Doublethink (Part 6)

“On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.”  

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 1, p. 5 by George Orwell.[1]

Millimeter wave body scanner images

“One by one they passed in front of me, teachers, friends, others, all those I had been afraid of, all those I once could have laughed at, all those I had lived with over the years.  They went by, fallen, dragging their packs, dragging their lives, deserting their homes, the years of their childhood, cringing like beaten dogs.

“They passed without a glance in my direction…

“‘When is our turn coming?’ I asked my father.”

Elie Wiesel describes the move of his Hungarian neighbors from a Jewish ghetto to a Nazi death camp in 1944.[2]

Our Turn Is Coming

During the Bush (R) administration we heard a lot about the prisoners at Guantanamo.  During the Obama (D) administration we hear little about overseas renderings of Islamic persons and the assassination of US citizens—they’re labeled Moslem fanatics, so it’s ok.  Most Americans today are preoccupied with Obamacare, home foreclosures, and their next paycheck, and don’t pay much attention.

The National Security Agency (NSA) goes overboard with warrantless searches, but most Americans rationalize that they’ve got nothing to hide and ignore the stories.  Besides, we have a Constitutional Law Professor for President and he agrees with the policy.  Three days after assuming office in 2009:

“The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.”[3]

Something most Americans can’t ignore as easily are the intrusions of the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), the bureaucracy created in a knee jerk response to the 9/11 blowback of 2001.

By mid-September 2004, during the Bush administration, the TSA put in place a policy of “physical frisking” of selected airline passengers before they boarded an airplane.  Immediately after the policy change there were complaints by women who had been “physically frisked” at the airport:

• Singer and actress Patty Lupone described an airline security screener who demanded that LuPone remove her shirt. After protesting, LuPone complied, “revealing a thin, see-through camisole.”  According to Lupone, the screener "was all over me with her hands," touching areas including her groin and breasts.
• Advertising executive Lu Chekowsky said, "routinely, my breasts are being cupped, my behind is being felt."
• “Nancy Jackson, president of a global company in New York that sells interior finishes…has also learned not to express her objections.  ‘If you do,’ she said, ‘They really feel you up, and then check every section of your wallet and every item in your carry-on, including your makeup and toiletries; it's disgusting.’"[4]

Backscatter X-ray Body Scanner Images

TSA Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) Program

By 2007 the TSA introduced two types of Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) airport body scanners at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport to use as a secondary screen on passengers arbitrarily selected for secondary screening: X-ray backscatter scanners and millimeter wave scanners.[5][6]  X-ray backscatter scanners use low-energy X-rays to snoop beneath passengers' clothing.  Millimeter wave scanners  produces images using radio waves, not X-rays.  A smiling TSA bureaucrat demonstrated the backscatter scanner and the virtues of a full body scan: no more groping frisks as the TSA keeps us all “safe.”

On Christmas Day 2009, after the "underwear bomber" intelligence failure, the Obama administration accelerated the deployment of new airport scanners to look beneath travelers' clothes to spot weapons or explosives.  A $215 million proposal by the Obama administration called for the purchase of 500 more machines in addition to the 450 already purchased.[7]  Half of the machines would be X-ray backscatter scanners and the other half would be millimeter wave scanners.

According to TSA plans, by late 2011, nearly 1000 body scanners will be looking under airline passengers' clothing in nearly half of US airport checkpoints.  Across the US, two out of every three passengers will be “asked” to step into one of the new machines for a six-second head-to-toe scan before boarding.

Safety Concerns about X-ray Backscatter Scanners

Most Americans willingly walk through airport scanners, trusting that the federal government has their best interests at heart.  Most air travelers don’t ask about safety and what testing has been done on the scanners—they trust Big Brother.  The state wouldn’t knowingly hurt civilians would it?[8]   

As body scanner usage becomes widespread at airport and public facilities, scientists at Columbia University question whether the risks of skin cancer have been adequately studied.  Scientists at the University of California also questioned “the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has been adequately demonstrated.”  They called for more study of the X-ray body scanners in an April 6, 2010 "Letter of Concern" (pdf) to John Holdren, the president's science adviser:

"The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high.”[10]

The UC letter asked for a more thorough look at the risks of exposing millions of people to X-ray body scanners, and listed concerns about x-ray testing:

• increased risks to people over 65
• increased risks to fraction of females more likely to develop breast cancer
• increased risk for sperm mutagenesis
• increased risk of cancer to immune-compromised individuals
• risk to unborn when scanning pregnant women
• risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents
• unknown effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus
• potential for equipment malfunction delivering increased radiation doses.

Don’t worry, Big Brother says the X-ray body scanners are safe: it meets the guidelines of the American National Standards Institute for the amount of radiation emitted.  What Big Brother doesn’t tell you:

“…guess who was on the committee that developed the guidelines for the X-ray scanners? Representatives from the companies that make the machines and the Department of Homeland Security, among others. In other words, the machines passed a test developed, in part, by the companies that manufacture them and the government agency that wants to use them.”[11]

Who Watches the Watchers?

“Millimeter wave uses electromagnetic waves to generate an image based on the energy reflected from the body. It passes harmless electromagnetic waves over the human body to create a robotic image...

“Passenger privacy is ensured through the anonymity of the image: The officer attending the passenger will not view the image, and as an additional precaution, the officer viewing the image will be remotely located and the image won't be stored, transmitted or printed, and deleted immediately once viewed. In fact, the machines have zero storage capability.”  TSA press release November 14, 2008[12]  

According to TSA pronouncements to the public, millimeter wave body scanners make unrecognizable “robotic images” of travelers.  According to the TSA, your privacy is protected because:

1. The “robotic images” aren’t recognizable because of a privacy filter.  The TSA doesn’t tell the public that they can change the settings of the privacy filter, but the TSA wouldn’t change the settings to show more detail would it?
2. And if the images were recognizable—which they aren’t of course, because the privacy filter makes them “robotic images,” and the TSA wouldn’t change the privacy filter settings—the TSA officer looking at them won’t be in the same room to see the person scanned.
3. And if the images were recognizable—which they aren’t because the TSA wouldn’t change the privacy filter settings after they demonstrated how “robotic” the image is to the news media—the image can’t be stored. 
4. And if the images were recognizable and stored—both of which, according to public announcements by the TSA, cannot happen—it’s only on one machine, and it’s a “robotic image”—the machines aren’t networked, so the images can’t be transmitted.
5. And if the images were recognizable, stored, and networked—which of course they aren’t and can’t be—remember, it’s only a “robotic image” because of the privacy filter.

Thus “passenger privacy is ensured” by the TSA.

At least that’s what the TSA wants you to think.  They want you to ignore the evidence that body scans are “virtual strip-searches” as AIT scanners record full-frontal nudity (video).  Introduction of the scanners in Great Britain raised concerns that the scanners violated child pornography laws there by making images of naked children.[13]

In America, Big Brother lies about privacy concerns to willing double-thinkers.  Introducing the AIT scanners at JFK airport on October 21, 2010, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declined to demonstrate a “robotic image” of her package in one of the devices, and you can be sure she wasn’t frisked either.  That didn’t stop her from chanting the TSA litany for all the robots who would be stepping through the machines:

"Those who read the images are not actually physically at the gate, so they cannot associate an image with an individual person at all…

"And the machines are set so that no image is retained."[14]

In the Daily News video embedded with the online article about Napolitano at JFK, TSA Assistant Administrator for Security Operations Lee Kair regurgitated the other part of the TSA litany by noting that the image is “more like a chalk etching, not like a photograph,” because of the privacy filters built in to the scanner.

The TSA has repeatedly claimed that the scanners are incapable of storing or transmitting the naked images of scanned travelers.  The TSA website on Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) states:

“Advanced imaging technology cannot store, print, transmit or save the image, and the image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer.” 

Why would an image need to be “automatically deleted” from the system if the system can’t store the image?

What the TSA Doesn’t Tell You

According to TSA public announcements, the millimeter wave body scanners create a “robotic image” and have zero storage capability for that image.  The US Marshall service uses the same device and admits it stored 35,000 images on a body scanner used at a Florida courthouse checkpoint.[15]  A letter from the TSA to the Congressional chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security also contradicts the “zero storage capability” public statement:

“AIT has the ability to store and transmit data; however, the only locations where the functionalities of storage and data transmission are enabled are at the testing and development sites: TSIF, TSL, and TML.” - February 24, 2010 letter (pdf)  from the Acting Administrator of the TSA to the Congressional chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Page 5 of the 70-page TSA procurement specification (pdf) for the scanners states that the scanner must "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide a mechanism for "high-speed transfer of image data (raw and reconstructed)" over the network.

Page 5 of the specification (pdf) also states that the scanners shall have “a means to multiplex images, allowing up to 64 IOCPs (Image Operator Control Panels) to receive images from up to 64 WBI (Whole Body Imager) systems utilizing the network requirements set forth in section 3.1.1.3.6.”  Section 3.1.1.3.6 is titled “Network Interface.”  Does any of that sound like the scanners can be networked to you?

Page 5 of the specification (pdf) also says that the scanner will have "image filters to protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger."  These filters create the “robotic image” or the “chalklike etchings.”  The specification also states that “Enabling and disabling of image filtering shall be modifiable.”  Why does the TSA tell the public about the privacy filter, but neglect to mention they can change it?

But don’t worry about all of those details.  They’re Big Brother’s concern.  What the TSA wants you to remember is:

“…all full-body scanners have ‘strong privacy protections in place’ and are delivered to airports ‘without the capability to store, print or transmit images.’"  Anonymous TSA official[16]

What they do not want you to notice is that Janet Napolitano wouldn’t step into one of the new AIT scanners to demonstrate it.

The US Constitution Doesn’t Apply

Worried about your 4th Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizures?  Relax, according to the Big Brother there’s no need to concern yourself.  The federal government maintains that body scanning is perfectly constitutional:

“Such searches are prophylactic in nature and designed to advance the vital goal of protecting the public, rather than being focused on criminal law enforcement and directed at apprehending specific suspects; they do not require either a warrant or individualized suspicion.” – Pp. 5-6 of DOJ response (pdf) to a case brought against TSA by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).[17]

According to Big Brother, your 4th Amendment protections don’t apply.  The TSA is searching everyone indiscriminately—"prophylactically.”  If they violate everyone’s rights, they’re not discriminating.  It’s ok!  And don’t forget, the TSA performs a “crucial function”:

"The program is designed to respect individual sensibilities regarding privacy, modesty and personal autonomy to the maximum extent possible, while still performing its crucial function of protecting all members of the public from potentially catastrophic events." – P. 9 of DOJ response (pdf) to a case brought against TSA by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

To further reassure yourself, keep in mind that the “TSA respects the fundamental values of individual autonomy and privacy” and will “allow” you to have your crotch groped by a TSA official if you don’t want to walk through a body scanner when asked:

“Furthermore, TSA respects the fundamental values of individual autonomy and privacy by allowing individuals to request an alternative method of screening (a pat down search) if they choose to do so, and by ensuring – contrary to petitioners’ assertion – that AIT images will not be stored, transmitted or otherwise misused.” – P. 6 of DOJ response (pdf) to a case brought against TSA by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

What are the watchers up to while they’re watching over you?  Among other things, they’re robbing you as they rifle your luggage, ogling you if you have large breasts or a small penis, and otherwise sexually and physically harassing you.[18]

But Big Brother wants to put your mind at ease.  The TSA is keeping you safe from all of those terrorists who hate your freedoms.

Freedom is Slavery

Some people, insufficiently cowed, refuse to be virtually strip-searched.  Some “voluntarily comply” by “choosing to be frisked,” so the TSA has responded with a new palms-down policy for frisking to discourage anyone from refusing a body scan before boarding an airplane.

One victim of the groping described it this way:

“It was extremely invasive. This was a very probing-type touching - not just patting over all your areas, but actually probing and pushing and seeing if I was concealing something in my genital area.”[19]

Now air travelers can “freely choose” to stand in front of X-ray backscatter scanners of questionable safety, or millimeter wave scanners to be virtually strip searched, or instead have their privates fondled with the new palms-down frisking policy, all in the name of keeping us safe.

The state prosecutes sexual assaults by subway gropers and peeping toms for violating the rights of individuals.  But we’re supposed to thank the state as it sexually assaults air travelers and says it’s for the traveler’s own good.[20]  Drone-like, Americans say, “Yes, fondle my wife’s breasts—or take a picture of my daughter’s.  And thank-you for protecting the hive.”

This constant monitoring isn’t unique to airports.  Our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches are violated practically every time we leave our homes.  It’s happening with scanners at bus stations (video), metal detectors at government buildings and public events, and cameras on street corners.  Unfortunately, frightened Americans now think it’s reasonable to empty their pockets when they walk into buildings, and to be groped or virtually strip-searched at the airport by any federal agent in a uniform.

What’s particularly intrusive about body scanners and frisking is both practices push the limits of state control to the point where the state owns even our right to be clothed to protect the privacy of our own bodies.  What do we own if not our own bodies?  With body scanners, the state arrogates the right to strip and grope you whenever it wants.

There’s no hiding when Big Brother is watching you.

What’s Next?

“If it keeps us safe, I’m all for it.” – An American sheep responding to questions about the latest federal incursion (pick one) on his/her liberties.

Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano wants air travelers watched around the world.  At a Montreal meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), she urged other countries “to move to the next stage of screening”:

The U.S. Homeland Security chief will urge 190 nations today to improve aviation security with body scanners and other innovations to stop terrorists from carrying plastic and powdered explosives onto airplanes.[21]

What other innovations does Napolitano refer to?  Plastic gloves for checking rectums now that terrorists carry explosives there?

Americans already willingly spread their legs, raise their arms in surrender, and submit to virtual strip searches and real gropes.  When Big Brother asks, most double-thinking “free” Americans won’t give it a second thought before they bend over.

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 5.

[2] Night, Elie Wiesel, Bantam Books, Inc., 1982, pp. 14-15.

[3] “Obama Sides With Bush in Spy Case,” By David Kravets, Wired, January 22, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/ on Oct. 19, 2010).

[4] “Many Women Say Airport Pat-Downs Are a Humiliation,” By JOE SHARKEY, NY Times, November 23, 2004, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/business/23grope.html?pagewanted=print&position= on Sept. 27, 2010).

[5] “Revealing X-ray machine set to scan Sky Harbor fliers,” Ginger D. Richardson, Arizona Republic, Feb. 23, 2007, (Accessed at http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0223backscatter0223.html on Oct. 22, 2010).

[6] “Full-Body Scanner Begins Tests at Phoenix Airport,” October 11, 2007, AP, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301160,00.html on Oct. 21, 2010).

[7] “Airport-security plan calls for 500 body scanners in '11,” By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY, 2/3/2010, (Accessed at http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-02-02-body-scanner_N.htm on Oct. 4, 2010).

[8] Would the federal government knowingly hurt people?  They’re not like the Nazis who experimented on concentration camp prisoners are they?

Consider:

• Tuskegee experiments
• Unethical human experimentation in the US
• Syphilis experiments in Guatemala by US[9]
• Collateral damage in any war.

[9] “U.S. Apologizes for Syphilis Tests in Guatemala,” By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., NY Times, October 1, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/research/02infect.html?_r=1&th&emc=th on Oct. 2, 2010).

[10] “Scientists Question Safety Of New Airport Scanners,” by Richard Knox, May 17, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083 on July 21, 2010).

[11] “Are Scanners Worth the Risk?” By SUSAN STELLIN, NY Times, September 7, 2010, (Accessed at http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/travel/12prac.html on Oct. 3, 2010).

[12] “TSA Launches Millimeter Wave Technology in Richmond,” TSA Press Release, Nov. 14, 2008, (Accessed at http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2008/1114.shtm on Oct. 24, 2010).

[13] “New scanners break child porn laws,” Alan Travis, Guardian, 4 January 2010, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws on Oct. 24, 2010).

[14] “Body scanners unveiled at JFK Airport; Homeland Security Sect. Janet Napolitano doesn't volunteer,” BY Christina Boyle, DAILY NEWS, October 22nd 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/22/2010-10-22_body_scanners_unveiled_at_jfk_airport_homeland_security_sect_janet_napolitano_do.html on Oct. 27, 2010).

At 1:50 in the Daily News video, the woman Image Operator (IO) operating the scanner inadvertently shows the ability of the machine to show more resolution when she scans over the left foot of the scanned image for an instant.  (This capability is more apparent in this video.)  She immediately moves the cursor as this capability contradicts Asst. Administrator Kair’s statements.

[15] “Feds admit they stored body scanner images, despite TSA claim the images cannot be saved,” NY Daily News, BY Aliyah Shahid, August 4th 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/04/2010-08-04_feds_admit_they_stored_body_scanner_images_despite_tsa_claim_the_images_cannot_b.html?obref=obnetwork on Oct. 22, 2010).

[16] “Body scanners can store, send images, group says,” By Jeanne Meserve and Mike M. Ahlers, CNN, January 11, 2010, (Accessed at http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/11/body.scanners/  on Oct. 24, 2010).

[17] “Feds admit storing checkpoint body scan images,” by Declan McCullagh, CNET, August 4, 2010, (Accessed at http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20012583-281.html on Oct. 3, 2010).

[18] In Florida: “TSA Screener Cited "Torture" In Scanner Case; Arrestee's genitalia was exposed by "full body" device,” Smoking Gun, (Accessed at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/tsa-screener-cited-torture-scanner-case on Sept. 24, 2010).

In Philadelphia: “Another flier's run-in with the TSA,” by Daniel Rubin, The Inquirer, June 14, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/96273368.html?&subscribe=y&listID=1782 on Oct. 22, 2010).

In Seattle: “Former TSA supervisor admits stealing luggage,” Aug. 16, 2010, Huffington Post, (Accessed at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100816/us-tsa-supervisor-theft/ on Oct. 22, 2010).

In Great Britain: “Airport Worker Pervs Over Woman In Body Scanner: ‘I Love Those Gigantic Tits’,” Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com, March 24, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.prisonplanet.com/airport-worker-pervs-over-woman-in-body-scanner-look-at-those-gigantic-tits.html on July 21, 2010).

In Nigeria: “Now showing at MMIA: Nude images of passengers; Security officials gather and giggle at naked travelers in body scanner,” By Chinedu Eze , 09.20.2010, (Accessed at http://odili.net/news/source/2010/sep/21/232.html on Sept. 30, 2010).

“They use the machines, installed in the wake of the Farouk AbdulMutallab affair, to watch the naked images of female passengers for fun.

“The controversial body scanners have been dubbed "e-stripping" in advanced countries because of the way they expose the nakedness of those being screened.

“THISDAY discovered that during off-peak periods, the aviation security officials, who are trained on the use of the scanners, usually stroll from the cubicle located in a hidden corner on the right side of the screening area where the 3D full-body scanner monitors are located.

“They do so to catch a glimpse of some of the passengers entering the machine and immediately go back to view the naked images, in order to match the faces with the images since the faces are blurred on the monitors while passengers are inside the machine.

“The face that appears on the scanner's monitor is usually blurred so that the operator viewing the full body will not recognise who passes through the machine.

“But by coming out to see the passenger in person and then going back to see his or her image, the objective of protecting the privacy of the passenger has been defeated.”

[19] “New Logan searches blasted TSA tests frisky frisking policy,” By Donna Goodison, Boston Herald, August 21, 2010, (Accessed at http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1276131 on Oct. 20, 2010).

“Passengers shocked by new touchy-feely TSA screening,” By Donna Goodison, Boston Herald, August 24, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20100823passengers_shocked_by_new_touchy-feely_tsa_screening/srvc=business&position=also on Oct. 21, 2010).

“Airline passengers from coast to coast are decrying the Transportation Security Administration’s more aggressive body searches, calling screeners’ new front-of-the-hand, slide-down technique not only invasive but an example of Big Brother run amok.
"Rob Webster said he was subjected to a head-to-toe body search that ‘did not miss an inch’ and even included a “probing and pushing” of his genital area when flying home from Las Vegas to Seattle last week.
“’If anybody ever groped me like that in real life, I would have punched them in their nose,’ the 50-year-old said. ‘It was extremely invasive. This was a very probing-type touching - not just patting over all your areas, but actually probing and pushing and seeing if I was concealing something in my genital area.’”

[20] “Breast Exams at the Airport: Do the New Security Measures Go Too Far?” By SHERRY F. COLB, Findlaw, Dec. 01, 2004, (Accessed at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20041201.html on Sept. 27, 2010).

“The hunches of security personnel (the reliability of whose hunches is nowhere evident) are now enough to subject people to what would otherwise constitute a sexual assault, that is, a nonconsensual touching of breasts and/or groin, as a condition for innocent non-suspects traveling freely around the country and internationally. ”

[21] “Napolitano pitches plan for air security to 190 nations,” By Thomas Frank, USA TODAY, 28 Sept. 2010, (Accessed at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-09-28-1Anapolitano28_ST_N.htm on Sept. 30, 2010).

Doublethink (Part 5)

“Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.”    

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 3, p. 31-32 by George Orwell.[1]

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld (R), then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan (R), in Baghdad on December 20, 1983 (video).

“Yet, while we condemn what has happened in Afghanistan, we are not without hope. To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson -- that there are things in this world worth defending.

“To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.”

President Ronald Reagan (R) on March 21, 1983 praising Afghan freedom fighters, now known as al Qaeda, in their fight against Russian invaders in Afghanistan.[2]

What changed Reagan’s “freedom fighters” to terrorists? 

The War Moves to Eastasia…

Nineteen Eighty-Four is a world of continual war with changing alliances and enemies.  A nation always at war has no time for liberty, much like the US as it transforms itself to a surveillance state with the TSA and the USA PATRIOT Act to “protect” the nation from its enemies. 

Nineteen Eighty-Four’s Ministry of Peace “concerned itself with war” analogously to the US Department of Defense concerning itself with offense—aka preemptive war and invading foreign nations. 

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Oceania’s enemy continually changes between Eurasia and Eastasia, just as the US continually changes enemies and allies, and which country it occupies in the Middle East:

• In 1953 during the Eisenhower (R) administration, the CIA helped overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh and install the Shah—Iran had been an enemy, after 1953 it became an ally.
• In 1959 during the Eisenhower administration, Saddam Hussein was part of a failed “CIA-authorized six-man squad” to assassinate then-Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.  Hussein was an ally to the US and worked with the CIA.
• In July 1979, the Carter (D) administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski had the brainstorm to fund al Qaeda in Afghanistan and lure the Soviet Union into war there—al Qaeda was an ally, but they were called the mujahideen.  The CIA-funded program, Operation Cyclone, used Pakistan’s ISI to funnel money and arms to the mujahideen.
• During the 1979 Iranian revolution, the US-supported Shah was overthrown, the US embassy was overrun, and the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1981 made Iran an enemy and Iraq an ally of the US.
• From 1981 to 1988, the Reagan (R) administration continued Operation Cyclone to support the mujahideen, and supplied aid to Pakistan, too.  President Reagan dedicated the space shuttle Columbia to the “Afghan freedom fighters” trying to force Russian invaders out of Afghanistan (video).
• The Reagan administration supported Iraq in its war against Iran with chemical and biological weapons, military training, and military support—Iran was still the enemy.  During this time the US military shot down an Iranian Air A300 passenger plane, mistaking it for an F-14 Iranian fighter.  Hussein was still a US ally (video).
• From August 20, 1985 – March 4, 1987, the Reagan administration shipped arms to Israel for transfer to Iran in an attempt to improve relations and to gain the release of six hostages held in Iran—Iran was an enemy, but the US supplied them with weapons in their nine-year war against our “ally” Iraq.
• During the George H. W. Bush (R) administration, the US with UN help, "liberated” Kuwait by embargoing Iraq in August 1990, and attacking Iraqi forces in Kuwait in February 1991—Iraq was the new enemy and Hussein was the new Hitler.
• From 1993 through 2000, the Clinton (D) administration continues the Iraqi embargo, as does the George W. Bush (R) administration until 2003—Iraq remained the enemy.  Hussein was still evil.
• In 2001 during the George W. Bush administration, the US invades Afghanistan—the Taliban and al Qaeda (mujahideen) become the enemy—they’ve always been the enemy—get your memory under control.
• In 2003 during the Bush administration, the US invades Iraq—Iraq was the enemy—Iraq always was the enemy.
• In 2009, the Obama (D) administration moves the focus of the war against terrorism back to Afghanistan—al Qaeda is still the enemy—they always have been.
• Recently the Obama administration moved its war to Pakistan with drone strikes and men on the ground, and into Yemen, too.[3][4]  Al Qaeda is the enemy.

…and “Collateral Damage” Moves With It

Since the endless US “war on terrorism” supposedly started because of US civilians killed on 9/11, shouldn’t we expect more trouble to result if the US itself kills civilians?  Isn’t it reasonable to expect that people in other countries will get very angry if their children are slaughtered?  Wouldn’t one expect moving US military activity to Pakistan and Yemen to increase antipathy to the US?  

The December 25th, 2009 underwear bomber  from Nigeria:

“Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, charged with the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253, told FBI agents there were more just like him in Yemen who would strike soon.”[5]

Or after the attempted Times Square bombing in N.Y.:

“The man who attempted to detonate a truck filled with explosives in Times Square told a judge that the C.I.A. drone campaign was one of the factors that led him to attack the United States.”[6]

Here are reports of recent drone attacks in Pakistan:

• From Reuters Aug 23, 2010 - “US Drone strike kills 20 people in Pakistan” where seven civilians (four women and three children) were killed.
• From Antiwar.com Sept 8, 2010 – “Children Among 24 Killed as US Drone Strikes Rock Pakistan Strikes Destroy Homes, Car in North Waziristan” where four children were killed.
• From Dawn.com Sept 24, 2010 – “Three drone strikes in North Waziristan; 18 killed” where four children were among the 18 killed.

When Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was asked about the civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan, she rivaled former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in callousness:

“Asked repeatedly about the drones, a subject that involves highly classified CIA operations, Clinton said only that ‘there is a war going on.’”[7]

Albright (video) infamously said the estimated 500,000 civilian deaths in Iraq during the US-sponsored embargo of that country before 9/11 were “worth it.” 

On June 24, 2010, the US Congress approved sanctions on Iran (video) similar to the 13-year embargo on Iraq before the US invasion in 2003. 

Is Iran the next Eurasia?

If you hated the Bush wars and voted for Obama, do you still pretend that voting for Obama made any difference?

“War prisoners apart, the average citizen of Oceania never sets eyes on a citizen of either Eurasia or Eastasia, and he is forbidden the knowledge of foreign languages. If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies. The sealed world in which he lives would be broken, and the fear, hatred, and self-righteousness on which his morale depends might evaporate.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 2 Chapter 9, p. 162 by George Orwell.

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 31-2.

[2] “Message on the Observance of Afghanistan Day,” March 21, 1983, (Accessed at http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/32183e.htm on Oct. 6, 2010).

On March 21, 1983, President Reagan said the following:

“Today, March 21st, is New Years Day in much of the Moslem world. New years, of course, should be an occasion for celebration. But for the Moslem people of Afghanistan, whose country was attacked and is occupied by the Soviet Army, it is a bitter reminder of a national calamity that befell their nation more than 3 years ago. To focus the world's attention on this crime against an innocent and brave nation, we observe today the second annual Afghanistan Day.

“In Afghanistan, tens of thousands of people have been killed, millions have lost their homes and their livelihood. Others have been subjected to torture and other atrocities, and many have been victims of the grisly chemical and biological weapons, including yellow rain -- weapons the Soviets have used in violation of solemn international agreements. The consequences of this calamity extend to Pakistan, which has assumed the burden of sheltering and feeding nearly 3 million refugees.

“Yet, while we condemn what has happened in Afghanistan, we are not without hope. To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson -- that there are things in this world worth defending.

“To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.

“The Soviet people have known great suffering -- more than other people. They should be able to sympathize with the terrible suffering of the Afghan people. To the Soviet leaders, I urge you in the name of humanity to end the bloodshed so that an independent Afghanistan can again take its place in the community of nations. The West has no designs upon Afghanistan. We do not threaten you there or anywhere on the globe. All we seek is the restoration of peace and freedom for a noble and brave people whom we remember today.”

Note: The President's message was taped at 11:12 a.m. in his study adjoining the Oval Office at the White House.

[3]  “U.N. Report Highly Critical of U.S. Drone Attacks,” By CHARLIE SAVAGE, NY Times, June 2, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/world/03drones.html?pagewanted=all on Sept. 24, 2010).

[4] "Obama Says Al Qaeda in Yemen Planned Bombing Plot, and He Vows Retribution," By PETER BAKER, NY Times, January 2, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/politics/03address.html?th&emc=th on January 3, 2010).

[5] “Abdulmutallab: More Like Me In Yemen,” By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO, ABC News, Dec. 28, 2009, (Accessed at http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/abdulmutallab-yemen/story?id=9430536&page=1 on October 3, 2010).

[6] “C.I.A. Steps Up Drone Attacks on Taliban in Pakistan,” By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT, NY Times, September 27, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/world/asia/28drones.html?_r=1&th&emc=th on Sept 28, 2010).

[7] “Pakistanis confront Clinton over drone attacks; Clinton confronted by Pakistanis over Predator drone attacks _ 'executions without trial',” ROBERT BURNS, AP News, Oct 30, 2009, (Accessed at http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/10/30/pakistanis-confront-clinton-over-drone-attacks-6/ on Sept 24, 2010).

Doublethink (Part 4)

“The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother — it was all a sort of glorious game to them. All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals.”   

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 2, p. 24 by George Orwell.[1]

Remembering 9/11

On September 11th, 2010 across the US, Americans commemorated the anniversary of 9/11  with US flags, speeches, flowers floating in reflecting pools, and patriotic songs.  The President spoke at the Pentagon, and his wife, with her predecessor, spoke at Shanksville, Pa.  There was also the obligatory anti-Moslem controversy over the mosque at the World Trade Center site, and the pastor who wanted to burn the Koran.[2]

Our rulers can’t let us forget “the day America changed forever” because they use the terror of that day to justify invading two nations and seizing more power here at home by tightening the chains on American citizens.  The US government, like Orwell’s Big Brother, keeps its citizens’ “ferocity… turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals.”

US is in a State of National Emergency

With the remembrances of the victims comes the continual reminder of an evil that killed nearly 3,000 US civilians.  The US has been in a state of National Emergency since September 14, 2001 because of it.  President Obama quietly extended the state of National Emergency for its 10th year.  He conveniently notified Congress on September 10th, when most Americans are distracted with upcoming September 11th memorials.[3] 

If anyone even chanced to notice the quiet departure of more of our liberties amidst all the patriotic memorializing of the nearly 3,000 Americans victims, who would dare question the President?

Be Afraid

Our rulers want us to “rally round the flag” while looking outwards for foreign enemies.  They want us terrified so that we ignore, or even support, their removal of many of our freedoms  over the last nine years.  Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano marked the ninth anniversary of 9/11 in New York vowing to keep up the fight against terrorists:

“We can’t guarantee there won’t be another successful terrorist attack.  The threats we face are evolving, and enemies like Al Qaeda and its affiliates are determined. … Today, on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, I can pledge to you this: We will do everything in our power to prevent attacks and to prepare ourselves.”[4]

They need us to be afraid.  They need us to stay fearful and support wars in foreign countries:

• They need us to support the war in Afghanistan which Obama escalated to fight al Qaeda terrorism. 
• They need us to support the war as they move it to Pakistan. 
• They need us to support it as they try to move it to Iran.
• They need us to be afraid despite CIA chief Leon Panetta’s estimate that there are no more than 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan.[5]

Terrorism vs. Collateral Damage

Why do you think we’re repeatedly reminded of the nearly 3,000 US civilians killed on 9/11, but not that the US military killed more than 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan in the first six months of what is now a nine-year war to avenge the deaths of 9/11?[6][7]

Why is it that when Americans civilians are killed, they’re victims of terrorism and when foreign civilians are killed, they’re merely collateral damage?

Is it possible that people who lose family members to “collateral damage” might get angry enough to become “terrorists”?  Who then fathers terrorism?

12-year old Ali, an Iraqi victim of US rockets in 2003, wasn’t terrorized, just damaged collaterally.[8]

Can you see a difference between terrorism and collateral damage?  If you can, you’re on your way to understanding doublethink as well as Syme, a character in Nineteen Eighty-Four: 

“'Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.’

“One of these days, thought Winston with sudden deep conviction, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 5, p. 47 by George Orwell.

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 24.

[2] “On Sept. 11 Anniversary, Rifts Amid Mourning,” By ANNE BARNARD and MANNY FERNANDEZ, NY Times, September 11, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/nyregion/12sept11.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on Sept. 24, 2010).

[3] “Letter from the President on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks,” Sept. 10, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/10/letter-president-continuation-national-emergency-with-respect-certain-te on Sept. 24, 2010).

September 10, 2010

Dear Madam Speaker:    (Dear Mr. President:)

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year.

The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2010, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.

                       Sincerely,

                       BARACK OBAMA

[4] “Janet Napolitano vows to keep up fight,” By MIKE ALLEN, 9/10/10, (Accessed at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41967.html on Sept. 24, 2010).

[5] “New Estimate of Strength of Al Qaeda Is Offered,” By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK MAZZETTI, NY Times, June 30, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/world/asia/01qaeda.html on Sept. 25, 2010).

Apparently if 50-100 al Qaeda is an acceptable justification for escalation of the war in Afghanistan, Panetta estimated 300 al Qaeda in Pakistan to justify US drones in Pakistan.  (Shades of Cambodia and Laos in the 1970s…)

If you’re ready for triple-think:  “The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the ‘Arc of Crisis’ Part I,” by Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, September 5, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAR20100905&articleId=20907 on Sept. 24, 2010).

[6] “Tighter Rules Fail to Stem Deaths of Innocent Afghans at Checkpoints,” By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr., NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?_r=1 on September 21, 2010).

[7] “US forces 'kill 8 children' in night raid on village in Afghanistan,” Scotsman, 31 December 2009, By JEROME STARKEY in KABUL, (Accessed at http://news.scotsman.com/world/US-forces-kill-8-children.5947753.jp on Sept. 21, 2010).

[8] “Blood Brothers,” By TOM NEWTON DUNN, The Sun, 03 Apr 2010, (Accessed at http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2919198/Victims-of-Iraq-war-meet-amputee-British-soldiers.html on Sept. 30, 2010).

Then twelve year old Ali, is now 19 and adjusted to his life without arms.  His doctor thought he would die within weeks after the rocket attack that killed most of his family (his aunt survived).  I’ve quoted liberally from the article in the New Yorker as I’m sure it will be instructive in distinguishing the vast difference between victims of terrorism and those who are merely “collateral damage”:

“Dr. Saleh stopped to talk briefly with three European doctors from Médecins Sans Frontières, the nongovernmental organization that had been in Iraq for several weeks, assisting Iraqi doctors.

“One of Dr. Saleh’s assistants, a young woman, had pulled some images up on a computer screen in his office. Dr. Saleh invited me to look at them with him. The first image the assistant showed us was of a boy lying naked in the emergency operating theatre. A catheter and tube was attached to his penis. The child’s legs were smooth, but his entire torso was black, and his arms were horribly burned. At about the biceps, the flesh of both arms became charred, black grotesqueries. One of his hands was a twisted, melted claw. His other arm had apparently been burned off at the elbow, and two long bones were sticking out of it. It looked like something that might be found in a barbecue pit.

“The child’s face was covered by an anesthesia mask. ‘This is Ali,’ Dr. Saleh said. ‘He is twelve. He was wounded in a rocket attack the night before last in the southeastern part of Baghdad, about fifteen minutes from here. Ali lost his mother, his father, and his six brothers and sisters. Four homes were destroyed; in one of them, the whole family was killed, eight people.’

“It was hard to imagine that the person in the photograph could be alive, but Dr. Saleh said that Ali was still conscious. ‘I don’t think he will survive, though,’ he said in a flat tone. ‘These burned people have complications after three or four days; in the first week they usually get septicemia.’ His assistant was pulling up new images on her monitor. They showed Ali again, on the same bed and in the same position as before, but this time without his charred appendages. Both arms had been amputated, and the stumps were wrapped in white bandages. His torso was covered in some kind of clear grease. The mask had been removed from his face, and he appeared to be sleeping. He had a beautiful head, with the feminine features of a prepubescent boy. In another picture, Ali was awake, staring at the camera with large, expressionless eyes.

“Dr. Saleh’s assistant breathed in sharply and put one hand over her mouth. Then she brought up some images of Ali’s family just after the bodies had arrived at the hospital’s morgue. It was difficult to make out what had once been human beings. Cloth stuck to the bodies, bits of bold red-and-green fabric with flower designs. There seemed to be some straw mixed in, and I asked Dr. Saleh if they had been farming people. He said yes, and pointed out Ali’s mother. Her face had been cut in half, as if by a giant cleaver, and her mouth was yawning open. In other pictures, which Dr. Saleh said were of Ali’s father and a younger sister, all I could see was a macabre collection of charred body parts and some red flesh. The body of his brother was all there, it seemed, but from the nose up his head was gone, simply sheared off, like the head of a rubber doll. His mouth, like that of his mother, was open, as if he were screaming.

“‘Have you seen enough?’ the assistant asked me quietly. I didn’t say anything, so she showed me more pictures. After a few minutes of this, Dr. Saleh said, ‘O.K. This is just part of the tragedy.’ He asked me if I wanted to see Ali.

“I followed Dr. Saleh to the burn unit, where some men helped us on with green smocks, face masks, gauzy hair nets, and shoe coverings. Then we walked down a bare and quiet hall that reminded me of a prison corridor. The only thing on the walls was a framed portrait of Saddam Hussein. Dr. Saleh opened a door and we went into a small room where an older woman in a black abaya, Ali’s aunt, was sitting in a chair. A tiny window in the far wall of the room let in some sunlight. The aunt was sitting next to a bed on wheels that had a hooplike structure over it. Dr. Saleh carefully pulled back a coarse gray blanket, and I saw Ali’s naked chest, his bandaged stumps, and his face. His large eyes were hazel, flecked with green. He had long eyelashes and wavy brown hair. I didn’t know what to say.

“Dr. Saleh asked Ali how he felt. ‘O.K.,’ he said. Wasn’t he in a lot of pain, I said to Dr. Saleh, in a whisper. I spoke in English. ‘No,’ he replied. ‘Deeply burned patients don’t feel much pain because of the damage to their nerves.’ I stared at Ali, who looked back at me and at Dr. Saleh. His aunt got up and stood behind the head of the bed. She said nothing.

“I asked Dr. Saleh to ask Ali what he was thinking about. Ali spoke for a moment in Arabic, in a boy’s soft, high-pitched voice. ‘He doesn’t think of anything, and he doesn’t remember anything,’ Dr. Saleh said. He explained that Ali did not know that his family was dead. I asked Ali about school. He was in the sixth grade, he said, and his favorite subject was geography. As he spoke, his aunt stroked his hair. Did he like sports? Yes, he replied, especially volleyball, and also soccer…

“…Dr. Saleh rubbed his eyes and cleared his throat several times. We went back to his office, and he washed his face in a sink. ‘So it’s untrue what they say about doctors being able to suspend their emotions,’ I said.

“He looked at me. His eyes were pink. ‘We are human beings,’ he replied. He explained that Ali knew that he had lost his arms, but that he had not acknowledged it yet: ‘He is conscious. He can see the stumps.’ Ali would likely die within three weeks.”[9]

[9] “Letter from Baghdad, War Wounds; Bombs fall and the lights go out” by Jon Lee Anderson, New Yorker, April 14, 2003, (Accessed at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/04/14/030414fa_fact1?currentPage=all on Oct 1, 2010).

Doublethink (Part 3)

“It was always at night — the arrests invariably happened at night. The sudden jerk out of sleep, the rough hand shaking your shoulder, the lights glaring in your eyes, the ring of hard faces round the bed. In the vast majority of cases there was no trial, no report of the arrest. People simply disappeared, always during the night.”   

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 1, p. 19-20 by George Orwell.[1]

Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.        

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 3, p. 32 by George Orwell.

An Obama Presidency and the Promise of the Return to the Rule of Law

Two days after Obama (D) assumed the Presidency, he announced his plan to close the prison camps in Guantanamo within a year, but never closed them.  This  foreshadowed his August 31, 2010 speech when he would announce the ending of combat operations in Iraq without intending to end them.[2] 

On January 22, 2009, the former professor of Constitutional Law and freshly inaugurated President decreed that from now on detentions and interrogations would be conducted lawfully, and the prison at Guantanamo would be closed.  The President also commissioned a study(pdf) to decide what to do with the prisoners in Guantanamo.[3]

President Obama was fulfilling promises that candidate Obama had made.  He had promised change: he would close down Guantanamo upon taking office.[4][5]  When candidate Obama responded to a 2007 Boston Globe questionnaire about executive power:

“5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

“No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”[6]

Obama’s Promise to Close Down Guantanamo: Flushed Down the Memory Hole

Many of the voting proletariat actually believed candidate Obama: they believed an Obama administration would restore the rule of law by closing the prison at Guantanamo and ending the torture of suspected terrorists.

How have Obama’s promised changes worked out thus far?

Nearly two years after Obama’s decree, the prison at Guantanamo is still open.  In fact, 50 of the prisoners are slated to be held indefinitely without trial.

Obama has also continued the Bush (R) administration policy of kidnapping and transporting  captives to other countries where rules against torturing prisoners are lax.  This practice is euphemistically termed “rendering.”  But don’t worry, they won’t do it very much—they promised, and “US officials are confident” that the prisoners won’t be tortured:

“The Obama administration subsequently said it would continue to send foreign detainees to other countries for questioning, but rarely — and only if U.S. officials are confident the prisoners will not be tortured.”[7]

But if they are tortured (which of course they won’t be), well Big Brother can’t reveal his secrets:

“A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that former prisoners of the C.I.A. could not sue over their alleged torture in overseas prisons because such a lawsuit might expose secret government information.”[8]

Despite the noise it makes, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, is also not the great protector of habeas corpus that it pretends to be.  Two Yemenis and a Tunisian captured outside Afghanistan and held in Bagram for more than six years without trials want a civilian judge to review the evidence against them and order their release, under the constitutional right of habeas corpus:

“The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, has rejected this argument. Officials say the importance of Bagram as a holding site for terrorism suspects captured outside Afghanistan and Iraq has risen under the Obama administration, which barred the Central Intelligence Agency from using its secret prisons for long-term detention and ordered the military prison at Guantánamo closed within a year.”[9]

Corpses instead of Habeas Corpus

The former professor of Constitutional Law has also made himself judge and jury, approving the assassination of US citizens without due process (video).  In April 2010, Obama authorized the CIA to assassinate a US citizen without due process.  But again, don’t worry—according to CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano:

"This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law."[10]

And if they “lawfully” assassinate people, the administration won’t have to worry about any messy discussions about whether to put them on a plane flight to Syria for torture or to imprison them.[11]  If they “lawfully” assassinate people, the administration certainly won’t have to worry about anyone demanding their right to habeas corpus.  Assassination is just another way to flush them down the memory hole.

Did you vote for Obama because you opposed the Bush administration policies in Guantanamo and in the Middle East?

If you still support the President, how do you rationalize your double-thinking?

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 19-20.

[2] “Obama Issues Directive to Shut Down Guantánamo,” By MARK MAZZETTI and WILLIAM GLABERSON, NY Times, January 21, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all on September 21, 2010).

[3] Upon becoming President, Obama issued three executive orders addressing imprisonment without benefit of habeas corpus:

• Executive Order 13491—Ensuring Lawful
  Interrogations (pdf)
• Executive Order 13492—Review and
  Disposition of Individuals Detained at the
  Guanta´namo Bay Naval Base and Closure
  of Detention Facilities (pdf)
• Executive Order 13493—Review of
  Detention Policy Options (pdf).

 Executive Order 13491
Can you spot the loopholes?

Sec. 2.  Definitions.  As used in this order:

(g)  The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.

Sec. 4.  Prohibition of Certain Detention Facilities, and Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals.

(a)  CIA Detention.  The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

Executive Order 13492
Sec. 2. Findings.

(c) The individuals currently detained at Guanta´namo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention.

Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guanta´ namo.

The detention facilities at Guanta´namo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order.
If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guanta´namo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

NOTE (From Wikipedia): “On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp.  As of July 2010, 176 detainees remain at Guantanamo.”

The prisoners are a “hot potato” for Obama.  On December 15, 2009 he issued a Presidential Memorandum ordering preparation of the Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to receive Guantanamo prisoners.

Executive Order 13493
Created a task force to write a report.  The Guantanamo Review Task Force issued its Final Report January 22, 2010, but didn’t release it publicly until May 28, 2010. The report recommended:

• releasing 126 current detainees to their homes or to a third country (Today even Bush administration officials admit that most Guantanamo prisoners are “innocent.”)
• 36 be prosecuted in either federal court or a military commission
• 48 be held indefinitely under the laws of war
• 30 Yemenis were approved for release if security conditions in their home country improve.

[4] “Obama to order Guantanamo Bay prison closed,” January 12, 2009, By Ed Henry CNN Senior White House Correspondent, (Accessed at http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-12/politics/obama.gitmo_1_president-elect-barack-obama-plans-prison-at-guantanamo-bay-military-prison?_s=PM:POLITICS on September 21, 2010).

[5] “Blueprint for Change Obama and Biden’s Plan for America” (pdf)  p. 71, (Accessed at http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf on September 11, 2010).

On page 71 of their campaign “Blueprint for Change,” Obama and Biden promised to:

“…reject torture without exception or equivocation, including so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like waterboarding; restore the Rule of Law by closing Guantanamo and restoring habeas corpus; and provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track down terrorists without undermining our Constitution or civil liberties.”

[6] “Barack Obama's Q&A,” By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, December 20, 2007, (Accessed at http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/ on Sept. 24, 2010).

[7] “Appeals court lets government halt torture lawsuit,” By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press, September 8, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/09/08/financial/f111944D71.DTL on Sept 9, 2010).

[8] “Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by C.I.A.,” By CHARLIE SAVAGE, NY Times, September 8, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on Sept. 23, 2010).

“Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated.”

[9] “U.S. to Expand Detainee Review in Afghan Prison,” By ERIC SCHMITT, NY Times, September 12, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/world/asia/13detain.html?_r=1 on September 21, 2010).

[10] “Muslim cleric Aulaqi is 1st U.S. citizen on list of those CIA is allowed to kill,” By Greg Miller, Washington Post Staff Writer, April 7, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=topnews on Sept. 22, 2010).

[11] “Appeals Court Rules in Maher Arar Case: Innocent Victims of Extraordinary Rendition Cannot Sue in US Courts,” November 03, 2009, Democracy Now, (Accessed at http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/3/appeals_court_rules_in_maher_arar on Oct. 3, 2010).

Doublethink (Part 2)

“Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 4, p. 36 by George Orwell.[1]

The Search for Iraqi WMD Flushed Down the Memory Hole

Within 18 months of the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush (R) administration segued to an invasion of Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein’s use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  But when President Obama (D) declared the end of US combat in Iraq over seven years later on August 31, 2010, he didn’t dare mention the original reason for the preemptive invasion of Iraq—the search for WMD.

Did Obama remind anyone of how Condoleezza Rice (R), then-National Security advisor and later Bush administration Secretary of State,  made headlines in 2002 by warning about a “mushroom cloud” from Iraqi WMD?  Did he remind everyone how 9/11 was linked to non-existent WMD in Iraq in the minds of many Americans?

Obama couldn’t tell you that the Bush administration lied to Americans about the reasons to invade Iraq.  If he did, how could he justify his leaving 50,000 troops and 100,000 mercenaries stationed in Iraq?  The lie that the war was about WMD had been flushed down the memory hole.

Instead Obama talked about how “our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.”

Bush followed a similar theme in his May 1, 2003 speech:

“In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage — your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other — made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.”

Because the real reason the US preemptively invaded Iraq—the search for WMD—had been flushed down the memory hole, history has been rewritten so that now, liberating Iraq was the reason the US invaded. 

President Obama said he was “awed” by the sacrifice of US troops who “defeated a regime that had terrorized its people.”  According to the latest spin, Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime terrorized his people, so he had to be removed.  Obama couldn’t mention US contributions to terrorizing the Iraqi people.  He couldn’t mention the US contributions because they are all destined for the memory hole:

• The only WMD Hussein possessed were chemical weapons (pdf) known by, and their use against Iranians and Kurds accepted by the US under the Reagan (R) administration when it supported Iraq in its war against Iran.[2][3]
• The 13 years of US-supported UN sanctions on Iraq from 1990 to 2003 that contributed to an estimated 500,000 Iraqi deaths before the US invasion.[4]
• The torture and abuse of Iraqis by their “American liberators” at Abu Ghraib after US troops deposed Hussein. 
• The WikiLeaks video showing two Apache helicopters flown by “American liberators” killing civilians in Iraq in 2007.

If Obama mentioned any of the above, how could he pretend that the sacrifice of US troops in Iraq was to liberate Iraq? 

If he mentioned any of the above, how could he justify leaving (“non-combat”) troops in Iraq?

“He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.”    

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 3, p. 32 by George Orwell.

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 36.

[2] "De-classified Report" (PDF), House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 21, 2006, (Accessed at http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DNILetter.pdf on Oct 1, 2010).

[3] “U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES,” George Washington University, National Security Archive, (Accessed at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm on Sept. 30, 2010).

[4] Estimates of how many Iraqis died because of the UN-sanctions vary.  Some are over one million.  Critics dispute the claim that sanctions killed any Iraqis:

• They claim that instead Hussein’s government caused their deaths by misusing resources.
• They also claim that they were UN sanctions, not US sanctions, so don’t blame the US.

Critics ignore the purpose of sanctions (embargoes)—to make life so uncomfortable for people in a country that they force their government to submit.  The following US State Department summary ignores that fact and practices doublethink:

1. It pretends that sanctions aren’t intended to harm civilians in a country.

2. It ignores the question of why anyone should expect Hussein’s or any tyrannical government without a free market to be good and efficient at taking care of people even before sanctions are imposed.

Impact of Sanctions

Summary

Sanctions were imposed on Iraq by the international community in the wake of Iraq's brutal invasion of Kuwait. They are intended to prevent the Iraqi regime access to resources that it would use to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction. Sanctions can only be lifted when Iraq complies fully with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

Saddam Hussein's regime remains a threat to its people and its neighbors, and has not met any of its obligations to the UN that would allow the UN to lift sanctions.

The international community, not the regime of Saddam Hussein, is working to relieve the impact of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis.

Impact of Sanctions

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

________________________________________

The following state department Executive Summary also practices doublethink.  Again, if Hussein is so bad and his government is a dictatorship, then why expect him to be efficient at distributing resources?  It takes a free market for that.  Hasn’t the US learned that any and all foreign aid to dictatorships gets “taxed” by a huge middleman commission to the foreign government?

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S IRAQ

Prepared by the U.S. Department of State
Released September 13, 1999
(Updated 3/24/00)

(PDF version - 2.62MB)
Click here to get a free Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF files.

---

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present the facts concerning Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

There are a wealth of charges and counter-charges concerning actions undertaken by Saddam and by the international community towards Iraq.

Based on publicly available information, the facts contained in this report demonstrate that under the regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraq continues to repress its people, threaten the region, and obstruct international efforts to provide humanitarian relief.

We are helping the Iraqi people in their efforts to bring about a regime that is committed to living in peace with its neighbors and respecting the rights of its citizens.

We want to see Iraq return as a respected and prosperous member of the international community, and as the evidence shows, this is unlikely to happen as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.

As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, we are determined to contain the Iraqi regime and prevent it from threatening the region or its own people. We will also continue our efforts to increase humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq, over the obstructions of the regime.

________________________________________

This US State Department page on the Hussein regime’s Misuse of Resources also ignores the fact that non-free market economies are inefficient.  Imposing an embargo only makes things worse.

Misuse of Resources by the Regime

Summary

Rather than spend money to help its people, Iraq's leaders enrich themselves.

Mismanagement

With Iraqi oil revenues burgeoning, it's hard to understand why the people of Iraq aren't better off. The reason is because the government of Iraq is mismanaging the oil-for-food program, either deliberately or through incompetence.

• Despite reports of widespread health problems, the government has still not spent the full $200 million for medical supplies allocated under phase five of the oil-for-food program (which ended in May). Only 40% of the money was used to purchase medicines for primary care, while 60% was used to buy medical equipment.

• While the average Iraqi needs basic medicines and medical care, the government of Iraq spent $6 million on a gamma knife, an instrument used for complicated neurosurgery that requires extremely advanced training to use. Another several million was spent on a MRI machine, used for high-resolution imaging. Such exotic treatment is reserved for regime bodyguards and other members of the elite. This total of $10 million could instead have benefited thousands of Iraqi children if it had been spent on vaccines, antibiotics, and the chemotherapeutics necessary to treat the large numbers of children that are allegedly dying due to lack of medicine.

Personal Enrichment

While the people of Iraq go wanting, their leaders enrich themselves.

• In July 1999, Forbes Magazine estimated Saddam Hussein's personal wealth at $6 billion, acquired primarily from oil and smuggling.

• Medicines received through the oil-for-food program are sold by the regime to private hospitals at exorbitant prices.

• Members of the government and top military and security officials are provided with extra monthly food rations, Mercedes automobiles, and monthly stipends in the thousands of dollars. By comparison, the average monthly government salary is 6,500 dinars, or about $3.50.

Saddam's Excesses

In addition to the revenues generated under the oil-for-food program, the government of Iraq earns money from other sources which it controls. Rather than spend these funds to help the people of Iraq, Saddam Hussein chooses to build monuments to himself. In addition, he deprives those in need of water and other scarce resources in order to favor elites and other supporters of the regime.

• Saddam celebrated his birthday this year by building a resort complex for regime loyalists. Since the Gulf War, Saddam has spent over $2 billion on presidential palaces. Some of these palaces boast gold-plated faucets and man-made lakes and waterfalls, which use pumping equipment that could have been used to address civilian water and sanitation needs.

  
  Photo 2: Saddamiat al Tharthar, Iraq, a resort city built for Regime VIPs, April 1999. View larger image

• In April 1999, Iraqi officials inaugurated Saddamiat al Tharthar. Located 85 miles west of Baghdad, this sprawling lakeside vacation resort contains stadiums, an amusement park, hospitals, parks, and 625 homes to be used by government officials. This project cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no clearer example of the government's lack of concern for the needs of its people than Saddamiat al Tharthar (see photo 2).

• In July, Baghdad increased taxes on vehicle ownership and marriage dowries, after earlier increases in taxes, fees, and fuel and electricity prices. This is in part what pays for Saddam's palaces. Saddam also uses food rations, medical care, and other state resources to buy the loyalty of his inner circle and security forces.

• Iraq is facing its worst drought in 50 years. As a result, the government is restricting the planting of rice and told farmers not to plant summer crops without permission from the Ministry of Irrigation. The water levels of the reservoirs supplying Saddam Hussein's region of Tikrit, however, were at normal seasonal levels, while the flow of water to the southern cities was dramatically lower than during the previous two years. Saddam is diverting water to serve his political objectives, at the expense of the general population.

Here’s another US State Department link defending the UN-sanctions on Iraq.  Yes they’re UN sanctions.  But who doesn’t think the US was directing the UN on the Iraq embargo and the 1992 Gulf War?  And why do you think the US State Department put out so many pages supporting the “UN sanctions”?

Iraqi Obstruction of Oil-For-Food

Summary

Thanks to the oil-for-food program, the people of Iraq, especially those in the north, are getting needed foods and medicines.

The program would be even more effective if the Iraqi regime were cooperating. Iraqi obstruction of the oil-for-food program, not United Nations sanctions, is the primary reason the Iraqi people are suffering.

Oil-for-Food Program Helps Iraqis