Ray McGovern understands what the time it is in
America, do you? "Let us not talk falsely now, the
hour is getting late."
Ray McGovern, www.buzzflash.com:
Perhaps most worrisome of all from the
administration’s point of view are the fresh photos,
film footage, and other reporting of torture in
U.S.-run prisons in Iraq and elsewhere that will
surface in the coming weeks. This round is said to
include details of the rape and other abuse of some of
the Iraqi women and the hundred or so children—some as
young as 10 years old—held in jails like Abu Graib.
U.S. Army Sergeant Samuel Provance, who was stationed
there, has blown the whistle on the abuse of children
as well as other prisoners. He recounted, for example,
how interrogators soaked a 16-year-old, covered him in
mud, and then used his suffering to break the youth’s
father, also a prisoner, during interrogation.
Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/08/con04327.html
August 9, 2004 SEND THIS PAGE TO A FRIEND
Not Scared Yet? Try Connecting These Dots
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Ray McGovern
"Pre-election period…pre-election plot…pre-election
threats:" These rolled off National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice’s lips no less than seven times
yesterday on CNN’s Late Edition as she discussed the
likely timing of a terrorist attack. She stayed on
message.
Dr. Rice said the government had actually "picked up
discussion" relating to "trying to do something in the
pre-election period," and added that information on
the threat came from "active multiple sources."
I found myself wondering if those sources are any
better than those cited by Attorney General John
Ashcroft on May 26, when he launched this campaign,
citing "credible intelligence from multiple sources
that al-Qaeda plans an attack on the United States"
before the November election. Ashcroft’s warning came
out of the blue, without the customary involvement of
the directors of the C.I.A. and Department of Homeland
Security (although the latter quickly fell in line).
In support of his warning, Ashcroft cited "an al-Qaeda
spokesman," who the FBI later was embarrassed to admit
is "The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades." Sinister sounding
though the name may be, this "group" is thought to
consist of no more than one person with a fax machine,
according to a senior U.S. intelligence official. That
fax is notorious for claiming credit for all manner of
death and destruction.
Are the recent warnings and heightened alerts
legitimate or contrived? Is this yet another case of
"intelligence" being conjured up to serve the
political purposes of President Bush and his top
advisers? The record of the past three years gives
rise to the suspicion that this is precisely what is
afoot.
Running Scared
While Iraq generally has moved off the front page,
those paying attention to developments there have
watched a transition from mayhem to bedlam in recent
days. Worse still, the U.S. economy is again faltering
as the election draws near.
Perhaps most worrisome of all from the
administration’s point of view are the fresh photos,
film footage, and other reporting of torture in
U.S.-run prisons in Iraq and elsewhere that will
surface in the coming weeks. This round is said to
include details of the rape and other abuse of some of
the Iraqi women and the hundred or so children—some as
young as 10 years old—held in jails like Abu Graib.
U.S. Army Sergeant Samuel Provance, who was stationed
there, has blown the whistle on the abuse of children
as well as other prisoners. He recounted, for example,
how interrogators soaked a 16-year-old, covered him in
mud, and then used his suffering to break the youth’s
father, also a prisoner, during interrogation.
I suspect it is the further revelations of torture
that worries the White House most. Adding to its woes,
last week over a hundred lawyers, including seven past
presidents of the American Bar Association and former
FBI Director William Sessions, issued a statement
strongly condemning the legal opinions of government
attorneys holding that torture might be legally
defensible. The lawyers called for an investigation
regarding whether there is a connection between those
legal opinions and the abuses at Abu Graib and
elsewhere.
While Bush administration officials have tried to
distance themselves from the opinions and claim that
the president did not authorize the torture of
suspected al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters, the
photographic evidence speaks for itself. And
neo-conservative William Kristol’s bragging Sunday on
ABC’s This Week that this administration’s
interrogation techniques have been successful because
they are "rougher than what John Kerry would approve
of" does not help the administration’s case.
With each new revelation of torture, the
"few-bad-apples" explanation strains credulity closer
to the breaking point. Nor can it be denied that the
abuse took place on this administration’s watch. Thus,
there are likely to be increasing demands that the
commander-in-chief—or at least his defense
secretary—take responsibility. Where is it that the
buck is supposed to stop?
Connecting Dots
What has all this to do with Condoleezza Rice’s
multiple mention of "pre-election threats?" Can these
two dots be connected? I fear they can.
When John Ashcroft fired the opening shot in this
campaign to raise the specter of a "pre-election"
terrorist event, it seemed to me that the
administration might be beginning to prepare the
American people to accept postponement or cancellation
of the November election as a reasonable option.
Tom Ridge’s warning in early July that Osama bin Laden
is "planning to disrupt the November elections" added
to my concern, as did;
-- Word that Ridge has asked the Department of Justice
to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit
postponement of the election;
-- The request by the Director of the Election
Assistance Commission for Ridge to provide
"guidelines" for canceling or rescheduling the
election in the event of a terror attack;
-- The matter-of-fact tone of a recent vote on CNN’s
website: "Should the United States postpone the
election in the event of a terrorist attack?" That
vote seems to have been greeted more by yawns than by
any expression of outrage.
That the House of Representatives on July 22 passed a
resolution by a 419-2 vote denying any agency or
individual the authority to postpone a national
election suggests that many in Congress are taking the
various trial balloons and other hints seriously.
The Emperor’s New Suit of Clothes
It seems a safe bet that President Bush is not
sleeping as soundly as he did before the abuse of
prisoners came to light. He may feel thoroughly
exposed in the magic suit of sold him by Ashcroft’s
tailor/lawyers together with those working for White
House counsel Alberto Gonzales, and may wish he had
paid more attention to the strong cautions of
Secretary of State Colin Powell against playing fast
and loose with the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of
War.
The president can take little consolation in Gonzales’
reassurance that there is a "reasonable basis in law"
that could provide a "solid defense," should an
independent counsel at some point in the future
attempt to prosecute him under the U.S. War Crimes Act
of 1996 for exempting the Taliban and perhaps others
from the protections of the Geneva Conventions, to
which the War Crimes Act is inextricably tied.
Meaning? Meaning that if the president’s numbers look
no better in October than they do now, there will be
particularly strong personal incentive on the part of
the president, Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney to
pull out all the stops in order to make four more
years a sure thing. What seems increasingly clear is
that putting off the election is under active
consideration—a course more likely to be chosen to the
extent it achieves status as just another option.
How Would Americans React?
On Friday I listened to a reporter asking a tourist in
Washington, DC, whether he felt inconvenienced by all
the blockages and barriers occasioned by the
heightened alert. While the tourist acknowledged that
the various barriers and inspections made it difficult
to get from one place to another, he made his overall
reaction quite clear: "Safety first! I don’t want to
see another 9/11. Whatever it takes!" I was struck a
few hours later as I tuned into President Bush
speaking at a campaign rally in Michigan: "I will
never relent in defending America. Whatever it takes."
How prevalent this sentiment has become was brought
home to me as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) quizzed
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey (a former Democrat
Senator from Nebraska) at a hearing last week on the
commission’s sweeping recommendation to centralize
foreign and domestic intelligence under a new National
Intelligence Director in the White House. Kerrey grew
quite angry as Kucinich kept insisting on an answer to
his question: "How do you protect civil liberties amid
such a concentration of information and power?"
Kerrey protested that the terrorists give no priority
to civil liberties. He went on to say that individual
liberties must, in effect, be put on the back burner,
while priority is given to combating terrorism.
Whatever it takes.
Does this not speak volumes? Would Kerrey suggest that
Americans act like the "good Germans" of the 1930s,
and acquiesce in draconian steps like postponement or
cancellation of the November election?
These are no small matters. It is high time to think
them through.
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Ray McGovern worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years,
from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of
George H. W. Bush. He is a member of the Steering
Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity.