Abu Ghraib was part of Official US Policy on Torture?

Published on Sunday, December 12, 2004 by The Sunday Herald (Scotland)

Victim of Latin American Torture Claims Abu Ghraib Abuse was Official US Policy
by Andrew McLeod

FOR many Latin American victims of torture, the infamous pictures of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison brought back not only chilling recollections of their own experiences, but also confirmed what they have long maintained: that their torturers were following interrogation guidelines set by the US Army School of the Americas (SOA).

"I had flashbacks when I saw the guy with the hood [at Abu Ghraib]," says Carlos Mauricio, a Salvadorean who was tortured in 1983. Founder of Stop Impunity, a group that seeks to prosecute human rights violators, dismisses as a "whitewash" the Bush administration's view that Abu Ghraib abuse was the work of a few US army misfits.

"What happened at Abu Ghraib was torture by the book; they were implementing US policy," Mauricio, 51, told the Sunday Herald.

"The US military deny they teach torture and say it happens in Latin America because soldiers have always been brutal. But what happened at Abu Ghraib belies this."

Among the SOA's 60,000 graduates are former dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-ranking graduates were involved in the 1980 assassination of Salvadorean Archbishop Oscar Romero and the massacre of 900 civilians at El Mozote, El Salvador, in 1980.

Between 1946 and 1984 the SOA was based in Panama, the former headquarters of the US Southern Command. In 1977, the school was relocated to Fort Benning, Georgia, but in the face of international criticism it was closed by the Clinton administration in December 2000 - only to be reopened a month later on the same site under a new name, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation (WHINSEC).

The SOA website says it still exists "only for historical purposes" and gives a glowing account of its services to Latin American military officers. WHINSEC's website claims its broad principles are to ensure peace of the Western Hemisphere and promote human welfare through inter-American cooperation that is fully grounded in international law.

Mauricio, who last month led a protest march outside WHINSEC - which drew thousands of activists, including actors Martin Sheen and Susan Sarandon - disputes this.

"The name change is just a public relations exercise. They still teach sniping and counter-insurgency tactics there. There are currently more Colombian students at the school than from any other country - and Colombia has the worst human rights record in Latin America."

The Salvadorean, who says he was targeted "because I was an educator and they don't like any opposition," was fortunate in that he survived his ordeal and was able to flee to the US later that year. There he obtained master's degrees in molecular genetics and adult education at San Francisco State University. He is now a biology teacher at a San Francisco high school.

But he is not at ease, having suffered permanent emotional and physical injuries as a result of the abuse, including broken ribs, an injured eye and persistent pain in his shoulders, joints and chest. In 1989, he heard of the murder in El Salvador of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter. A US congressional task force found that some of the soldiers involved in the killings had been trained at the School of the Americas - and Mauricio felt he had to act.

In 2002 he and two other Salvadorean victims won a landmark ruling in a Florida court against two former Salvadorean ministers of defence. The defendants - both of whom are retired and live in Florida and one of whom, General Jose Guillermo Garcia, was a graduate of the School of the Americas - have lodged appeals.

"This is a life commitment," says Mauricio. "I was lucky to survive and I want to make sure that others don't suffer."

He has worked closely with School of the Americas Watch (SOAW), founded by Father Roy Bourgeois, a Catholic priest who became a critic of US policy in Latin America when four US churchwomen were raped and murdered by Salvadorean soldiers in 1980. SOAW says its aim is to educate the US public about the implications of military training on the poor and to remove obstacles to peace in Latin America.

Mauricio is not alone in seeing Abu Ghraib torture as consistent with US military intelligence teaching.

Writing in the Toronto Globe and Mail, Miles Schuman, a physician who documented torture for the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture, said "the black hood covering the faces of naked prisoners in Abu Ghraib was known as la capucha in Guatemalan and Salvadorean torture chambers. The metal bed frame to which the naked and hooded detainee was bound in a crucifix position at Abu Ghraib was la cama for a former Chilean patient."

Two declassified CIA interrogation manuals - Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual, 1983, and KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation, 1963, released by the National Security Archive in May - add weight to Mauricio and Schuman's allegations.

The 1963 manual suggests that when planning an interrogation room, "the choice of methods to be used depends on the characteristics of the interviewee - the electric current should be known in advance, so that transformers or other modifying devices will be on hand if needed."

The NSA says a decade of training between 1966 and 1976 was halted by the Carter administration for fear it would contribute to human rights violations in other countries, but it was restored by the Reagan administration in 1982. And despite toned-down manuals appearing in the mid-1980s, hundreds of unaltered manuals were used in Latin America for at least another decade - notably by the US and Argentine-trained Honduran Battalion 316 during the tenure of US ambassador to Honduras John Negroponte, who is now the US envoy to Baghdad.

Death in the Family

Last Friday my cousin Joannie died.

She was the youngest daughter of my aunt Margeret, and of my rather large extended family in Texas and Lousiana, I would say that she was one of the closest to me. She was young - just 42 - talented, educated, pretty, vivacious and happily married, or at least she was several years ago before she underwent surgery for back problems that went tragically wrong and left her wheel-chair bound and in cronic constant pain.

In order to alleviate the pain her doctors gave her steroids. The steroids as hoped, built up the strength in her muscles to compensate for the weakness in her back, but also caused her to gain weight and prompted the on set of diabetes. The constant care requirements, midnight runs to the pharmacy for insulin, helping her in and out of her wheelchair, and I sadly supposed her weight gain - made on her husband eventually prompted a seperation and left her alone while their daughter attended school.

She died as a result of an insulin overdose that divebombed her blood sugar to dangerous levels.

Her husband was grief-struck and threw himself on her deathbed, remaining there crying for the next two days after her body had been taken away by the coroner.

Pretty tragic story.

My own wife has suffered a broken back a few years ago. Doctors have said that it was inoperable and that she would basically have to live with arthritic pain in her back for the rest of her life. She can't work at a normal job because she can't lift more than 15lbs, and can't stand or sit for hours at a time as would be required for retail or office work. I have to admit, after years of this I had - like my cousins husband - sometimes grown short and exasperated with the constant demands of the situation. Her incessent groans and moans even from the simplest movement now cause me to roll my eyes in impatience. I was getting callous, that is until I nearly broke my neck three weeks ago playing basketball. I went up - another player went down - and I hit the ground, shoulders, head and neck first legs on top of me. For nearly a second or so - I lost all feeling and control of my limbs - my arms flailed like a rag-doll's.

Fortunately for me - the effect was temporary and I was up on my feet in a few minutes - with only some painfully bruised ribs to show for it. Pain that severely limited my movement, caused me to moan and groan at the slightest shift, I could hardly walk, couldn't sit up - couldn't lay down -- just like my wife. Three weeks later I'm better, but still in pain. I'm a little less callous now.

As it turns out neither she nor I are wheelchair-bound like Joannie - she hasn't undergone steroid therapy, but not so fortunately she was prescribed Vioxx earlier this year for her arthritis.

She's a person who has a very sensitive immune system. She's allergic to penicillin, as well as all sulpha derivatives. As a kid she was stung by a brown recluse spider and almost died when the doctors unwittingly injected her with 'cillin based anti-biotic. It was because of her allergies that she wasn't prescribed Celebrex for her pain, but instead was given Vioxx. She's like a canary in the coal mine when it comes to questionable medicines, and her reaction to Vioxx was quite immediate and dramatic. Loss of breath, high blood pressure, heart palpatations.

At the time I brought up the various problems with the American Pharmacutical industry with various friends. They're in the business of selling their product, not neccesarily helping people. If people get well, and don't need their medicine - profits go down, so they have to help people believe in their own helplessness - in their own weakness - their own sickness and how they need more and more artificial help. At the time they scoffed at my railing at the dangers and illogic of direct marketing of prescription drugs to potential patients.

"Think you might have a problem? Irritable? Can't Sleep? Warts? Ichy Scalp? Bad Breath? Scabs over your eyes? Bleeding Palms? Limp Dick? -- talk to your doctor about (fill in the blank miracle drug). And as long as you don't mind a little diarrhea, sexual side-effects, flaking, stomach-upset, projectile vomiting and hair loss - you should be fine."

In my view, this country is tragically over-medicated and completely underserved by it's medical community.

Congress just recently slipped language into a budget bill that allows for schools to psychologically test children without parental consent. It's already true that children who are "fidgety, over-active and disruptive" can be forced medicated with ritalin if their parents want to keep them in school. Now this.

Merck, the maker of Vioxx was considered a "good guy" drug company. They voluantarily decided to pull the drug off the market without any government intervention or trial lawyers taking them to task. But the truth is - neither the government or those oh-so-greedy lawers could do so because all of the studies which were showing an indication of increase risk of stroke and heart-disease in connection to Vioxx happened to be the intellectual property of Merck Corporation and were protected by Non-Disclosure and Copyright Law. It's the same method that the tabacco industry was able to hide the fact that nicotine is additive for 30 years. The FDA couldn't release these reports to Congress without violating the law, even assuming that Merck had actually made all unfavorable reports available to the FDA, which they aren't required to do. Still these reports and studies did exist, and apparently the latest information is that nearly 28,000 people who had taken Vioxx for pain relief have consequently suffered either strokes are heart-attacks.

I have to say this doesn't surprise me at all after my own wife's reaction to the drug. She - wisely - stopped taking it after a few days.

As I've looked into and listened to reports, particularly on NPR, about this I've seen that the entire process of validating a drug for use is grossly flawed. Studies are commissioned and paid for by the company attempting to advance the drug to market - the results are owned by that company. Negative clinical trial results are suppressed, positive results are hyped in the various Medical Journals in order to impress their miraculous results upon doctors working in the field. The Physicians who write these Journal reports are essential bribed to write what the drug companies want them to write.

We have problems with drugs such as Paxil being prescribed "off-market" to children, which completely dodges the normal FDA validation process, and these children are having increased incidents of suicide.

We have problems with the FDA failing to recognize the clear shortage in flu vaccine, that countries such as England were easily able to compensate for.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguements regarding the Constitutionality of Federal Officers seizing Medical Marijuana that was not being sold in commerce, when State Law allows it. It's amazing to me that after eleven states have allowed for the use of Marijuana and Cannabinoids for medicinal purposes that neither the FDA nor any drug company has yet to do any serious clinical trials to either confirm or deny that many claims that this treatment has shown to be beneficial for pain management, appetite, glacoma and the nausea of chemo therapy. In the late 1990's, former U.S. drug czar General Barry McCaffrey, who was staunchly determined that marijuana was a dangerous drug commissioned his own study to prove it, but instead found that there was numerous apparent medical benefits of Cannabanoids. In short, they found that Marijuana was far less addictive than cocain, heroine or the nicotine in cigarettes and that the primary danger it presented was from the process of smoking itself (just like tabacco).

PDF of Executive Summary of Report

Drug companies who are more than happy to sell us 15 versions of pain medication which are virtually the same chemically, have not been willing to get into the process of selling cannabanoid based medicines simply because - In my opinion - they can't retain the intellectual property rights on such a drug. Pretty much anything they can do marijuana in a lab, someone can probably do just as well in their backyard and kitchen.

They can't make any money on it.

So Marijuana is illegal and considered a "dangerous drug" although to date, no one has ever died of a "weed overdose" -- meanwhile 28,000 victims later Vioxx is finally off the market.

How many victims did it take for Phen Fen?

How many will it take for Paxil?

Where's my effing flu shot? (Not that I would take it, I never take flu shots -- I would rather get the flu and build my immunity up naturally)

Call me crazy, but I really don't think this current process and FDA is working in the best service of the American public and their health.

I would suggest a massive change of direction from this administration that thinks that government and trial lawyers are the enemy, that oversight of corporations is "stiffling" to business and the repeated ethical scandals that continue to hammer the stock market are just minor "blips", but that horse already left the gate on November 2nd and we won't get another chance for four years.

Heaven help us all, particularly my cousin Joannie and so many others who try to survive in similar situations, in the meantime.

Vyan

FTL:Faster than Logic - Reinterpreting Einstein

And now for something completely different.

Years ago I began developing a theory. It began in highschool when I read the formula for calculating thrust, which is Mass of the object times it's velocity ratioed to the mass of the propulsion times it's velocity.

m1*v1:m2*v2

At the time I read this I wss struck with a thought. Under Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, the mass of an object is said to increase (or "dilate") as a result of acceleration and thus as that object grows closer to the speed of light (also known as "C" as Eintsein assumes that this speed is constant throughout the universe) the mass of the object becomes so great that it becomes near infinite and since there is no power source or propulusion which is greater than infinity, the object can not continue to be accelerated and can not exceed "C".

My thought then and now was that this assumption was wrong.

The core of Einstein's relativity theory is based on the fact that all measurements of speed, time and mass are dependant on the relative relationship of the objects, and in the case of an object being pushed forward by a form of thrust which is self-contained - their relative relationship does not change. My theory is this: If the mass of the object is increasing as it accelerates, so too does the inertial mass of the thrust increase at exactly the same proportion, ergo - it is possible to have a "greater than infinite" power source if that power source itself is travelling at or near the speed of light in conjuction with the object.

Now this is quite contrary to modern thinking in physics but I believe that I can prove it, in fact it's already been shown to be true, like many other ideas which are hard to accept - the apparently lack of WMD's in Iraq, the idea that our President would blatantly lie to the American people - some very smart people have come up with some very clever ways to deny the obvious.

So as I said, I think Einstein was wrong.

Not entirely wrong, just a little - but it's enough.

Largely people have relied on several proven factors to support Einstein. The fastest objects that have been accelerated by man to date have been sub-atomic particles within a particle accelerator or "atom smasher". Using giant magnets in facilities up to a mile or more in length (or radius for circularly designed accelerators), we've been able to accelerate protons, neutrons and electrons to nearly the speed of light - but not beyond. In additional to "mass dilation", Einstein theorized that time would also become elongated for the high velocity objects, and that it's dimensions would shrink along our prespective. In short, it would "slow down and flatten". This has been shown to be consistent within an atom smasher as many particles which only exist for fractions of a second have shown to survive for considerably longer when travelling at speeds close to C. Additionally highly accurate atomic clocks when placed aboard space craft have shown to slow down and track time at a different rate than perfectly synchronized clocks which remained "stationary" on earth.

Scientist have looked at these factors and said - well, Einstein was right after all. And clearly when you have a propulsion system which is stationary (such as within an atom-smasher which can't move) and a target object which is moving, it does appear that the relative difference between their velocities does display the types of dilation affects upon mass, time and dimensions that Einstein predicted.

However, none of this involved an object where the propulsion system is self-contained, with a nearly unlimited power source that accelerated along with the object and was therefore not subjected to the relativistic forces of Einstein.

And then we invented Tachyons. (A term which has grown quite common since the advent of Star Trek -- "Mr. Worf, I believe we can break free of this tractor been if we fire a tachyon stream at them")

Originating in 1962, Tachyons are theoritical particles which can travel faster than the speed of light. Now, since we know Einstein in correct (sic) in his view that no normal object can be accelerated beyond C, tachyons must be made of some type of matter we have not yet seen - some matter which is somehow different from every other form of matter in the universe in order to accomplish such extrodinary speeds.

Yeah, right.

In my view, this too is incorrect. Travelling at FTL speeds does not require some special form of matter or energy, it's simply a matter of having a sufficiently powerful and self-contained propulsion source.

A bold claim I know, but can it be proven?

Yes, because it's already been proven.

Artist Concept of Pulsar

In 1981, I read a volume of Science Year Edition of World Book Encyclopedia. In that volume it described the discovery of two pulsars (neutron stars so old that they have burned out most of their energy and collapsed upon themselves). Pulsars which were not so strange in and of themselves, other than the fact that relative to each other, but not to earth - they were travelling at greater than the speed of light. Tachyon theory supposes that FTL particles are always travelling faster than C and can not decellerate to speeds less than light - however these Pulsars were travelling a speeds both exceeding C (relative to each other) and not exceeding C (relative to us here on Earth).

Imagine that, will ya?

To understand this, I believe you have to understand what a Pulsar is. It's called a pulsar because it emits periodic pulses of electromagnetic radiation. As we're grown to better understand them, we've realized that each of the "poles" of this former sun are actually spewing heat, light and radiation like a two sided sparkler, and just as such a firecracker would the pulsar is spinning, largely I think because the energy coming from it's two poles is not evenly balanced. It appears to us as a "pulse" only when one of it's two poles is facing toward the earth - like the light of a lighthouse. In my view, this off-balanced energy output acts as a propulsion system forcing the pulsar along a particular vector - constantly accelerating with a near unlimited amount of self-contained energy.

Hm, just what the Doctor ordered.

Einstein's relativistic "C" barrier has no affect on this object, it's not made of some wacky-matter called Tachyons, it simply continues to accelerate endlessly along a particular vector based on its unbalanced stream of gas jets it creates.

Further proof of this is the more recent discovery that the gases emitted by quasars (which are quite similar to pulsars) have been found to be moving away from the source object at speeds greater than "C". This was discovered in 1991 involving gases emitted by various quasars. Apparently, like pulsars, these objects emit gas jets as they spin on their way through space. Over the course of years of observations these gas jets have been shown to be travelling, when viewed in one particular direction as at several times 'c' - and in some cases as great as 4 times the speed of light.

"There have been observations of jets of gas associated with distant quasars which appear to move faster than light. This is known as superluminal motion and is a well-understood phenomenon"

At this point in time it seems that the assumption is that this phenomenon is an optical illusion. It's believed in short, that because SRT (Special Relativity Theory) prohibits the possibility of objects moving at FTL speeds, that what astronomers are seeing isn't really what they are seeing.

What, are you kidding me?

In my view, this is just as wacky as Tachyon Theory, which has no basis in actual reality. It's just an attempt to deny what is obvious and apparently true. FTL is possible. No one has seen a tachyon, most scientist don't believe that they exist - but by god those quasar gas jets certainly must be made of tachyons and/or they can't really be moving at 4 times the speed of light as they appear to be can they - either that or they just aren't doing what they seem to be doing?

Well, yes, they can.

The issue in my view is that the gas jets have been emitted from a body which is in a constant state of self-generated acceleration. These jets of gas were emited years, even centuries ago and during the intervening time the body has continued to accelerate along a single vector until in has crossed the "C Horizon" between it and previously emitted gases which lie behind it along that particular vector. Thus far we have been unable to find similar gases emitted on the opposite side of these quasars - which raise a connundrum that has several possible solutions. One) The body has actually accelerated past those gases on it's far side as it's out-of-balance accerlation as pushed it passed them - therefore we do not see a corresponding set of gases on the opposite side of the quasar as we might expect to appear and Two) The gases may exist beyond the C Horizon in relation to the Earth's position and velocity leaving them undetectable to us - just as a plane flying toward you faster than the speed of sound can not be heard, an object flying toward or away from you faster than the speed of light can't be seen - this would account for why we can only detect these gases along certain vectors vectors which leave both it and the quasar within Earth's C Horizon and therefore simultaneously visible to us.

Once we accept the possibility of FTL travel under certain non-relativistic circmstances, there are several other questions and issues which clearly come to mind.

What if an object traveling at superluminal speeds strikes you? Clearly you wouldn't see it coming and wouldn't be able to avoid it, but what would be the result of an object with near infinite inertial mass coming into contact with a "relatively" stationary object?

Is such an impact even possible as part of Einsteinian theory supposes that an object travelling at near 'c' speeds would become effectively two-dimensional (or "flat") in perpendicular relationship to the vector of it's motion. Would that object even continue to exist within our dimensional plane if it were to become less then flat and essentially inverted within our dimensional plane?

Another factor is time dilation. Einstein supposes that objects moving at high velocity experience time at a slower rate than non-moving objects (although the rules of what is moving and is not moving is entirely up to the perspective of the viewer within "relativity" - therefore the passage of time itself is "relative") so would an object at superluminal speeds experience stopped time or even reversed time?

My current thinking on these question is considerably less dramatic than there were when I originally began devision my view that FTL was possible over 20 years ago. My feeling today is that the various Einsteinian dilations effects of time, inertial mass and dimension are not neccesaarily tied to the velocity of the object, they are tied to the acceleration of that object from one velocity and vector to another.

If the time dilation effects of high velocity travel where consistent regardless of any continued acceleration - then the internal clocks of satellites and spacecraft which remain in earth orbit travelling at 10-20,000 miles per hour would continue to slow and grow further and further out of sync with earth based timing devices. From what I can tell, although as I stated earlier that hyper-accurate atomic clocks have verfied the dilation effect, I have not heard of any evidence that this effect is cumulative or else our communication with our astronauts who have been on extended stays aboard SkyLab or the Russian Space Station would gradually begin to breakdown as their reality slowed further and further compared to our reality.

Therefore, something else is afoot.

I think that something is that the relativistic effects that Einstein predicted are in fact tied to the process of acceleration. Under Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, it is presumed that gravity is not the result of the attraction of large bodies to each other (as was supposed by Newton), but instead that gravity is the result of the impact of mass upon the fabric of space and the resulting tension created by that impact. If one were to imagine space as a large rubber sheet and the earth as a lead ball placed on the sheet - you can imagine that the ball would cause a dent in the sheet. When placing a second ball on the sheet, the process of the two moving together isn't neccearily the result of an attraction between them - rather it is the result of space's fabric releasing the tension between the two objects.

We generally think of gravity as being something different from acceleration, but I think that they are in fact one and the same. The "gravity" we feel coming from large heavenly bodies is the result of space springing back against the tension created by that body. Space creates the energy of acceleration, as Einstein explained in E=MC^2 (Energy is equal to the Mass of an Object times the Speed of Light Squared). Therefore it's clear that Mass - thru the fabric of space - creates Energy. Conversely energy when applied against mass, also causes a springing back of space against this intrusion upon it's texture and fabric. When you slam on the gas in your car - you're thrown against the back of your seat. As energy is applied to accelerate the car - space resists and springs back causing "G-Forces". In addition to these G-Forces, are all the other forces of Einsteinian relativism, time dilation, mass dilation and dimensional dilation all in proprotion to the level of energy applied to accerlate the object, and when this acceleration ends - so too do all these effects. As under the laws of inertia, the object will tend to continue in steady motion along it's current vector (pending forces of friction and drag) until another force of acceleration is applied. In short, inertia is space at "rest" with a non-accelerating object.

Again, current understanding of inertial theory assumes that an object moving at .99c, or just shy of the speed of light, would carry with it such great inertial mass that it could not possibly be accelerated further, but if we accept that the inertial mass is actually in connection that the attempted rate of acceleration - and not purely the current rate of velocity - then further accerlation does become possible.

So too would time dilation affects and dimensional distortion affects recede when an object is no longer in the process of acceler ation - so you probably could be hit by an object moving faster than 'c', you just couldn't see it coming and duck in time.

As a matter of fact, particles of light - usually called photons - happen to be moving at the speed of light and apparently have not acquired "near infinite mass" or else they would bore through stationary every object they come into contact with like some form of super laser.

"Watch out - he's pointing that flashlight at your head -- oh, no too late....sob"

We all know this doesn't happen. Particles of light bounce when they impact stationary objects and bend as they pass through high gravity fields.

With a better understanding of the nature of space will come a better understanding it's relationship with gravity and accerleration forces. From this understanding could we find a new way to generate energy using gravity waves? Could we find a way to generate sustain and direct anti-gravity (deccerlation) waves?

I don't know.

I fully admit that I am not an astro-physicist. I am essentially a layman, but then when Einstein developed the core of his theories, he was a 20-odd year old patent clerk. In fact, not being indoctrinated into all of the traditional modes of thought of modern astro-physics may be a major advantage in examining these issues. None of this would have occured to me if I had simply accepted every doctrine of Einstein's without question.

I have attempted at various times to discuss this theory with friends and aquaintences who are physics majors, and the only response I've received is that my basic premise uses the Newtonian formula for thrust and that Newtonian formulas don't apply within an Einsteinian context. Maybe not, but I would assume then that there is an Einsteinian equivalent formula for thrust which takes the constancy of c into account and essentially zeros itself out at speeds approaching light. I don't know if the existence of such a formula neccesarily invalidates what I've stated here or not, because the real test is always to find real life examples which validate the assumptions of any formula. Einstein's formulas on gravity were based on his assumptions of how space and mass affect one another and were also confirmed when they were used to accurately account for a wobble in the orbit of Mercury that Newtonian formulas failed to predict. Similarly any updated theories by Einstein on mass and thrust would also need to be validated, rather than simply assumed to superceed Newton.

I hope, that at best that by articulating these ideas I might inspire some debate and reflection among the experienced physicists who have the resources to better test and verify the validity or lack-of-validity of what I present.

Thank you.

F. Vyan Walton
Copyright 2004 and All Rights Reserved (Please request permission before reposting or quoting).

Driving Hard Right - and off the road

According to a recent report from the non-partisan Center For American Progress, newly installed CIA Director Porter Goss in a move the puts the lie to his claims that he would put his partisan past behind him, has begun an ideological political purge to remove those who have been "disloyal" to the Administration. (Story quoted below)

From what I recall these "disloyal" members of the CIA would be those who produced the original reports on Saddam Hussein's WMD's. According to Pentagon insiders such as Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski who has stated that it was well known that the intelligence information on Iraq was always inconclusive concerning WMD's and terrorism.

The certainty that we saw during the lead up to the Iraq War was a fabrication of the Bush Administration, who cherry picked the information and then fed redacted reports to the Congress and UN in order to support their plan.

The Iraq War was not the CIA's fault.

But this just might be what Bush and his lackey Goss would consider "disloyal".

The more recent CIA ISG Report on Iraq which further states this might also be "disloyal" since it clearly deviates from the Bush Admin.

Not long ago the CIA reported that the best case scenario in Iraq would be continued security problems and instability and the worst-case would be a Civil War.

George W. Bush said "they were just guessing"?

Really?

Aren't they paid to make informed and educated guesses which are supposed to give the President the tools to make effective foreign policy and military decisions? Isn't that their job?

Apparently not according this President.

Vyan

---

Porter's Political Purge

At a time when the threat of terrorism has placed a premium on accurate intelligence, the White House is creating chaos at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The White House has ordered Bush's new CIA director, Porter Goss, "to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush." According to a senior CIA official, the agency is planning to get rid of "liberals" and others who are perceived as "obstructing the president's agenda." Among career CIA officials, Goss's partisan agenda has created "an atmosphere of ill will and apprehension [that] could distract the agency from its work in the fight against terrorism."

GOSS INSTALLS POLITICAL CRONIES IN TOP CIA POSITIONS: Goss has installed inexperienced political operatives from Capitol Hill in powerful positions and "given [them] wide latitude in running the agency." A staffer from the House Intelligence Committee, Patrick Murray, is Goss's chief of staff, and two other House Republican aides have been installed "as senior advisors with broad but unspecified authority." Rep. Jane Harman attributed low morale at the CIA to the "inexperienced" House Intelligence Committee staff members Goss has placed in top positions. Harmon described the group as "highly partisan," saying, "many of us worked with that staff in the House...on both sides of the aisle in committee, we were happy to see them go." Goss initially named another aide, Michael J. Kostiw, as the CIA's No. 3 official. But Kostiw "quickly withdrew from considerations after former intelligence officials mentioned that he had resigned from the C.I.A. in the early 1980's after an administrative leave in connection with a shoplifting case."

Attack on Fallujah can't be justified

Friday, November 12, 2004

Attack on Fallujah can't be justified
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- Do Americans of good conscience really believe that we are making the United States more secure by bombing and killing the people of Fallujah?

That's the justification President Bush and his hawkish circle have given for their brutal offensive against the Sunni stronghold as they push ahead for the total military occupation of Iraq.

Why are we killing Iraqis in their own country? And why are our forces being killed?
Of course it was convenient and the better part of valor for the president to wait until after the election to start dropping the 500-pound bombs on Fallujah as well as raking the streets with artillery and aircraft firepower.

Bush, who has never been in war, flaunted his commander in chief status during the campaign. But clearly he did not want to put it to the test at Fallujah before Election Day.
Had he done so, the president would have had to explain why he took the United States into Iraq and why he was targeting innocent Iraqis.

From day one, the U.S. government has been hard-pressed to find legal justification for being in Iraq by force. U.S. military moves were contrary to the U.N. Charter and the laws that came from the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II.

Under the U.N. Charter, armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of another state is a violation of international law.

Does anyone believe that hand-picked interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, on the CIA payroll for years, is a free soul? Did we really make war against Iraq out of the goodness of our hearts to ensure free elections for Iraqis?

The silence of the Democrats is playing into the president's hands. As was the case with the original October 2002 congressional resolution authorizing war, Democrats are unsure of themselves and therefore unwilling to challenge the president.

Once the offensive was under way, many Americans were appalled to learn that among our first major targets were the hospitals in Fallujah.

By now everyone in this country must know that every reason Bush gave to attack Iraq has turned out to be a false. No weapons of mass destruction were found after two task forces took months and spent millions to hunt for them.

There was no imminent threat by Iraq against the United States. And virtually nothing has been found to connect al-Qaida with deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Presidential credibility used to have some meaning in this country. The president visited the soldiers wounded in Iraq at Walter Reed Hospital Army Medical Center on Tuesday for the first time since March. He told reporters that the U.S. soldiers in Fallujah were doing "the hard work necessary" for a free Iraq to emerge.

And he said the coalition forces were moving into Fallujah "to bring to justice those who are willing to kill the innocent, those who are trying to terrorize the Iraqi people and our coalition (and) those who want to stop democracy."

The Bush administration has no count on civilians who have lost their lives in the current massive assault on Fallujah, but some 900 civilians reportedly died in the fighting last April when the U.S. retreated temporarily from Fallujah.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters he knew of "no specific estimate of civilians" who may have been killed in the recent fighting.

But he added: "I know the military goes out of its way to minimize the loss of civilian life, and what we are working to achieve in Iraq is an important cause that will make America more secure."

Thousands in Fallujah fled their homes and are living in tents, knowing that the U.S. attack was about to begin.

Meanwhile, U.S. soldiers are going from house to house in urban street fighting -- something Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, wanted to avoid as a way of reducing the human cost of the first Gulf War. For that reason he resisted going on to Baghdad after the liberation of Kuwait.

To understand the Iraqi resistance, I suggest reading the Scottish poet Sir Walter Scott. He wrote: "Breathes there a man with soul so dead who never to himself has said this is mine own my native land."

Mourning the future

Since the election, I've been in mourning.

I've mourned for the death of hope.

I've mourned the slow death of our democracy at the hands of corporate interests.

I've mourned for the death of reason and facts beneath the benevolent boot of evangelical fervor.

But mostly, I've mourned for the future.

Four years of G.W. Bush has been a slow nightmare of ethically challenged governmental and corporate collusion. Normally, the bright side of any nightmare is that soon you will wake up.

But it appears now that nightmare will last, possibly for as long we can imagine as Bush has a greater chance to affect judicial nominations up and down the appellate spectrum and even including the supreme court.

The only reasonable outlook is dire.

I know that I'm not alone in feeling this way, and I also know that to those that don't - this probably seems to be an overblown and extremist view.

However, to those who would dismiss the depths of frustration, pain and outright anger that this President and his re-election have created, I would kindly suggest they quietly pay attention because IMO they ain't seen nothin yet.

People are truly, deeply Pissed.

Some I think have become somewhat desperate and are throwing around wild conspiracy theories about how election was "stolen".

I don't accept that view. At least, not yet.

Clearly there are growing concerns and growing reports of voting irregularities and problems. In Florida, large percentages of Democratic Voters apparently voted in overwhelming numbers for Bush - however, it has been argued that this is not the result of vote tampering, but rather simply an example of the "dixiecrat" phenomenon which has existed for many years.

Some voting machines apparently counted backward.

Palm Beach County Logged 88,000 more votes than voters.

In Ohio's Cuyuhoga County, some reports have come out that over 97,000 extra votes (for Bush) were discovered which went over and above the actual number of voters in the County. With the counting of absentee, provisional and military votes just beginning as of yesterday, and a current margin of victory of 136,000 in Ohio this relevalation is like the "Holy Grail" for desperate democrats, but subsequent reports and investigation have shown that the numbers used to arrive at this 97,000 vote descrepancy are somewhat questionable.

All of these allegations need to be carefully and clearly investigated. We need to know the truth and we need to take proper steps to ensure that our voting is verifiable and secure - but I think we need to remain realistic, although apparently in one race the vote certification has placed a Democrat in place of a Republican in one state race (I don't recall which one at the moment), it's little more than a pipe-dream to believe that John Kerry will eventually overtake George W. Bush in either the popular vote or electoral map.

Give it up. That dream is dead.

The majority of the nation really did vote to put the man who sat and did nothing for seven minutes except read "my pet goat" when he was told the nation was under attack, back in the White House.

The nation really does want so deeply to "protect life" that they would put a man back in the White House who put over 170 people to death as Governor of Texas, and who has presided over four years while actual abortions have began to rise, reversing a near ten year decline, apparently since so many people have lost their health-care and fallen into poverty.

America really is so deeply indebted to "moral values" that they turn a blind eye to the unregulated arrest/capture, transportion, detaining and use of torture not just of foreign nations, but American Citizens who've been declared as "Enemy Combatants" in clear violation of American Law, the core tenents of the Constitution, International Law and the Geneva Convention.

This is truly what America wants.

This is truly who America is.

And so I mourn, because the America I believe in - the one where the Constitution is more than a piece of inconvenient paper, seems to be dead.

At one point I thought it was only asleep. Only stunned into unconsciousness by the shock of 9/11. But now I know - it's gone.

Since the election, I haven't been able to bear being around some of my aquintances and friends who are Republican or even Democrats who voted for Bush.

I can't talk to them.

The discussion is over.What is there to say - you're killing our country - you dumb dipshit bastard?

No.

I can't speak. It would be too painful. I understand that reasonable people can disagree on many things. That it's possible to remain civil over these issues.
But I also think there's a point were polite civility simply doesn't reflect the truth. It's a method of denying what one truly feels -- it's a lie.

The truth is - we are decending into full-on facism.

The true ideals of this nation are being murdered. Willfully. Deliberately. Brazenly. This is happening with our full knowledge and (electoral) approval. I don't buy the argument that most Bush supporters still believe that Iraq had WMD's, was connected to Al Qaeda and 9/11. I think they know better.

The truth is they don't care!

More people falling into poverty? They don't care, because it's not them, it's somebody else. People being illegally surveilled by the FBI? No Knock Warrants/Sneak and Peak entry? They don't care. That's someone elses problem, not mine or yours.

More women likely to die as the result of birth complications, and doctors legally barred from being able to save them because of the so-called "Partial Birth Abortion" ban - they don't care, none of their fine upstanding daughters would ever be in such a position. Nope. Never happen.

Frankly, I can no longer find a way to civil about this.

Fuck you people.

Hope is dead.

All we have left - is revenge.

Vyan

Should America Trust the Election

Whether the vote was Right or Wrong - America deserves to know the truth.

Should America Trust the Results of the Election
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary by Shane Cory
November 5, 2004

Days after the election, 55 million Americans are still scratching their heads and wondering how it is that George W. Bush won reelection. Garnering 8 million more votes than he earned in 2000, many are raising eyebrows as to how this was accomplished.


While no one wants to cry "fraud" and lead a tinfoil hat brigade, a buzz is growing on the Internet that whispers to the amazed and confused that they should not close the books on this election just yet.


Members of the discussion forum, DemocraticUnderground.com dug in and have already found a clear error in the vote count within Ohio. In one voting precinct in Gahanna, Ohio, 4,258 voters supposedly cast an electronic ballot for George Bush while only 260 voted for John Kerry. While it is vaguely possible that over 94% of voters in the precinct supported George W. Bush, it is a hard number to believe considering that only 638 voters were counted at the polling center.


The Columbus Dispatch has investigated the matter and the director of the board of elections within the county admitted that Bush only received 365 votes. He stated that a "glitch" occurred in the electronic voting machine during the vote tally. This glitch could have given nearly 4,000 fake votes to George Bush if it had not discovered.


The Gahanna incident is just one confirmed mistake and was discovered by activists on the Internet. It was a fairly easy "glitch" to detect given the large discrepancy between the head count at the polling station and the votes for Bush. Given this voting error one must ask, how many more glitches occurred that only involved tens or hundreds of votes?


In Florida, exit polling data showed the opposite of the final results provided through the state. Even more surprising are the changes in votes per party that occurred on November 2nd. Counties using e-touch voting machines in Florida showed an average vote gain of 29% for Republicans and a 23.8% increase for Democrats. However the counties that used optical scan vote machines showed drastic differences. Republicans gained by 128.45% in counties using optical scan voting machines while Democrats had a -21% loss (yes, that is negative 21%). Some districts in Florida showed gains over 400% while one, Liberty County, gained over 700% for Republicans.


Many within the nation are left on the verge of outrage when faced with such evidence of possible fraud. Many are gearing up to investigate and determine what actually happened to the votes of millions of Americans or possibly the votes of many non-existent Americans.


One organization that is investigating the matter is BlackBoxVoting.org which is run by Bev Harris. Mrs. Harris has turned over evidence to authorities regarding vote fraud and has come to the conclusion that fraud did occur on November 2nd. However her group is uncertain as to the scope of the possible conspiracy. Unfortunately, Mrs. Harris has an uphill battle as no paper trail exists to verify the electronic voting data.


Over the past few years, Republicans have fought to prevent any type of paper trail through electronic voting. Despite printable ATM type receipts being a reasonable fail-safe, Republicans and corporations such as Diebold fought hard and eventually won the battle against a verifiable voting system.


Without question, the evidence presented thus far should raise suspicion among honest individuals. While maintaining a calm and reasonable demeanor, the results of the Novermber 2nd election should be fully investigated simply for the sake of the nation and our future confidence in the democratic process.


Shane Cory is the editor of the Washington Dispatch.

---

This message was endorsed by...

Vyan

No Longer a christian by Karen Horst Cobb

No Longer a Christian by Karen Horst Cobb
www.commondreams.org

I was told in Sunday school the word "Christian" means to be Christ-like, but the message I hear daily on the airwaves from the "christian " media are words of war, violence, and aggression. Throughout this article I will spell christian with a small c rather than a capital, since the term (as I usually hear it thrown about) does not refer to the teachings of the one I know as the Christ. I hear church goers call in to radio programs and explain that it was a mistake not to kill every living thing in Fallujah. They quote chapter and verse from the old testament about smiting the enemies of Israel. The fear of fighting the terrorists on our soil rather than across the globe causes the voices to be raised as they justify the latest prison scandal or other accounts of the horrors of war . The words they speak are words of destruction, aggression, dominance, revenge, fear and arrogance. The host and the callers echo the belief in the righteousness of our nation's killing. There are reminders to pray for our "christian" president who is doing the work of the Lord: Right to Life, Second Amendmendment, sanctity of marriage, welfare reform, war, kill, evil liberals. . . so much to fight, so much to destroy.

Let me tell you about the Christ I know. He was conceived by an unmarried woman. He was not born into a family of privilege. He was a radical. He said, "It was said an eye for and eye and a tooth of a tooth, but now I say love your enemies and bless those who curse you." He said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." (Mattew 5: 3-9) He said, "All those who are called by my name will enter the kingdom of heaven." He said, "People will know true believers if they have the fruit of the spirit--love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self control."

He knew he would be led like a sheep to the slaughter. He responded with "Father forgive them." He explained that in Christ there is neither Jew nor gentile, slave or free male nor female. He explained that even to be angry is akin to murder. He said the temple of God is not a building, but is in the hearts of those are called by his name. He was called "the Prince of Peace." His final days were spent in prayer, so that he could endure what was set before him, not on how he could overpower the evil government of that day. When they came for him he was led away and didn’t resist his death sentence. This is a stark contrast to the call of the religious christian right, who vote for war and weapons, and suggest towns and villages be leveled to bring freedom and peace to the people. They proudly boast this country’s superiority, suggesting God has blessed our nation.

Today, as I listened to a popular christian news network, I was reminded that in the last days, even God’s elect will be deceived, (II Timothy 3:13). When the religious media moguls preaching prosperity spout their rhetoric, I am reminded of the difficulty Jesus described of a rich man’s ability to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19: 24) (http://www.4religious-right.info/rr_economics.htm) Some who believe they are fighting evil will cry to the Lord, and he will say "I never knew you." (Matthew 22). They will have a form or godliness but will deny the power (II Timothy 3:5) to move mountains through prayer. (Matthew 17:20). Jesus explained that he has not given us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power, love, and a sound mind. (II Timothy 1:17) I wonder if the innocent moms and dads, brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles, and grandmas and grandpas who were the victims of US military weapons (the never reported collateral damages we are protected from in the "liberal" nightly news) felt the love of Jesus along with the "shock and awe". I wonder if the surviving family members now understand His radical love and that they no longer have any need for weapons or defense.

The solutions to the social issues used to manipulate good, decent people have no resemblance to how Jesus responded to the social concerns of his time. He never once mentioned the "right to life" the year he was born King Herod ordered the execution of all babies. (Matthew 2:16). He knew that passing laws does not change the heart. As a follower of his teaching I believe in the right to life, including the children in Iraq who stumble onto land mines, cross the street at the wrong time, or who are snuggly tucked within the warm bellies of their wounded or grieving mothers as US fighter jets fly overhead. These are living, breathing children. The killing of these little ones are never even reported, and our tax dollars pay for these bombs. I believe in the right to life for those in the United States who are unwanted and impoversihed. I believe in the right to life of the naive kid who was promised by the recruiter they could choose a desk job and still get their education paid or could see the world or could accelerate their life or could play a very realistic video game from a cockpit. I've worked at a shelter, and I know first hand the reality of unwanted children. I know the reality of this right wing rhetoric when week after week I begged and pleaded with people to give up only one night every three months to sit with these unwanted living children for a few hours while the overworked house parents had a night off. Of the few I found, many changed their minds when they discovered that they would need to wear rubber gloves to change the babies diapers. These "believers" stand on the street corners holding right to life signs and then vote against medical assistance for the mothers and their unwanted children creating an impossible existence for them. The few of these abortion activists who might adopt some of these unwanted children generally want the white and the healthy. The ones with hydrocephalous, tracheotomies, emotional/ mental problems and communicable diseases along with their life long medical expenses can be someone else’s problems.

I cringe as many christians vote for policies that deny help to the poor in our own county, who vote to support the war and military strength, assuring the latest weapons are developed and that the heavens will be dominated by the military of the United States. We develop electromagnetic weapons to shatter skulls , split the earth (http://www.raven1.net/emr13.htm) and silently destroy a body as a thief in the night. Studies are even now searching for the frequencies to override the freewill. These unbelievable technologies are a reality and DNA specific weapons can or soon will target a specific nationality (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/981116/1998111619.html ).I weep as the waters Jesus walked on become contaminated with uranium. (http://www.greendove.net/resources3.htm) I grieve as the missiles fly through the atmosphere on the continent where Jesus rose into the sky, defying death and the grave and where the Holy Sprit first descended. I cry out at the horrors of war and the indignity of the prisons so close to where He took captivity captive.

So I am no longer a christian if Christianity has become what is presented to us by our christian president and christian media. I cannot support the right of the United States and Israel to develop and use the most heinous weapons ever imagined. I want no part of a temple built on the blood of the innocent. The sheep have been lead astray by the teachings of prosperity and misinterpretation of the final battle between good and evil. Many no longer can recognize the voice of the good Shepard. Some "good christians" even work at weapons facilities. It is not a stretch to say that a woman who tightens a last rivet on a shiny new missile just off the assembly line might be the same woman who licks the gold star on the attendance chart in morning Sunday school. The missile could be launched by the kid in the youth group who reads the invocation and it will find it’s destiny at a "target of interest" which might or might not have been a result of good intelligence. The collection plate circulates children are taught to love their enemies and bless those who curse them.

The statements and lifestyle of Jesus are difficult for me to understand. What would he say to evil dictators? This God would not justify 15,000 or more deaths. Even the wrathful jealous God of the old testament spared whole cities for a few righteous souls. For christians, to support mass killings as a way to prevent future deaths is not at all like Christ. He would not say,"When I am talking about war I am really talking about peace," like the self professed christian President proudly states. Who but God has the right to determine what price a people should pay for their freedom? The religious leaders on the airwaves today respond to the voices of the few brave peacemakers who dare to speak out. They say that pacifism is insane, and that it doesn’t make sense, but what is forgotten is that logic and faith are separate entities. I believe in the example of Jesus and his admonition to love your enemies and bless those who curse you . Do I understand how this works on the global scale? Do I know what Jesus would say to all the world’s leaders? No, nor do I totally understand how the example of Christ’s life and his message of love works in the world today. That’s why I need faith. Am I always correct in my assessments and actions? No, that’s why I need grace. Am I brave and unafraid? No, that’s why I need the perfect love that casts out fear. Some put trust in Chariots and some in horses but I will remember the name of the lord our God--the Prince of Peace. Perhaps politics has no place for imitators of Christ. Who will show the face of Christ to the world? Who will speak His radical message? I hear from these so called imitators of Christ that the pacifists are a collection of kids, hippies, socialists and communists who haven’t got a clue. Some of us, however, have come to our beliefs as a result of careful and prayerful study of the scriptures and admonishment from our elders. Many are Mennonite, Amish, Quaker and other Anabaptists, whose ancestors did not resist their torturers and were drowned, burnt at the stake and flogged for their pacifist stand. They truly followed the example of Christ, and their resistance against the catastrophic effects of the merging of church and state cost them a great price. Churches today have signed onto the government plan and have agreed to look the other way in exchange for tax free privileges. The true message of Christ still exists to some degree in the quiet of the land to peacemakers, but sadly these good people have been deceived by the angry words from a righteous sounding religious media majority broadcasting in cars and trucks and tractors all over our land ironically preaching the "good news of war for peace" and convincing 24-7 "liberal" bashing.

I suspect there are many who share my sorrow at the loss of what it means to be Christ-like, but our voice is seldom heard. The blaring rhetoric drowns out the still small voice of the mighty God. Peace used be the opposite of war, Conservative used to mean the tendency to conserve resources. Liberal used to mean kind and generous, and Christian used to mean like Christ. So I am no longer a christian but just a person who continues trying to follow the example of Christ. I’ll let him call me what he wants when I see him face to face. Until then, I will pray that someday people like me will be able to reclaim the meaning of Christ’s identity, and the world will see the effects of the radical message of Christ‘s love--the perfect love that casts out fear.