Links February 20th to February 21st

Links for February 20th through February 21st:

Links February 9th to February 11th

Links for February 9th through February 11th:

Scobey’s testimony

The appointment, pending congressional approval (which appears to be forthcoming soon), of Margaret Scobey as the next US Ambassador to Egypt has continued to get the local press’ interest, with her testimony to Congress’ Foreign Affairs Committee — notably her mention of the Ayman Nour case and the human rights situation in Egypt — earning much commentary. A long-time reader sent me the full text of Scobey’s testimony, which I’m posting after the jump. In the meantime, I’m curious to hear what readers know about the women who will become the first female ambassador to Cairo — a tough job if there ever was one considering that both sides are schizophrenic about what remains a deep, complex and important bilateral relationship. In my time in Egypt the three ambassadors I’ve known brought quite different styles to their post; their policies however remained largely the same even if constrained by rising anti-Egypt sentiment in Congress and the US press (and although this is less influential, vice-versa.) From what she said, Scobey appears to be more of the same.

Continue reading Scobey’s testimony

The Iraq Project

Paul Rogers on the Iraq Project:

In an echo of the Baghdad embassy, Balad has grown to become the largest US air-base anywhere in the world: a fifteen-square-mile mini-city with its own bus routes, fast-food outlets, two supermarkets and accommodation for 40,000 military personnel and contractors. The base – from which up to 550 air operations each day are conducted – is a permanent construction site; the latest addition is a $30-million command-and-control system that will integrate air-traffic management across the country as a whole.In sum, the United States plan for Iraq is to establish a series of tight political mechanisms of control deriving from the original CPA-era agreements; a huge embassy-based structure in Baghdad to oversee and maintain these; immunity for over 300,000 foreign personnel; and continuing, direct authority over and access to Iraqi detainees. The entire operation is to be secured by the US military and its private contractors, increasingly protected by the use of air power.This ambitious project is hardly consistent with the idea – still the official line propagated by Washington, and uncritically recycled by much of the establishment media – that the US’s political objective is to bolster the independent governance of Iraq by the Iraqis themselves. Indeed, it goes further than the considerable power exerted by the United States in several central American countries in the early 20th century; its sheer grandeur might better be compared to some of the French or British colonial-era protectorates. In contemporary terms, it comes close to the establishment of a fully-fledged American colony in the heart of the Arab and Islamic world. Whether or not the George W Bush administration and its supporters realise it, the implications of that – for Iraq itself and for the whole region – are set to match even what has happened over the last five years. 

Links February 6th to February 7th

Automatically posted links for February 6th through February 7th:

When soldiers are anti-war

Next time you hear some one in the US say that voting for anti-war candidate (or a just war critic like Obama) is a disservice to the troops, consider this:

In the 4th quarter of 2007, individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services the No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, contributing industries, respectively. War opponent Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received the most from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Another war opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was second with about $94,000.

Soldiers love Ron and Barack, and lobbyists love Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the No. 1 recipient of lobbyist cash, receiving $823,000 in 2007 from the lobbying industry, which gave about $2.7 million overall.

[From Political Punch]

Links January 29th and February 3rd

Automatically posted links for January 29th through February 3rd:

CIA Largely in the Dark on Interrogation Tactics?

The Washington Independent is a new online magazine, mostly about Beltway politics. Spencer Ackerman has an intriguing piece on how the CIA had to learn interrogation and torture techniques from Middle Eastern countries after 9/11 has its own staff were largely untrained in them.

But 9/11 changed all that. Despite having nearly no off-the-shelf experience, the CIA was tasked by President Bush to come up with a robust interrogation program for the most important al-Qaeda captives. So the agency turned to its partners for assistance in designing its interrogation regimen: Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia—all countries cited by the State Department for using torture—among others. Additionally, as Mark Benjamin has reported for Salon, two psychologists named Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, who worked as contractors for CIA, helped the agency “reverse-engineer” the military and CIA training on resisting torture for use on detainees. Suddenly, waterboarding, an illegal practice of simulating or in some cases inducing drowning, became an American-administered practice.

I’m not sure how this can make that much sense — didn’t the CIA provide the torture training and interrogations manuals to Iran’s SAVAK in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as Latin American dictatorships? To be fair Ackerman briefly mentions the supposedly Nazi-inspired KUBARK Manual, but there was also the 1983 “Human Resources Exploitation” Manual used in Pinochet’s Chili and elsewhere. Moreover, the idea that CIA and other US staff were distant from actual interrogation in the rendition countries is not true. Last year I interviewed a senior intelligence officer in a rendition program country who said the Americans from the CIA and FBI routinely walked in and out of the interrogation rooms and detention centers. Not to mention that interrogation and torture does not seem to have been a problem for the people at Guantanamo. One can’t help getting the feeling that the people that Ackerman spoke to pulled a fast one on him. The idea that torture has only been used under the Bush administration, while perhaps self-serving for CIA officials with careers that will outlive the administration, is quite laughable. The US, France, Japan and many others have been using these techniques (notably against anti-colonial movements and in counter-communism policies) for a long, long time.

Also read: Watching torture and this book, Torture and Democracy [Amazon], by Darius Rejali, which appears to be one of the more thorough discussions if the issue out there. From the book’s blurb:

As the twentieth century progressed, he argues, democracies not only tortured, but set the international pace for torture. Dictatorships may have tortured more, and more indiscriminately, but the United States, Britain, and France pioneered and exported techniques that have become the lingua franca of modern torture: methods that leave no marks. Under the watchful eyes of reporters and human rights activists, low-level authorities in the world’s oldest democracies were the first to learn that to scar a victim was to advertise iniquity and invite scandal. Long before the CIA even existed, police and soldiers turned instead to “clean” techniques, such as torture by electricity, ice, water, noise, drugs, and stress positions. As democracy and human rights spread after World War II, so too did these methods.

Also see this interview of Rejali.

Links January 27th and January 28th

Automatically posted links for January 27th through January 28th:

Links January 23rd and January 24th

Automatically posted links for January 23rd through January 24th: