques work than John McCain. His Vietnamese prison wardens very aggressively interrogated him. They were so aggressive that they broke his legs. They were so aggressive that McCain cracked and signed a false confession. This was before the John Yu memo gave legal cover to such actions.

Earlier in the Republican campaign John McCain did not see the wisdom of the Yu memo and flatly equated waterboarding as torture. He took a contrarian stand against the Republican herd and stood against Gitmo. There was the much ballyhooed McCain-Graham-Warner bill that “forbade torture.” The bill was very weak tea to begin with and President Bush’s signing statement negated any attempt to limit his ability to torture whenever, wherever he liked. McCain did not utter a peep when the signing statement was released. John McCain talked a good game; he even “forced” the president to “compromise” in a made for T.V. event. However, in the end he rolled over and gave Bush everything he wanted. George W Bush got his own private Gulag. In Gitmo and other places Bush reigns like oriental despot. His writ is law and his power is untrammeled.

The final degradation of McCain happened just recently. The CIA was just given carte blanche by legislators to be as bad as they want to be. The proposal that they follow rules, the proposal that they should be held accountable to the standers set by George Washington, was killed by John McCain’s vote. It was an amendment requiring that the CIA adhere to the Army Field Manual when they questioned suspects. McCain marched in lock step with his fellow Republicans and voted against that amendment. McCain voted to let the CIA continue to use torture and abuse on suspects that it detains.

From being a victim of torture John McCain has now become an enabler. He has given his seal of approval to Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, electric shock, and physical pain up to that experienced in organ failure. The CIA and its contractors can continue to repeat the methods exposed at Abu Ghraib. It is full speed ahead on sending suspects to Syria and Egypt for a little “softening up.” After 231 years we are now the just like the Revolutionary war British. We even have our own Hessians: Blackwater USA., KBR, and others. John McCain is just fine with this.

We are a long way from the man who spoke out against these excesses in February. There has been a long, slow, slide away from the core values that McCain once swore to uphold and defend. We are a long, long way removed from the man who stood in solidarity with his fellow detainees in the “Hanoi Hilton.” That John McCain served bravely and honorably. That John McCain was an exemplar of a 200 year military tradition of honor, valor, courage, and country. That John McCain understood the gross violation of torture. He knew in his bones how torture soiled everything it touched. He understood how torture degraded every one involved in it. He could hold his head up high and know that his nation was better than his captors; that his country stood for higher principles. McCain knew that the USA objected to torture, that it prosecuted people for the type of behavior his Vietnamese guards indulged themselves in. That John McCain is long gone; he has been replaced by a smarmy politician who will pander to the worst instincts of the Wing-nut right. Just like Mitt Romney he has”doubled down” on Gitmo. In doing so he has disgraced the uniform he once wore. In doing so he has besmirched the high ideals set by George Washington and dishonored the outstanding record of military service his family has provided. More to the point, McCain has proved himself unworthy of the highest executive office of the land.

“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” - George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775

Prison Ships?

The Guardian UK reports of the possibility that the U.S. has used it ships to detain prisoners. Reading the report is just so sad, sickening and frustrating. The frustration is with the Bush Administration’s mania for secrecy. No where is the meme that “we can’t talk about tactics” more hurtful than in this example. Conspiracy theories sprout like mushrooms when there is a dearth of facts. It is the darkness and the fertilizer that helps both grow.

To really talk sense about the reality on the ground demands a shift into the first person and to personal knowledge about US Navy assets and specifically the facts about Diego Garcia. Please indulge me.

Let us begin with the U.S. Naval ships in question. I know quite a bit about these beasts because I rode them. I will start with the smallest of the ships in question and work my way up the food chain. Presently the smallest ship in the Amphibious fleet is the LSD. For reasons unknown to me all Amphibious ships are known as Gators and the Amphibious fleet is referred to as the “Gator Navy.” LSDs, Landing Ship Docks are the baby gators in the surface fleet. They are modest size ships with berthing for about 300 sailors and an extra 300 odd Marines. The Navy uses most of the available space on the ship not for the crew but for equipment. One wit once described the LSD as a “fast attack dump truck” not a martial vision but essentially true. The ship drops a tailgate of sort, sinks its butt in the water, and disgorges the Marines and their gear. Because of this design there is no room to put “cages” on to the ship. The ships may have a tiny brig that can hold perhaps three prisoners for a brief stay. On the ship I was on the Brig was used as a storage space.

Going up the ladder the next ship would be an LPD. LPDs are LSDs that have gone to the gym and buffed out a little. They have better Helicopter support than the LSDs. They can carry and support a small Marine detachment of aviators. Still the holding capacity for prisoners is quite limited. Every cage one puts into the LPDs is a hit on the real mission of the ship. That cage would suck up space for Humvees, trucks etc. LPDs probably have either tiny brigs or no brigs at all.

Last is the LHA/LHD. These are baby bird-farms. A bird farm is an Aircraft Carrier. The newest LHA/LHD is the size of a WWII Essex class carrier. This is the only ship were it is plausible to hold any number of prisoners. Maybe those ships were used as temporary holding facilities. The chance that suspects were detained there for any length of time though is not realistic. The ship’s design did not envision the brig being used for anything else other than temporary use. Brigs are not designed for prolonged stays; the most likely scenario considered for use was an “award” of three days bread and water plus confinement. Any confinement beyond three days becomes very problematic from a management perspective. It is a question of feeding the prisoners. The dining facilities on the ship, the "Mess Decks," are no where near the brig. Truth be told the mess decks are not even conveniently located for the crew or the embarked Marines. The prisoners would have to be escorted to their meals thrice daily, fed, and then brought back to their confinement or box lunches would have to be provided. This is just not workable for any length of time over a week.

Talking about ships design brings me to the vessels sitting in the lagoon of Diego Garcia. I know these ships, I’ve visited them. They are roll-on, roll-off ships: Ro-Ro’s. The idea behind them is add soldiers (or Marines) and mix. They are packed with equipment but short of staff. The ships are run by civilian crews- merchant mariners. Some are contracted out, others –the Military Sealift Command ships- have a tiny US Navy contingent and are operated by the Navy. None of these people have the time to be babysitting detainees. None of the ships I visited had any provision to detain even a drunken sailor – never mind captured “bad guys.” Can I prove that no one was held on those ships? No ,I can not. But I can tell you the logistics of even attempting to hold prisoners on those ships are damn near impossible even for the MSC ships- never mind the contract vessels. I can also tell you that such an attempt would escape Diego Garcia’s confines very quickly. The Merchant Marines would squeal or the contract workers on Diego Garcia would blab to their relatives in the Philippines. The info would first be plastered all over Filipino web sites and then on to the rest of the world. Small island, bored people, everybody knows everybody else’s deepest darkest secret. Diego Garcia is the absolute worst place in the world to have a secret prison.

So how did we get here, how did these allegations of ghost ships packed with unfortunate detainees riding the ocean blue get started? Probably it started from a very small kernel of truth. Maybe a flight with a detainee passed through Diego, it landed, it refueled, and it left. Maybe some lower level detainees rounded up in Afghanistan were temporarily placed in the brig of a LHA or LHD until room could be found elsewhere. Anyone detained in a ship’s brig would come out displeased with the experience. The brig is designed as punishment. From these small acorns mighty oaks have grown. This is the price we pay for Bush and Cheney’s obsession with secrecy. This is the price we pay for Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. This is the price we pay for extraordinary rendition and black-site gulags in foreign lands. People will now believe just about any wild tale about detainees that gets released. We have only ourselves to blame; we allowed Bush and Cheney to get away with this. This is what happens when Congresscritters put impeachment off the table.

Just a Typical day in Bush Land

16 May 2008 // Washington, DC – Earlier this year, in light of evidence that Sioux Manufacturing, a company that makes Kevlar helmets, has been outfitting our nation's troops with substandard Kevlar helmets, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Defense asking for all records related to Sioux Manufacturing. In response, CREW has received a letter from the DoD Inspector General’s office stating that there is an ongoing investigation into the matter.
This past February, it was reported that Sioux Manufacturing had agreed to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that the company had shortchanged the armor in up to 2.2 million helmets for the military, including helmets used by American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Department of Defense, aware of both the problem with Sioux's helmets and the company's efforts to cover it up, awarded another contract to Sioux a mere 12 days before the lawsuit was settled.
Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today, “We are hopeful that the investigation will uncover the reasons as to why the Department of Defense is contracting with a company that produces substandard helmets for our soldiers. Again and again this administration has opted for dangerous cost-cutting measures in lieu of ensuring the safety, security, and well-being of those serving our country.”
More Here