User:Nescio/Workplace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Preparing (long) edits to articles here, so I won't have to disrupt the pages.

Using What is Your World View?

  • Existentialism emphasizes human capability. There is no greater power interfering with life and thus it is up to us to make things happen. Sometimes considered a negative and depressing world view, your optimism towards human accomplishment is immense. Mankind is condemned to be free and must accept the responsibility.



Existentialist
88%

Idealist
81%

Materialist
80%

Postmodernist
75%

Modernist
69%

Cultural Creative
56%

Romanticist
50%

Fundamentalist
25%




Contents

[edit] Welcome

Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Hello, User:XXXXX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Holland Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Main article: Movement to impeach George W. Bush


Several advocates of impeaching President George W. Bush, assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.[1][2]

This article presents a list of rationales as suggested by proponents of the movement to impeach President Bush. These arguments have been offered by commentators, legal analysts, politicians of the Democratic Party and others. For example, the Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York,[3] discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.[4]

Since impeachment is an inherently political, and not a legal process, there is no exact definition of what constitutes an impeachable offense, therefore this list is not necessarily accurate. Simply stated, it is up to Congress to determine if something rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

[edit] NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

Further information: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

[edit] Proponents of impeachment based on warrantless surveillance controversy

Elizabeth Holtzman (served four terms in Congress, where she played a key role in House impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon), John Dean (former counsel to the president) and Jennifer van Bergen from FindLaw assert that by authorizing warrantless domestic wiretapping in some cases, President Bush violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act without legal basis, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense.[5][6][7]

As a political matter, it should also be noted that President Bush did notify Congressional leaders of his decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping at the time of the decision. The fact that Congress was notified of the surviellance program may therefore affect any hypothetical Congressional debate over whether that program constitutes an impeachable offense.

[edit] Analysis of legal basis of warrantless surveillance controversy as basis for impeachment

For a detailed analysis of the legal issues relating to the controversy, see here.

In the context of the "war on terror", President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.[8] In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA.[9] (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.)

In January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law."[10] On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis opines that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.[11] In March 2006, New York Times reported that five former FISA judges have voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program. [12]

Some commentators, responding to the Bush administration's justification of the program, say that its interpretation of presidential power overthrows the Constitutional system of checks and balances and ignores other provisions of the Constitution mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and vesting Congress with the sole authority "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Senate Committee voted along party lines, and decided a detailed investigation into the matter was unwarranted.[13]

[edit] 2003 Invasion of Iraq

[edit] Consitutionality of Invasion

Further information: Invasion of Iraq

The case for impeachment, put forward by John Bonifaz in the book Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush is the same as the grounds for his John Doe I v. President Bush lawsuit; namely, that Bush invaded Iraq without a clear Congressional declaration of war. The argument is that the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq was unconstitutional because it "confers discretion upon the President to wage war", contrary to the War Powers Clause of the Constitution.[14] Francis Boyle (professor of international law at the University of Illinois) also uses this argument as reason in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.[15]

[edit] Justification for Invasion

Main articles: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Downing Street memo, and Bush-Blair memo

Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq — the possession and development of weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports.[16] [17]. The Bush administration advocated that this was due to failure by the intelligence community. However, it has become clear that, prior to the invasion, these arguments had already been widely disputed,[18] which had purportedly been reported to the U.S. administration. An in-depth investigation into the nature of these discrepancies by the Senate Intelligence Committee has been frustrated. Or, as a New York Times editorial states:

Mr. Roberts (chairman of the Senate panel) tried to kill the investigation entirely, and after the Democrats forced him to proceed, he set rules that seem a lot like the recipe for a whitewash.[19]

Supporters of impeachment argue that the administration knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing their case for the war.[20][21] The Downing Street memo and the Bush-Blair memo are used to substantiate that allegation.[22] Congressional Democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry.[23] A report by the Washington Post on April 12, 2006, corroborates that view. It states that the Bush administration advocated that two small trailers which had been found in Iraq were "biological laboratories," despite the fact that U.S. intelligence officials possessed evidence to the contrary at that time.

"The three-page field report and a 122-page final report published three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories."[24]

Activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, both by withholding information which he ought to have communicated, and by supplying information, in his States of the Union speeches, that he should have known to be incorrect. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath.[citation needed]

John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- assert that this was not a war in self-defense but a war of aggression contrary to the U.N. Charter (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.[1][15][6][25] Such would constitute an impeachable offense according to Francis Boyle, John W. Dean, from FindLaw, Marcus Raskin and Joseph A. Vuckovich, from the Institute for Policy Studies.[15][26]

[edit] Geneva Conventions controversy

Further information: Unlawful combatant
Further information: Combatant Status Review Tribunal

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration advocated that suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban members would be designated as unlawful combatants. They suggested that, as such, they were not protected under the Geneva Conventions. To address the mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" as defined by article five of the Third Geneva Convention, Combatant Status Review Tribunals were established. The American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, the Council on Foreign Relations and Joanne Mariner from FindLaw have dismissed the use of the unlawful combatant status as not compatible with U.S. and international law.[27]

Representative John Conyers has advocated investigating these alleged abuses to see if they violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus cause for impeachment, while Francis A. Boyle, Elizabeth Holtzman and Veterans For Peace hold that violating these laws is grounds for impeachment.[1][15][5][6][28]

[edit] Extraordinary rendition

Further information: Extraordinary rendition
Further information: United Nations Convention Against Torture

Critics have accused the CIA of rendering suspected terrorists to other countries in order to avoid U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture, calling this "torture by proxy" and "torture flights".[29] Alberto Gonzales explicitly testified to Congress that the administration's position was to extradite detainees to other nations as long as it was not "more likely than not" that they would be tortured, although he later modified that statement.[30] However, the Convention against torture states:

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Commentators, including the United Nations and Louise Arbour, have stated that, under international law, rendition as practiced by the U.S. government is illegal.[1][31] Conyers has called for investigating whether these violations of international and US law constitute an impeachable offense,[1] whereas Boyle thinks it does, and included this in his Draft Impeachment Resolution.[15]

[edit] Treatment of detainees

Main articles: Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, United Nations Convention Against Torture, and Command responsibility

As part of the war on terror several memos[32] were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos," advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, but point out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.[33] In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.[34]

Several top military lawyers including Alberto J. Mora reported that policies allowing methods equivalent to torture were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the Department of Defense to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards.[35]

Notwithstanding the suggestion of official policy, the administration repeatedly assured critics that the publicised cases were incidents, and President Bush later stated that:

"The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."[36]

To address the multitude of incidents of prisoner abuse the McCain Detainee Amendment was adopted. However, in his signing statement President Bush made clear that he reserved the right to waive this bill if he thought that was needed.[37]

Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.[38] Several legal analysts -such as Marjorie Cohn, Elizabeth Holtzman, Human Rights First- have advocated that writing these memos, not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal challenges involving war crimes[15] under the command responsibility.[1][39] These violations of US and international law could be an impeachable offense.[6]

[edit] Allegedly leaking classified information

[edit] Alleged involvement in the CIA leak

Main articles: Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, and CIA leak grand jury investigation

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush cited British government sources in saying that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium. He referred to what ultimately turned out to be falsified documents. After Ambassador Wilson wrote an OpEd article in the New York Times denouncing the yellowcake basis and other justifications for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, the identity of his wife as a CIA employee appeared in media reports for the first time. Wilson later made the allegation her identity was leaked in personal retaliation against him for his. An investigation into this by Patrick Fitzgerald led to an indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby on perjury charges, not for releasing information regarding Plame. At one point, Libby's indictment states:

"Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."[40]

The litigation surrounding Libby has yielded court papers showing that Libby was authorized and instructed to disseminate formerly classified information by his superiors. [41] No court papers have alledged that Bush or Cheney authorized the release of Plame's name. On April 13, 2006, Bloomberg.com reported Libby has testified that Bush and Cheney did not authorize the release of Plame's name.[42] Libby's position is that he did not leak Plame's name. The actual first source of Plame's name to the media is in dispute. Also disputed is the fact that Plame was, at the time, classified as a covert agent.[citation needed] However, the attorney general's choice to appoint a special prosecutor would suggest she was.

[edit] Allegedly declassifying for political purposes

Main articles: Invasion of Iraq, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Downing Street memo, and Bush-Blair memo
Main articles: Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, and CIA leak grand jury investigation

On April 06, 2006, court papers were filed in the CIA leak grand jury investigation, stating that Libby had testified that President Bush authorized the disclosure of select portions of the then classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq.[20][43] The position of the Bush administration is that a Presidentally authorized release of material is not a "leak" in the sense that Presidents are authorized to de-classiffy material and the release of de-classified material is not leaking.[20][44] Some argue that this contradicts previous statements by Bush in which he made clear that leaking information is unacceptable.[20][45] According to the court filings by Fitzgerald:

“Defendant (Libby) testified that this July 8 meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be declassified.” [46]

Elizabeth de la Vega, Ray McGovern and Greg Mitchell have noted that the Bush Administration's asserted motivation — that this declassification was needed to counter misinformation spread by opponents of the Bush administration's casus belli — is odd, since only an obscure part of the NIE, which supports the claims advanced by the US government, has been released, while the rest of the report, in which the CIA in 2002 allegedly dismissed that claim as unlikely, is still classified.[18][46][47] Bush's alleged misrepresentations on this point and his declassifying of information for allegedly a political purpose, is seen by some as impeachable offense.[47][48]

[edit] Hurricane Katrina

Main articles: Hurricane Katrina, Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, and Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used by Ramsey Clark, Francis Boyle, PopMatters, Green Party of Humboldt County and the Sunday Independent to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens. And as such they hold that the allegations of incompetence amount to an impeachable offense.[15][49]

The administration, and its supporters, contend that the principal responsibility lies with the local authorities.[50] Therefore any accusation of inadequate handling of the disaster should be addressed at the Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco.[51]

[edit] Alleged abuse of power

Main article: Unitary executive theory

As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers. [1][52] The Draft Impeachment Resolution by Boyle advocates that this is an impeachable offense.[15]

The Bush administration denies this allegation by explaining that the President is only asserting his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.

[edit] Criticism

Although John Conyers introduced a motion to investigate the possible grounds for impeachment, this has been met with little support by Democrats and Republicans alike. In response Feingold introduced a motion to censure, which is also unlikely to pass.

It has been suggested that the entire movement to impeach President Bush is nothing more than partisan politics[citation needed] .

Many on the left oppose the movement to impeach Bush, based on the rationale that it would lead to the (presumably) more-undesirable situation of a Cheney Presidency.[citation needed]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff
  2. ^ Arguments in general.
  3. ^ The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  4. ^ Impeaching George W. Bush By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet, March 6, 2006.
  5. ^ a b The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
  6. ^ a b c d Grounds for Impeachment by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive,March 8, 2006
  7. ^ Wiretapping probably impeachable offense
  8. ^ Wiretapping possibly illegal
  9. ^ LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT U.S. Department of Justice, January 19, 2006
  10. ^ Congressional Research Service
  11. ^ American Bar Association
  12. ^ Former FISA judges
  13. ^ No official inquiry into wiretapping
  14. ^ Constitutional challenge to invasion of Iraq
  15. ^ a b c d e f g h Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush, 108nd Congress H.Res.XX, by Francis A. Boyle, professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law, January 17, 2003
  16. ^ Weapons of Mass Destruction
  17. ^ Link with Al Qaeda
  18. ^ a b Blowing Cheney's Cover Ray McGovern, April 10, 2006
  19. ^ The Intelligence Business editorial, New York Times, May 7, 2006
  20. ^ a b c d Selectively disseminating information
  21. ^ Misrepresenting the facts surrounding Iraq
  22. ^ Downing Street memo
  23. ^ FOIA request
  24. ^ "Biological laboratories"
  25. ^ War of aggression
  26. ^ Iraq impeachable offense?
  27. ^ Violating International Law
  28. ^ Impeachment for violating the Geneva Conventions
  29. ^ Torture by proxy
  30. ^ Gonzales Defends Transfer of Detainees By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, March 8, 2005
  31. ^ Legal position of rendition
  32. ^ The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods the memos written as part of the war on terror
  33. ^ War crimes warning
  34. ^ US definition of torture
  35. ^ Torture as policy?
  36. ^ We don't torture
  37. ^ U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison, By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, March 3, 2006
  38. ^ UN calls for Guantanamo closure BBC, Read the full UN report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16, 2006
  39. ^ Accountability
  40. ^ Plame's identity not known
  41. ^ Libby: 'Superiors' Approved Leak CBS/AP, 9 February 2006
  42. ^ Libby Says Bush, Cheney Didn't Authorize CIA Agent's Name Leak by Bloomberg, April 13, 2006.
  43. ^ Bush authorized disclosure
  44. ^ Disclosure legal?
  45. ^ Questions regarding statements
  46. ^ a b Uncommon way of declassifying
  47. ^ a b Final Jeopardy By Elizabeth de la Vega, TomDispatch.com, April 09, 2006
  48. ^ Lying impeachable
  49. ^ Hurricane Katrina
  50. ^ Responsibility Katrina
  51. ^ Kathleen Babineaux Blanco
  52. ^ Abuse of Power

[53] [54] [55]

[edit] Zarqawi PSYOP program

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Enlarge
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The Zarqawi PSYOP program refers to a US Psychological operations program, or propaganda campaign exaggerating the importance of Al Zarqawi in Al Qaeda and the Iraq insurgency.

The program was allegedly primarily aimed at, but not limited to, the "Iraqi and Arab media" along with the "U.S. Home Audience," which was part of a "broader propaganda campaign."[56][57][58][59][60][61][62]

One of the presented goals was to alienate local citizens from him by portraying him as a foreigner and key actor in the insurgency.[56] However, Sidney Blumenthal reported that, according to a "military source," this campaign ultimately revolved around "domestic political reasons."[57]

Terrorism expert Loretta Napoleoni stated that the US created a myth and then these fabrications became a self-fulfilling prophecy.[63][64][65]


[edit] Program

U.S. Army PSYOP Force structure
Enlarge
U.S. Army PSYOP Force structure

On October 4, 2004, The Telegraph reported that, according to a US military intelligence agent, the US was paying $10,000 to individuals to make fiction and supposition, regarding Zarqawi, pass for fact [66]

The Washington Post reported on April 10, 2006, that the role of Zarqawi was magnified by the Pentagon in a psychological operations campaign started in 2004. In the words of the Washington Post:

For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi's role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.[56]

The article goes on to explain that a slide created for a briefing by Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr,

describes the "home audience" as one of six major targets of the American side of the war.

Nevertheless, the slide did not specifically assert the program targeted U.S. citizens. Although other parts of the briefings did suggest it was directed at the U.S. media to alter the view of the war.

Another slide in the briefing noted a "selective leak" to reporter Dexter Filkins, about a letter boasting of suicide attacks in Iraq and allegedly written by Zarqawi. He used that information for an article[67] in the New York Times.[62] Contacted by the Post Filkins commented he was skeptical at the time, and still is, about the document's authenticity.[56]

According to Sidney Blumenthal, in an article for Salon, a military source told him that, for ultimately "domestic political reasons," Donald Rumsfeld and the White House resisted degrading the dramatically inflated image of Zarqawi.[57]

Responding to the in the Post reported psychological operations aimed at Americans, Army Col. James A. Treadwell, commander of the U.S. military psyops unit in Iraq but no longer present as the program was started, said that the US doesn't do that. Another officer commented in the Post that, although all material provided was in Arabic, the campaign probably influenced the view of the American press raising his profile. The Post continues that, according to an officer familiar with the case, this program was not related to another program which was linked to the Lincoln Group.[56][68]

By focusing on his terrorist activities and status as a foreigner the US tried to inflame Iraqi citizens against him.[56][62][58] Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the senior commander in charge, remarked, according to the Washington Post:

"The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date."[56][62]

Regarding the influence of this program on Al Qaeda Jennifer Schultz reports the comments by terrorism expert Loretta Napoleoni:

The myth of al-Zarqawi, Napoleoni believes, helped usher in al-Qaida's "transformation from a small elitist vanguard to a mass movement."

ref name="Napoleoni"/>


[edit] Rise to power

Main article: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

According to articles in Counterpunch, Newsweek, and Asia Times Online several incidents turned Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from an unknown and unimportant terrorist into the well-known voice of Al Qaeda in Iraq.[60][69] The Asia Times contends that in February 2003 he was practically unknown outside Jordan.[69][70]Zarqawi - Bush's man for all seasons By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times Online, October 15, 2005</ref> Both Newsweek and the Asia Times continue by commenting that initially he was largely unconnected to Saddam Hussein, and not part of bin Laden's group. Eric Margolis, terrorism expert, concurs that he never was part of al Qaeda.[71] Following the allegation he was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda (used as casus belli[57][69][70][72]), by Colin Powell before the UN Security Council in 2003, he became the embodiment of resistance against the US in the Muslim world. Then the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration became another boost for his popularity, which Michael Hirsch in Newsweek describes as:

the Iraq invasion gave Zarqawi a chance to blossom on his own as a jihadi.[69]

After the capture of Saddam Hussein the Bush administration accused him of being behind the continuing mishaps in Iraq, or, as Patrick Cockburn commented in an editorial for Counterpunch Newsletter:

"No sooner had Saddam Hussein been captured than the US spokesmen began to mention al-Zarqawi's name in every sentence."[60]

Articles in the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, Counterpunch Newsletter and Columbia Journalism Review suggest his increased notoriety, as illustrated above, was the result of an orchestrated effort involving psychological operations.[56][62][69][60][73]

Jane Arraf, CNN’s former Baghdad bureau chief, observed that their are discrepancies between what journalist encounter in Iraq “and a lot of the comments we see coming out of the administration and the Pentagon.” Commenting on this Daniel Schulman for Columbia Journalism Review said:

... it has become, in part, a contest over the framing of reality, and thus a hall of mirrors for the press.[73]

In the wake of his assasination, which had erroneously been reported several times before, the U.S. military produced a video showing him to be the opposite of what the media previously advocated him to be.

[edit] Effect of US PSYOP on domestic audiences

Further information: Psychological operations (United States)and  Psychological warfare

The Smith-Mundt Act, adopted in 1948, explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at the US public.[74][75][73] Nevertheless, the current easy access to news and information from around the globe, makes it difficult to guarantee PSYOP programs do not reach the US public. Or, in the words of Army Col. James A. Treadwell, who commanded the U.S. military psyops unit in Iraq in 2003, in the Washington Post:

There's always going to be a certain amount of bleed-over with the global information environment.[56]

Agence France Presse reported on U.S. propaganda campaigns that:

The Pentagon acknowledged in a newly declassified document that the US public is increasingly exposed to propaganda disseminated overseas in psychological operations. [76]

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has approved that document, which is called "Information Operations Roadmap." [73][76] The document acknowledges the Smith-Mundt Act, but fails to offer any way of limiting the effect PSYOP programs have on domestic audiences.[74][75][77]

Several incidents in 2003 were documented by Sam Gardiner, a sixty-four-year-old retired Air Force colonel, which he saw as information-warfare campaigns that were intended for "foreign populations and the American public." “Truth from These Podia,”[78] as the treatise was called, reported that the way the Iraq war was fought resembled a political campaign, stressing the message instead of the truth.[73] The International Crisis Group reported that Zarqawi’s group, and three other groups of in Iraq, were disseminating propaganda in a sophisticated manner.[73]

Nevertheless, the Information Operations Roadmap does not specifically mention the Zarqawi PSYOP program, but it does show the general dilemma psychological operations pose regarding the effect they potentially have on the US home audience.[76]

[edit] Quotes

The Washington post cites Col. Derek Harvey who said at a meeting by the Army in Fort Leavenworth:

"Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will - made him more important than he really is, in some ways."[56][62]


[edit] See also

v • d • e
War on Terrorism
Main events Specific articles Main participants

2001:

2002:

2003:

2004:

2005:

2006:

Participants in Operations

Targets of Operations


[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff
  2. ^ Arguments in general.
  3. ^ The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  4. ^ Impeaching George W. Bush By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet, March 6, 2006.
  5. ^ a b The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
  6. ^ a b c d Grounds for Impeachment by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive,March 8, 2006
  7. ^ Wiretapping probably impeachable offense
  8. ^ Wiretapping possibly illegal
  9. ^ LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT U.S. Department of Justice, January 19, 2006
  10. ^ Congressional Research Service
  11. ^ American Bar Association
  12. ^ Former FISA judges
  13. ^ No official inquiry into wiretapping
  14. ^ Constitutional challenge to invasion of Iraq
  15. ^ a b c d e f g h Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush, 108nd Congress H.Res.XX, by Francis A. Boyle, professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law, January 17, 2003
  16. ^ Weapons of Mass Destruction
  17. ^ Link with Al Qaeda
  18. ^ a b Blowing Cheney's Cover Ray McGovern, April 10, 2006
  19. ^ The Intelligence Business editorial, New York Times, May 7, 2006
  20. ^ a b c d Selectively disseminating information
  21. ^ Misrepresenting the facts surrounding Iraq
  22. ^ Downing Street memo
  23. ^ FOIA request
  24. ^ "Biological laboratories"
  25. ^ War of aggression
  26. ^ Iraq impeachable offense?
  27. ^ Violating International Law
  28. ^ Impeachment for violating the Geneva Conventions
  29. ^ Torture by proxy
  30. ^ Gonzales Defends Transfer of Detainees By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, March 8, 2005
  31. ^ Legal position of rendition
  32. ^ The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods the memos written as part of the war on terror
  33. ^ War crimes warning
  34. ^ US definition of torture
  35. ^ Torture as policy?
  36. ^ We don't torture
  37. ^ U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison, By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, March 3, 2006
  38. ^ UN calls for Guantanamo closure BBC, Read the full UN report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16, 2006
  39. ^ Accountability
  40. ^ Plame's identity not known
  41. ^ Libby: 'Superiors' Approved Leak CBS/AP, 9 February 2006
  42. ^ Libby Says Bush, Cheney Didn't Authorize CIA Agent's Name Leak by Bloomberg, April 13, 2006.
  43. ^ Bush authorized disclosure
  44. ^ Disclosure legal?
  45. ^ Questions regarding statements
  46. ^ a b Uncommon way of declassifying
  47. ^ a b Final Jeopardy By Elizabeth de la Vega, TomDispatch.com, April 09, 2006
  48. ^ Lying impeachable
  49. ^ Hurricane Katrina
  50. ^ Responsibility Katrina
  51. ^ Kathleen Babineaux Blanco
  52. ^ Abuse of Power
  53. ^ The ICU Book by Paul Marino MD, PhD, Second Edition (1997), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, ISBN: 0-683-05565-8
  54. ^ Fundamental Critical Care Support, A standardized curriculum of Critical Care by the Society of Critical Care Medicine
  55. ^ Textbooks of Internal Medicine
  56. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi - Jordanian Painted As Foreign Threat To Iraq's Stability By Thomas E. Ricks, The Washington Post, April 10, 2006
  57. ^ a b c d "Mission Accomplished" in a business suit - Ignoring U.S. intelligence, Bush inflated Zarqawi, then made a pointless trip to Iraq to pose as a heroic dragon slayer. It doesn't work anymore by Sidney Blumenthal, Salon, June 15, 2006
  58. ^ a b Was There a Legal Basis for His Assassination? The Story Behind Zarqawi's Death by Jennifer van Bergen, CounterPunch, June 12, 2006
  59. ^ Who was Abu Musab al Zarqawi? by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 09, 2006,
  60. ^ a b c d America Put Him in the Big Time The Short, Strange Career of Abu Masab al-Zarqawi by Patrick Cockburn, Counterpunch, June 9, 2006
  61. ^ Who is behind "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a "Zarqawi Legend" by Michel Chossudovsky, GlobalResearch, April 18, 2006
  62. ^ a b c d e f Hyping Zarqawi by Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone, April 11, 2006
  63. ^ Claim: US Created al-Zarqawi Myth By Jennifer Schultz, UPI, November 10, 2005
  64. ^ Profile of a Killer By Loretta Napoleoni, Foreign affairs
  65. ^ The Myth of Zarqawi by Loretta Napoleoni, November 11, 2005
  66. ^ How US fuelled myth of Zarqawi the mastermind By Adrian Blomfield, Telegraph, October 4, 2004
  67. ^ U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid in Iraq Conflict By DEXTER FILKINS, New York Times, February 9, 2004
  68. ^ A 2003 Pentagon directive appears to bar a military program that pays Iraqi media to print favorable stories by Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times, January 27th, 2006
  69. ^ a b c d e The Myth of Al Qaeda Before 9/11, Osama bin Laden’s group was small and fractious. How Washington helped to build it into a global threat By Michael Hirsh, Newsweek, June 30, 2006
  70. ^ a b
  71. ^ Zarqawi: From street thug to symbol of holy war by Sarah Challands, CTV.ca, June 12, 2006
  72. ^ Pentagon PSYOP: "Terror Mastermind" Abu Musab Al Zarqawi is "Incompetent" by Michel Chossudovsky, GlobalResearch, May 15, 2006
  73. ^ a b c d e f Mind Games By Daniel Schulman, Columbia Journalism Review at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism
  74. ^ a b Rumsfeld's Roadmap to Propaganda - Secret Pentagon "roadmap" calls for "boundaries" between "information operations" abroad and at home but provides no actual limits as long as US doesn't "target" Americans by National Security Archive, January 26, 2006
  75. ^ a b Operations as a core competency by Christopher J. Lamb, senior fellow in the Institute for National Security Studies at the National Defense University and has been Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Resources and Plans.HTML version
  76. ^ a b c US Propaganda Aimed at Foreigners Reaches US Public: Pentagon Document by Agence France Presse, January 27, 2006
  77. ^ US plans to 'fight the net' revealed By Adam Brookes, BBC, January 27, 2006
  78. ^ [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/Info%20Operations%20Roadmap%20Truth%20from%20These%20Podia.pdf Truth from These Podia Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II] by Sam Gardiner, Colonel, USAF (Retired),October 8, 2003, [PDF]


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/s/User%7ENescio_Workplace_74c2.html"