Haven't written for a couple of days, I'm still fighting off the effects of the enthusiasm vampires.

I'm not sure when or how the effects will wear off, it might have something to do with the sun, or rather the lack of a visible sun in Vancouver. We truly are slaves to the climate. Not having seen any extended amount of sun since well before Christmas, I'm sure my vitamin E intake is down dramatically. Listening to the weather wizards now, it looks like theres no sun for the foreseeable future either.

I do like the rain, I truly do, however, it's the unchanging rain that's boring me, only a few glimpses of the sun in the past two months are starting to wear on me.

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency.

Theodore Roosevelt





I'm deep in the grip of the Fear, the NASCAR fan in the oval office had a press conference this morning and I've rarely if ever seen such a flippant display in my life. That man's arrogance is beyond confidence, it's verging on zealotry. Watching him duck and weave questions, he had the gaul to say that spying on citizens was actually protecting civil liberties.

"The program's legal, it's designed to protect civil liberties, and it's necessary,"

If you can wrap your brain around that logic, write to me because it makes absolutely no sense. I can usually grasp some circular logic, but this to me is beyond the pale. Here's my take on it "we're violating civil liberties in order to protect them". Apparently Bush is practicing oncological politics, destroy the organ in order to preserve it.

Years ago, after the Bush inauguration (I hesitate to call it a victory) I heard the bush team referred to as "true believers". I'm beginning to understand what that truly meant now. These people along with the hangers on, Robertson, Dobson, Reed, etc honestly believe that they are on the side of good and right and can do no wrong.

Below is a bill introduced by a republican in 2002 that would have streamlined the process for getting a warrant under FISA. Shortly after this bill was introduced the white house rejected it, saying it was unconstitutional. Keep in mind that this is 7 months after the white house decided to bypass the FISA court altogether and to start spying on americans without warrants.

Sigh...

Congressional Record: June 20, 2002 (Senate)
Page S5852-S5859



By Mr. DeWINE:
S. 2659. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding
non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion;
to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. DeWine. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2659

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF BURDEN OF PROOF FOR ISSUANCE OF
ORDERS ON NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS UNDER
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

(a) Orders of Electronic Surveillance.--Section 105 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1805) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3) and
inserting the following new paragraph (3):
"(3) on the basis of facts submitted by the applicant--
"(A) in the case of a target of electronic surveillance
that is a United States person, there is probable cause to
believe that--
"(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power, provided that no United States person may be
considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power
solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first
amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
"(ii) each of the facilities or places at which the
electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is
about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign
power; or
"(B) in the case of a target of electronic surveillance
that is a non-United States person, there is reasonable
suspicion to believe that--
"(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power; and
"(ii) each of the facilities or places at which the
electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is
about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign
power;";
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting "or reasonable
suspicion" after "probable cause"; and
(3) in subsection (e)(2), by inserting ", or reasonable
suspicion in the case of a non-United States person," after
"probable cause".
(b) Physical Searches.--Section 304 of that Act (50 U.S.C.
1824) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following
new paragraph (3):
"(3) on the basis of facts submitted by the applicant--
"(A) in the case of a target of a physical search that is
a United States person, there is probable cause to believe
that--
"(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power, except that no United States person may be
considered a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power
solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first
amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
"(ii) the premises or property to be searched is owned,
used, possessed by, or is

[[Page S5858]]

in transit to or from an agent of a foreign power or foreign
power; or
"(B) in the case of a target of a physical search that is
a non-United States person, there is reasonable suspicion to
believe that--
"(i) the target is a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power; and
"(ii) the premises or property to be searched is owned,
used, possessed by, or is in transit to or from an agent of a
foreign power or foreign power;";
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting "or reasonable
suspicion" after "probable cause"; and
(3) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ", or reasonable
suspicion in the case of a non-United States person," after
"probable cause".
______

Alcohol and Razor Blades

Love is the difficult realization that something other than oneself is real.

Iris Murdoch (1919 - 1999)

Haven't done a lot of self exploration recently, I think I've been afraid to. Peeling back the covers and dealing with what's going on in my heart and soul is always a disturbing experience.


Perhaps it's because I've been ill, and unable to concentrate on either books, movies, or the television, I've been forced to look under the ribcage and into what's going on in my heart.

The past few months have been an exploration for some kind of sensation, some sort of emotional stimulation. I need something to fire the passions again. This thing in my chest has been thumping with all the vim and vigour of a damp tissue.

A rejection awhile ago, while necessary, was a deep wounding. It's made me realize that perhaps this difficult personality of mine is destined to walk alone.

I realize how maudlin that sounds. Truly however, I have tragic taste in women. The women who are right for me, the ones who compliment this personality are put off by my cynicism, the ones who are attracted to this curmudgeon of a soul, are uniquely unpleasant.

Most people want security in this world, not liberty.
H. L. Mencken



I'm fighting the flu, and I'm losing. Intermittently I'm overcome by a sensation that someone is standing behind me and squeezing my stomach with both hands, a very unpleasant sensation.

Self-respect: the secure feeling that no one, as yet, is suspicious.
H. L. Mencken




One of the most common arguements, and one that irritates me the most, in favour of increased surveillance is that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". It's recently been made public knowledge that not only has the NSA provided tens of thousands of "leads" to the FBI regarding "terrorist activities" in the states. In essence, anyone who did anything the least bit suspicious was suddenly being investigated. Given the scope of the Patriot Act, suspicious activities can include purchasing habits, reading materials, or people you work with.

For years, one of the mainstays of spy dramas set in the states portrayed the US intelligence community as brutally ruthless, efficient, and precise in it's data collection. As the curtains are pulled back on the NSA spying scandal it would seem that rather, the intelligence community works on a grand scale, scooping as much information as possible and then sorting it out later.

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.
H. L. Mencken






Gore came out today cannons blaring, calling for a special counsel. It's sad when the only person saying what has to be said is someone whose political days are finished, and his attack will be seen as sour grapes. Regardless of whether or not I agree with Gore, and I do, his attack will be seen as having little or no political value.

there are 45 senators sitting in the house, surely one of them has the gumption to say what has to be said, that what Bush did was illegal. Surely one of them has the cajones to say that Bush needs to be impeached. The man literally stood up and admitted breaking the law more than 3 dozen times. For the love of God, Clinton gets a blowjob in his office, then tries to cover it up, and all government business is stalled for 2 1/12 years.

The republicans have no qualms about attacking their opponents, Dick Dornan openly called for the assasination of Clinton, why can't the democrats show even half of that committment to their ideology?

Conscience is the inner voice that warns us that someone might be looking.
H. L. Mencken

I haven't felt much like writing the past couple of days, enthusiasm vampires have sucked the will out of me.

Every day the paper brings more and more depressing news, unlike most people, corruption and greed don't depress me, I expect that. What depresses me is apathy. People stand back and let politicians get away with diminishing civil liberties.

Interesting thoughts the past few days about Presidents of the United States and truth. We've come to expect that our leaders will lie to us now. When we do find out we've been lied to, we're not surprised. It's become such a natural part of the job that the discovery of a lie is treated with a shrug.

December 29, 2005
Damning documentary evidence unveiled. Dissident bloggers in coordinated exposé of UK government lies over torture.

Help us beat the British government's gagging order by mirroring this information on your own site or blog!

Constituent: "This question is for Mr Straw; Have you ever read any
documents where the intelligence has been procured through torturous means?"

Jack Straw: "Not to the best of my knowledge... let me make this clear... the British government does not support torture in any circumstances. Full stop. We do not support the obtaining of intelligence by torture, or its use." - Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, election hustings, Blackburn, April 2005

I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture... On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood. - Ambassador Craig Murray, memo to the Foreign Office, July 2004

With Tony Blair and Jack Straw cornered on extraordinary rendition, the UK government is particularly anxious to suppress all evidence of our complicity in obtaining intelligence extracted by foreign torturers.

The British Foreign Office is now seeking to block publication of Craig Murray's forthcoming book, which documents his time as Ambassador to Uzbekistan. The Foreign Office has demanded that Craig Murray remove all references to two especially damning British government documents, indicating that our government was knowingly receiving information extracted by the Uzbeks through torture, and return every copy that he has in his possession.

Craig Murray is refusing to do this. Instead, the documents are today being published simultaneously on blogs all around the world.

The first document contains the text of several telegrams that Craig Murray sent back to London from 2002 to 2004, warning that the information being passed on by the Uzbek security services was torture-tainted, and challenging MI6 claims that the information was nonetheless "useful".

The second document is the text of a legal opinion from the Foreign Office's Michael Wood, arguing that the use by intelligence services of information extracted through torture does not constitute a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture.

Craig Murray says:

In March 2003 I was summoned back to London from Tashkent specifically for a meeting at which I was told to stop protesting. I was told specifically that it was perfectly legal for us to obtain and to use intelligence from the Uzbek torture chambers.

After this meeting Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's legal adviser, wrote to confirm this position. This minute from Michael Wood is perhaps the most important document that has become public about extraordinary rendition. It is irrefutable evidence of the government's use of torture material, and that I was attempting to stop it. It is no wonder that the government is trying to suppress this.

First document: Confidential letters from Uzbekistan

Letter #1
Confidential
FM Tashkent
TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID, MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council Posts

16 September 02

SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting Terrorism
SUMMARY

US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous policy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promote Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical policy.

DETAIL

The Economist of 7 September states: "Uzbekistan, in particular, has jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way of converting their families and friends to extremism." The Economist also spoke of "the growing despotism of Mr Karimov" and judged that "the past year has seen a further deterioration of an already grim human rights record". I agree.

Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.

Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan was improving in both human rights and democracy, thus fulfilling a constitutional requirement and allowing the continuing disbursement of $140 million of US aid to Uzbekistan this year. Human Rights Watch immediately published a commendably sober and balanced rebuttal of the State Department claim.

Again we are back in the area of the US accepting sham reform [a reference to my previous telegram on the economy]. In August media censorship was abolished, and theoretically there are independent media outlets, but in practice there is absolutely no criticism of President Karimov or the central government in any Uzbek media. State Department call this self-censorship: I am not sure that is a fair way to describe an unwillingness to experience the brutal methods of the security services.

Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, a human rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance, but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to cover any of their activities or carry any of their statements.
The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of a prisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is an improvement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does not appear to presage a general change of policy. On the latest cases of torture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims died in a fight between prisoners.

But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers and a fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale of detentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimov has admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groups believe there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remain banned (the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictly controlled. All Internet providers must go through a single government server and access is barred to many sites including all dissident and opposition sites and much international media (including, ironically, waronterrorism.com). This is in essence still a totalitarian state: there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicial independence would be impossible here.

Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political nor economic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development of his country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchic supporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academic told me privately, there is more repression here now than in Brezhnev's time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economically and to justify this support they need to claim that a process of economic and political reform is underway. That they do so claim is either cynicism or self-delusion.

This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the policy of increasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious Muslims, combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to ensure continuing support for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They have certainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, and Karimov's repression may keep the lid on for years -- but pressure is building and could ultimately explode.

I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases and why they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term it will promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never be right to lower our standards on human rights. There is a complex situation in Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only through a prism picked up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to be the philosophy underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: that September 11 divided the World into two camps in the "War against Terrorism" and that Karimov is on "our" side.

If Karimov is on "our" side, then this war cannot be simply between the forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things, like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. I silently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The right words on New York have all been said. But last week was also another anniversary -- the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. The subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather more people than died on September 11. Should we not remember then also, and learn from that too? I fear that we are heading down the same path of US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is perhaps the most unreformed of the World's old communist leaders.
We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to place Uzbekistan in the "too difficult" tray and let the US run with it, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We should tell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one of engagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makes sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view to be taken in the IMF. We should continue to resist pressures to start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channelled non-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constant lobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We should step up our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups.

Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people, suffering from poverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new Great Game.

MURRAY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #2
Confidential
Fm Tashkent
To FCO

18 March 2003

SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICY
SUMMARY

1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.

DETAIL

2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan, about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hail Karimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seven thousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one party state without freedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom of movement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion. It practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands. Most of the population live in conditions precisely analogous with medieval serfdom.

3. Uzbekistan's geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half the population of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all the other states in a region which is important to future Western oil and gas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the US is here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases are extending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five years.

4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to the contrary, in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid this year will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduce any meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid -- more than US aid to all of West Africa – is related to comparative developmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. While the US makes token and low-level references to human rights to appease domestic opinion, they view Karimov's vicious regime as a bastion against fundamentalism. He -- and they -- are in fact creating fundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to a regime that tortures people to death for having a beard or praying five times a day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hate the West?

5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at American urging).

6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US are activated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsored dictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy under previous US Republican administrations. I watched George Bush talk today of Iraq and "dismantling the apparatus of terror… removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms". Yet when it comes to the Karimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in international fora. Double standards? Yes.

7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain to the US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy in Uzbekistan.
MURRAY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #3

CONFIDENTIAL
FM TASHKENT
TO IMMEDIATE FCO

TELNO 63
OF 220939 JULY 04

INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRD LONDON, UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK

SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

SUMMARY

1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.

2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.

3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.

DETAIL

4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several times the issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security services which was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. I queried the legality, efficacy and morality of the practice.

5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legal limitation on its use was that it could not be used in legal proceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.

6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood.

7. Sir Michael Jay's circular of 26 May stated that there was a reporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I have been instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of the war on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and I believe heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. I had in the light of this decided to return to this question and to highlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated as much to the Head of Eastern Department.

8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informing me of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of the meeting, a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads of Department and above, precisely to consider the question of the receipt of Uzbek intelligence material obtained under torture. As the office knew, I was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I still have only gleaned that it happened.

9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true – the material is marked with a euphemism such as "From detainee debriefing." The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.

10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact

11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;
"The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."

While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.

12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless -- we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.

14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable. Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them. Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.

15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family's links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.

16. I have been considering Michael Wood's legal view, which he kindly gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentrated only on Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.

17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of complicity in torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be at least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in a different country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof Francois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on the Convention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit of the Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should be grateful to hear Michael's views on this.

18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but being at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There are other factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention for the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it has been done. That seems plainly complicit.

19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and increasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young people here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus creating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presence here, but not as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts them beyond the pale.

MURRAY

Second Document - summary of legal opinion from Michael Wood arguing that it is legal to use information extracted under torture:

From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor

Date: 13 March 2003

CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD

Linda Duffield

UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the UN Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case, but undertook to re-read the Convention.

2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect. The nearest thing is article 15 which provides:

"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made."

3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law any statement established to have been made as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence.

[signed]

M C Wood
Legal Adviser

Office of Legislative Affairs
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530

December 22, 2005

The Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV
Vice Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Peter Hoekstra
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Jane Harman
Ranking Minority Member
Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairmen Roberts and Hoekstra, Vice Chairman Rockefeller, and Ranking Member Harman:

As you know, in response to unauthorized disclosures in the media, the President has described certain activities of the National Security Agency ("NSA") that he has authorized since shortly after September 11, 2001. As described by the President, the NSA intercepts certain international communications into and out of the United States of people linked to al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. The purpose of these intercepts is to establish an early warning system to detect and prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack on the United States. The President has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks, and the NSA activities the President described are part of that effort. Leaders of the Congress were briefed on these activities more than a dozen times.

The purpose of this letter is to provide an additional brief summary of the legal authority supporting the NSA activities described by the President.

As an initial matter, I emphasize a few points. The President stated that these activities are "crucial to our national security." The President further explained that "the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country." These critical national security activities remain classified. All United States laws and policies governing the protection and nondisclosure of national security information, including the information relating to the activities described by the President, remain in full force and effect. The unauthorized disclosure of classified information violates federal criminal law. The Government may provide further classified briefings to the Congress on these activities in an appropriate manner. Any such briefings will be conducted in a manner that will not endanger national security.

Under Article II of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, "the President is not only authorized but bound to resist by force .... without waiting for any special legislative authority"); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman, J. concurring) ("[T]he Prize Cases ... stand for the proposition that the President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific congressional authorization, and courts may not review the level of force selected."); id. at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring). The Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force ("AUMF") of September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) ("[T]he President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."), and in the War Powers Resolution, see 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c) ("The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities[] ... [extend to] a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.").

This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 20(2) ("[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information .... We take for granted that the President does have that authority .... "). The Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely domestic threats, but it expressly distinguished foreign threats. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347,363-64 (1967) (White, J., concurring).

The President's constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States." § 2(a). The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States, see also id. pmbl. (the attacks of September 11 "render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad"). The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly "committed" the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the AUMF. At least five Justices concluded that the AUMF authorized the President to detain a U.S. citizen in the United States because "detention to prevent a combatant's return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war" and is therefore included in the "necessary and appropriate force" authorized by the Congress. Id. at 518-19 (plurality opinion of O'Connor, J.); see id. at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting). These five Justices concluded that the AUMF "clearly and unmistakably authorize[s]" the "fundamental incident[s] of waging war." Id. at 518-19 (plurality opinion); see id. at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Communications intelligence targeted at the enemy is a fundamental incident of the use of military force. Indeed, throughout history, signals intelligence has formed a critical part of waging war. In the Civil War, each side tapped the telegraph lines of the other. In the World Wars, the United States intercepted telegrams into and out of the country. The AUMF cannot be read to exclude this long-recognized and essential authority to conduct communications intelligence targeted at the enemy. We cannot fight a war blind. Because communications intelligence activities constitute, to use the language of Hamdi, a fundamental incident of waging war, the AUMF clearly and unmistakably authorizes such activities directed against the communications of our enemy. Accordingly, the President's "authority is at its maximum." Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring); see Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654, 668 (1981); cf. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 585 (noting the absence of a statute "from which [the asserted authority] c[ould] be fairly implied").

The President's authorization of targeted electronic surveillance by the NSA is also consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA"). Section 2511 (2)(f) of title 18 provides, as relevant here, that the procedures of FISA and two chapters of title 18 "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... may be conducted." Section 109 of FISA, in turn, makes it unlawful to conduct electronic surveillance, "except as authorized by statute." 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a)(1). Importantly, section 109's exception for electronic surveillance "authorized by statute" is broad, especially considered in the context of surrounding provisions. See 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (1) ("Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who -- (a) intentionally intercepts ... any wire, oral, or electronic communication[] ... shall be punished ....") (emphasis added); id. § 2511 (2)(e) (providing a defense to liability to individuals "conduct[ing] electronic surveillance, ... as authorized by that Act [FISA]") (emphasis added).

By expressly and broadly excepting from its prohibition electronic surveillance undertaken "as authorized by statute," section 109 of FISA permits an exception to the "procedures" of FISA referred to in 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2)(f) where authorized by another statute, even if the other authorizing statute does not specifically amend section 2511 (2)(f). The AUMF satisfies section 109's requirement for statutory authorization of electronic surveillance, just as a majority of the Court in Hamdi concluded that it satisfies the requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) that no U.S. citizen be detained by the United States "except pursuant to an Act of Congress." See Hamdi, 542 U.S. at 519 (explaining that "it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention"); see id. at 587 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Some might suggest that FISA could be read to require that a subsequent statutory authorization must come in the form of an amendment to FISA itself. But under established principles of statutory construction, the AUMF and FISA must be construed in harmony to avoid any potential conflict between FISA and the President's Article II authority as Commander in Chief. See, e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678,689 (2001); INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 300 (2001). Accordingly, any ambiguity as to whether the AUMF is a statute that satisfies the requirements of FISA and allows electronic surveillance in the conflict with al Qaeda without complying with FISA procedures must be resolved in favor of an interpretation that is consistent with the President's long-recognized authority.

The NSA activities described by the President are also consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the protection of civil liberties. The Fourth Amendment's "central requirement is one of reasonableness." Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 330 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). For searches conducted in the course of ordinary criminal law enforcement, reasonableness generally requires securing a warrant. See Bd. of Educ. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 828 (2002). Outside the ordinary criminal law enforcement context, however, the Supreme Court has, at times, dispensed with the warrant, instead adjudging the reasonableness of a search under the totality of the circumstances. See United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118 (2001). In particular, the Supreme Court has long recognized that "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement," can justify departure from the usual warrant requirement. Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995); see also City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 4142 (2000) (striking down checkpoint where "primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing").

Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement. Foreign intelligence collection undertaken to prevent further devastating attacks on our Nation serves the highest government purpose through means other than traditional law enforcement. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 745; United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59,72 (2d Cir. 1984) (recognizing that the Fourth Amendment implications of foreign intelligence surveillance are far different from ordinary wiretapping. because they are not principally used for criminal prosecution).

Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable. Reasonableness is generally determined by "balancing the nature of the intrusion on the individual's privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Earls, 536 U.S. at 829. There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake with respect to the activities described by the President. That must be balanced, however, against the Government's compelling interest in the security of the Nation. See. e.g., Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981) ("It is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation.") (citation and quotation marks omitted). The fact that the NSA activities are reviewed and reauthorized approximately every 45 days to ensure that they continue to be necessary and appropriate further demonstrates the reasonableness of these activities.

As explained above, the President determined that it was necessary following September 11 to create an early warning detection system. FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system. In addition, any legislative change, other than the AUMF, that the President might have sought specifically to create such an early warning system would have been public and would have tipped off our enemies concerning our intelligence limitations and capabilities. Nevertheless, I want to stress that the United States makes full use of FISA to address the terrorist threat, and FISA has proven to be a very important tool, especially in longer-term investigations. In addition, the United States is constantly assessing all available legal options, taking full advantage of any developments in the law.

We hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

[Signature]

William E. Moschella
Assistant Attorney General

I'm going to tell you people just what I've heard

Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it.
H. L. Mencken





Watching the theatre of the absurd yesterday with the Alito Confirmation hearings, I kept waiting for the hard questions to be asked, and consistently the hard subjects were danced around. Democrats are so afraid of appearing rude or confrontational that it's no wonder Bush et al. are able to get away with as much as they are. A lot of Americans are proud, rightly so, of their political system, but it may be time for them to consider a parliamentary system, the idea of the imperial presidency who only allows himself to be questioned at his leisure is not working.

However, 232 years into the game I doubt the US is going to change anything. Certainly, major overhaul such as that would not be in anyone's best interests. It's human nature, once one has power to consolidate as much as possible, and to not give up any power. This isn't so much a criticism as it is an observation. Very few people in history have consciously and willingly diminished their authority.

Reading Dick Morris' column this morning, he laments a leftward shift in the US electorate. I don't see it, but it may be a matter of perception. The democrats are certainly in a position to capitalize on that apparent shift, if indeed legitimate, however, I'm not sure they have the sand for it.

The Cold of the Dead

Love is like war: easy to begin but very hard to stop.
H. L. Mencken

My sleep patterns have been thrown completely askew in recent weeks, and I believe I'm on the road back to normalcy. Well, as normal as life can get in the bunker.

Watching Aalito's confirmation hearing this morning is not good for my sensibilities. I'm thrown back to Allen Drury's classic, advise and consent, and I'm reminded that the whole purpose of the questioning process by the Senate was to vette candidates to find which ones would be suitable for the post they've been nominated to, however the process has instead become a fashion show of poltical posturing. Neither side is going to come out of this battle very well, and the US supreme court will be much the weaker for it. Aalito joined a pro discrimination, anti women organization when he was in his thirties, and that fact is being painted as a political smear, to be used by his opponents.

Facts have become weapons, to be countered with distortions. The world is a surreal place, politics made up of shades of grey.

Rocking out with Arcade Fire this morning, the day is calling out for electric guitars, perhaps it's the rare appearance of the sun, perhaps the impending sense of apocalypse I feel. When the end of the world comes, it will be accompanied by the sounds of feedback.

Haunted by the ghost of McCarthy

A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.
H. L. Mencken



People wonder how I can possibly be as jaded as I am. Yesterday, after writing about how my mood disintegrates as the day progresses I discovered a poll by Ipsos Reid about the NSA spying scandal. The headline itself said that the majority of americans were opposed to the idea of searches and wiretaps without warrants. As I read the entire poll, my initial enthusiasm diminished rapidly. Yes indeed 56% of the people questioned were opposed to warrantless investigations, however 42% of the people asked were NOT opposed to unilateral decisions made without the consultation of the courts.

Shoulders for pillows, lay down your head and dream

Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
H. L. Mencken




Conservatives don't know what to do with me, by every measure, I should be one of them. My career background, my ethnic background, my upbringing, even my unpleasant nature means I should be one of them. I'm not a latte leftist, I don't even like lattes, make my coffee strong and black.

I harbour little patience for fools. This has meant that I have very few allies on the right wing or the left wing. I do have respect for opponents I disagree with, which puzzles them even more. I don't easily degenerate into insulting matches with people I disagree with. Far too easily, people on the left hurl around the word facist. This has diminished the power of that word. When Bush is called a facist now, the middle centre, rolls it's eyes, "oh, another one". I agree with them, for far too long anyone slightly right of centre has been called a facist.

I respect people with strong religious beliefs, as long as they do not try to enforce those principles they hold dear on me. I've always tried to confront the debates with the right with logic, which confounds them. A number of my friends in the US have written to me expressing their dismay over same sex marriage. I've asked them, "why do you care?" if you're not gay, it's not any of your concern. The concern is that their church might be forced to sanctify ceremonies they don't agree with. Not so up here I counter, if a church doesn't want to perform a wedding between two people, it doesn't have to, no argument.

People wonder why I write this journal at the strange times I do, simply because this is when my thought process is the cleanest. I'm free of the mind corruption that the day brings. I can gaze at the azure skies out the window and almost feel optimistic. As the day progresses and the feeds burn during the day, my thoughts become increasingly pessimistic. Maybe it's the laboured breathing from all the cigarettes or the diminishing enthusiasm of the coffee, but I become more and more spiritually tired as the day wears on, a flak jacket of humour is the only thing that allows me to make it to the next appointment with the big empty mattress.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken

One has to wonder what has to happen to convince some people that a leader is not what he proposes to be. Pat Robertson, a leader in the American Christian Community has now , twice, in the past 6 months has implored the death of people he disagrees with politically. A few months ago he called for the assasination of Hugo Chavez, the twice democratically elected leader of Venezuela. he has now implied that that God himself caused Ariel Sharon's stroke.

We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over.
-- Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, p. 29

If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious.
-- Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson's Perspective Oct-Nov 1992

We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA.
-- Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991


There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.
-- Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993.

They scream, "First Amendment." Of course, the First Amendment, as you and I both know, is a restriction on Congress.... So it really doesn't have anything to do with what you say or what I say, one way or the other.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, December 10, 1990

There is never in the Constitution at any point, anything that applies that to the states, none at all. The Supreme Court has done it over repeated attempts by Congress which have been beaten back to do such a thing.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, April 11, 1986
Supreme Court Interpretation of Law Not Binding

A Supreme Court ruling is not the Law of the United States. The law of the United Sates is the Constitution, treaties made in accordance with the Constitution, and laws duly enacted by the Congress and signed by the president. And any of those things I would uphold totally with all of my strength, whether I agreed with them or not.... I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states ... [but] I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party.... I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts.... They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose.
-- Pat Robertson, speaking to a group of Washington Post writers, as reported in the Washington Post, June 27,1986

Supreme Court decisions are binding in the court systems ... but in terms of general law, which binds every citizen, why should you and I be bound because of the ineptitude, if you will, or the skill of one or more defense lawyers, or the plaintiffs in any particular lawsuit?
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, October 23, 1987



Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say this very clearly. If the people of the United States -- all across America, in their churches and in their civic groups and in their legislatures -- decide that they're not going to allow the Supreme Court to dominate their lives in the fashion that it has been in this nation, the Supreme Court does not have the power to change that. They are not going to be able to overturn the will of a hundred million American people. And I think the time has come that we throw off the shackles of this dictatorship that's been imposed upon us.
We had a war in 1776 that set us free from the shackles of the arbitrary rule of the British crown, and I think what's going on in Corbin, Kentucky, boy, those people like to live free. And I think the time has come that we do that...
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program



We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and have been consumed by the pursuit of ... health, wealth, material pleasures and sexuality... It [terrorism] is happening because God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.
-- Pat Robertson in a three-page statement released Thursday, September 13, 2001
[Excerpt]:
We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. Then, we say, "Why does this happen?" It is happening because God Almighty is lifting His protection from us.
-- Pat Robertson, in a three-page statement released Thursday, September 13, 2001

[Passage]:
We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God's eye and said we're going to legislate you out of the schools. We're going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We're not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We're not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And then we say, "Why does this happen?"
Well, why it's happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.
-- Pat Robertson

But I want to say as surely as I am sitting here today, this is only a foretaste, a little warning, of what is going to happen..
-- Pat Robertson, remarking on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, e
This is God's power and he sent this thing to warn us ... we needed a shock.
-- Pat Robertson, remarking on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, quoted by Robert E. Norlander in a dispatch of September 14, 2001


I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe that I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election of 2004. It's shaping up that way. The Lord has just blessed him.... I mean, he could make terrible mistakes and comes out of it. It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad. God picks him up because he's a man of prayer and God's blessing him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, , January 2, 2004 ††

The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, December 30, 1981

Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985,

I never said that in my life ... I never said only Christians and Jews. I never said that.
-- Pat Robertson, Time magazine,

When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are."
-- Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 218

If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality.... Can you imagine having the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as defense minister, or Mahatma Gandhi as minister of health, education, and welfare? The Hindu and Buddhist idea of karma and the Muslim idea of kismet, or fate condemn the poor and the disabled to their suffering.... It's the will of Allah. These beliefs are nothing but abject fatalism, and they would devastate the social gains this nation has made if they were ever put into practice.
-- Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 219


I think patriotism, love of God, love of country, support of the traditional family. They [Christians] believe it would be good for our country if families were closer together.... I think they feel about them more strongly than others do.
-- Pat Robertson, speaking at a rally in Lansing, Michigan, in 1986,



You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991




It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation.
-- Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986


I know it sounds somewhat Machiavellian and evil, to think that you could send a squad in to take out somebody like Osama bin Laden, or to take out the head of North Korea, but isn't it better to do something like that, to take out Milosevic, to take out Saddam Hussein, rather than to spend billions of dollars on a war that harms innocent civilians and destroys the infrastructure of a country?
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 9, 1999,


Immunity from Prosecution: 'God Told Me to Do It'

Gerard Thomas Straub
Writer and TV Executive, former The 700 Club producer

"Here is another example of the way Robertson would mix church and state, rather than keep them separate. Let's say that a Christian thinks God is directing him or her to blow up an abortion clinic or kill a doctor who performs abortions, and this Christian does in fact commit such a crime. In a September of 1984 edition of The 700 Club, Robertson suggested that special church tribunals could be called upon to discern if a believer had in fact received an authentic word from God which compelled him to break a civil law. According to Robertson, if this church tribunal did determine the believer had in fact received an authentic message from God -- how they could reach this conclusion without issuing God a suboena wasn't made clear -- then, Robertson said, the church tribunal would have the civil authority to provide the believer with immunity from prosecution."
-- Gerard Thomas Straub, speech before the San Fernando Valley Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, September 11, 1995, quoted from Harry Schwartzbart, "Pat Robertson Proposes Immunity From Prosecution For Criminals Who Commit Crimes On Instructions From God"


The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
-- Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

N.O.W. is saying that in order to be a woman, you've got to be a lesbian.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, December 3, 1997, although a thorough search of the National Organization for Women's public statements will come up blank, so they aren't "saying" this at all.

[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism -- everything that the Bible condemns.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, April 9, 1991

I am absolutely persuaded one of the reasons so many lesbians are at the forefront of the pro-choice movement is because being a mother is the unique characteristic of womanhood, and these lesbians will never be mothers naturally, so they don't want anybody else to have that privilege either.
-- Pat Robertson, m on The 700 Club television program, May 28, 1993

God's pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family... "Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them."
-- Pat Robertson, reciting a passage from I Timothy in his book, Bring It On, quoted from Nicholas D. Kristof, "Peter, Paul, Mary ... and God" (The New York Times: February 28, 2004) ††

I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 8, 1992


Dede Robertson
The poverty-stricken Robertson's young wife, unsuccessfully pleading with him to return from a month-long religious camping retreat

Dede: "Pat, I've tried to adjust to this 'saved' jag you're on, but you've become a fanatic. All you do is read that Bible all day and sit around and talk to Jesus. I'm a nurse. I recognize schizoid tendencies when I see them, and I think you're sick. It's just not normal for a man to walk out on his wife and leave her with a small child when she's expecting a baby any minute -- while he goes off into the woods to talk to God. God doesn't tell people to do things like that. At least, my God doesn't."
Pat: "I can't leave. God will take care of you."
-- Dede and Pat Robertson, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, pp. 25-26

These girls are not stupid. If you want to pay them five hundred, six hundred, seven hundred, eight hundred dollars a month, or whatever it is, to have a baby, they'll have babies. And if they'll stop paying them, they'll stop having babies. It's that simple. It's not heartless, it's not cruel, it's an intelligent use of money.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 7, 1995, denigrating grown women as "girls"


I don't agree with it ... but ... they've got 1.2 billion people, and they don't know what to do. If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable.... They're doing what they have to do.
-- Pat Robertson, defending China's brutal one-child law:

The Chinese ... will face a tragic dilemma of massive proportions if they permit their population to explode.
-- Pat Robertson, in a "clarification" of the above statement in the wake of howls from both supporters and opponents alike, quoted from Jeff Jacoby, "The Christian Right's Double Shocker," The Boston Globe (April 26, 2001)

Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993, ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey

If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 6, 1998, on the occasion of the Orlando, Florida, Gay Pride Festival 199

I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 6, 1998, on the occasion of the Orlando, Florida, Gay Pride Festival 1998

I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice... [Your children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, October 29, 1982

Many observers say that AIDS is the hammer and gun of the homosexual movement, an effective vehicle to propel the homosexual agenda throughout every phase of our society.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, June 20, 1990

I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, May 24, 1994

It's one thing to say, "We have rights to jobs ... we have rights to be left alone in out little corner of the world to do our thing." It's an entirely different thing to say, well, "We're not only going to go into the schools and we're going to take your children and your grandchildren and turn them into homosexuals." Now that's wrong.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, September 17, 1992

"Have you ever noticed how terribly insecure some straight people are about their sexuality? Queers say, "We don't recruit anyone. We can't. Sexuality is innate and not subject to peer pressure." Straight people say, "Be like us! You have to be like us!" And not only that, they assume that the Queer lifestyle is so wonderful that everyone will go running to practice it at the slightest encouragement, even though it brings a morass of guilt-tripping and discrimination. Gee, that doesn't say much for plain ol' vanilla missionary sex, does it?"
-- Sheela Adrian, writer on gender studies, erotica, and alternative sexuality, responding directly to the above quotation in a personal letter to Cliff Walker, October 18, 2000

The public education movement has also been an anti-Christian movement... We can change education in America if you put Christian principles in and Christian pedagogy in. In three years, you would totally revolutionize education in America.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, September 27, 1993

I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992,


To see Americans become followers of Islam is nothing short of insanity.... The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers.
-- Pat Robertson, quoted from the American Muslim Council press release, "Statement regarding anti-Muslim comments made by Pat Robertson on October 27,1997"


These socialists, and they're in there now, starting with the President and his associates ... they want to squeeze out religion because if people read the Bible, they can't be enslaved. You'll never have a socialist government where everybody's Christian.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, February 18, 1994

God and morality, the Clinton administration wants out of the country.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, December 23, 1993

A cult is any group that has a form of godliness, but does not recognize Jesus Christ as the unique son of God.... One test of a cult is that it often does not strictly teach that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who Himself is God manifested in the flesh.... Christian-oriented cults include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), the Worldwide Church of God, Christian Science, Unity, Unitarianism, The Way International, Rosicrucian Society of America, Bahai, Hare Krishna, Scientology, the Unification Church, and the Jehovah's Witnesses.
-- Pat Robertson, CBN pamphlet entitled "Cults," dated 1992


People For the American Way were founded by the creator of Archie Bunker. Do we want Archie Bunker determining what the United States Senate votes for?
-- Pat Robertson, on the 700 Club during the Ashcroft nomination hearings, quoted from PFAW, "Who Smeared Whom?" (February 23, 2001)


How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?
-- Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p. 227

You see what happened in 1962. They took prayer out of the schools. The next year the Supreme Court ordered Bible reading taken from the schools. And then progressing, liberals, most of them atheistic educators, have pushed to remove all religion from the lives of children.... The people who wrote the "Humanist Manifesto" and their pupils and their disciples are in charge of education in America today.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 13, 1995

The teachers who are teaching your children are not necessarily nice, wonderful servants of the community. They are activists supporting ... values [such as] affirmative action, ERA [the Equal Rights Amendment (as in, equal rights for women)], gun control, sex education, illegal teachers' strikes, nuclear freeze, federal funding for abortions ... decriminalization of marijuana.
-- Pat Robertson (attributed: source unknown)

I read your book. When you get through, you [a reader] say, "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer." I mean, you get through this, and you say, "We've got to blow that thing up." I mean, is it as bad as you say?
-- Pat Robertson, to syndicated columnist Joel Mowbray, author of Dangerous Diplomacy:

Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.
-- Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993.

Audience Participant: "I've been reading through the Book of Numbers recently, and come across that passage in Chapter 31 about the destruction of the Midianites. How do you explain that apparent travesty of the destruction of that people with the just and holy God?"

Pat Robertson: The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they understand fully what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine were very wicked. They were given over to idolatry. They sacrificed their children. They had all kinds of abominable sex practices. They were having sex apparently with animals. They were having sex men with men and women with women. They were committing adultery and fornication. They were serving idols. As I say, they were offering their children up, and they were forsaking God.

God told the Israelites to kill them all: men, women and children; to destroy them. And that seems like a terrible thing to do. Is it or isn't it? Well, let us assume that there were two thousand of them or ten thousand of them living in the land, or whatever number, I don't have the exact number, but pick a number. And God said, "Kill them all." Well, that would seem hard, wouldn't it? But that would be 10,000 people who probably would go to hell. But if they stayed and reproduced, in thirty, forty or fifty or sixty or a hundred more years there could conceivably be ... ten thousand would grow to a hundred, a hundred thousand conceivably could grow to a million, and there would be a million people who would have to spend an eternity in Hell! And it is far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a hundred years down the road, and say, "Well, I'll have to take away a million people, that will be forever apart from God because the abomination is there." It's like a contagion. God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn't going to change, and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites and pull the Israelites away from God and prevent the truth of God from reaching the earth. And so God in love -- and that was a loving thing -- took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number.

Now that's a long answer, but I think that's closer to it. Danuta?

Danuta Soderman: "Well, my question would be, Pat, why didn't He just save them all? I mean, why didn't He say, "I forgive you, I save you," and save them that way? Why obliterate them?"

Robertson: A righteous God, just like a righteous judge -- if a man comes into court who has committed murder, the judge can't say, "Well I'm a merciful kind of judge, and the jury has found you guilty of premeditated, first degree murder, but I'm such a nice guy, you can just go ahead and I forgive you." He can't do that and uphold the law. They would impeach him. A judge has to keep the law and God has certain laws in the universe which must be upheld. The only way He fulfilled those laws was to die himself in the person of His son on the cross. And he is not going to force anybody to accept him. It has to be a free choice. And they had freely chosen to reject him and it doesn't get any better. It gets worse.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, May 6, 1985, justifying and celebrating the wholesale genocide allegedly committed by the early invading Israelites. Excerpted from "Genocidal Act of 'Love'" by Elliott Finesse, and critically edited by Cliff Walker; some portions are contained in Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America.



The Bible says the Earth belongs to man, but the heavens belong to the Lord. He has given us the Earth. He also warned, way back when Moses was writing down not only what is the Ten Commandments, but Deuteronomy, which is almost the Second Law.

Here is what he said to the children of Israel about this whole matter:

"If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshipped them, either the sun or moon or any of the hosts of heaven which I have not commanded you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and stone to death that man or woman with stones." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5, NKJV)

Now, that's what Moses said to the children of Israel about those who worship the sun and the moon and the hosts of heaven, because these things, at best, are lifeless nothings, or, if they are intelligent, they're demonic. And, yes, there is a host of heaven. There are angels and there are fallen angels. There is no question about it.

Can a demon appear as a slanty-eyed, funny-looking creature? Of course he can, or it can. Of course they can deceive people. And if they can lead somebody away from the true God, or away from Jesus Christ, anyway it happens, it doesn't matter, you will lose your salvation. It doesn't matter how they get you. The question is, did they get you, and under what guise?

This is man in rebellion against God, who refuses to take God's Law. And God says, "My covenant says you won't do this. And if I find anybody in Israel," -- which is his pure nation -- "If I find anybody in Israel that's doing this sort of thing, then I want you to take him out and dispose of him."

It's a clear violation of God's word.
-- Pat Robertson, excerpted verbatim from "Robertson Advocates Stoning for UFO Enthusiasts" by Skipp Porteous, Freedom Writer Magazine


You and I have never been called upon to have this kind of persecution. I have felt it especially intensely over the last few years, as people on the left of the political spectrum are hurling viscous attacks at me and at other believers because they do not want us to have any voice in our government, they don't want us to have any voice in the public affairs of our nation, they don't want us to have any role in defending ourselves or our families, or bringing about a peaceful society in America.

And some of them, like People For the American Way are richly funded by Hollywood -- men like Norman Lear and others, are paying vast sums of money to attack me. That's sort of the way it is. But ladies and gentlemen, this is America -- we haven't suffered and been hung up by our hands and had our kidneys punched and beaten. We haven't had our houses ransacked and our churches burned, but some people have already had their churches burned in America. This virulent anti-Christian bigotry has got to stop! You cannot vote for someone who's an anti-Christian bigot. You cannot allow somebody in public office to be an anti-Christian bigot.

These voices that are raised against Christianity, Christians have got to stand together and say no. But beyond that, we must join as a united front against this genocide that's taking place in the Middle East. To see Americans become followers of quote Islam, is nothing short of insanity. Terry, you know, I've been in Africa many, many, many, many times, and you see people over here learning Swahili, for example.

Swahili was the language of the slave traders. The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would people in America want to embrace the religion of the slavers, and the language of the slavers -- that's what Swahili is; it's not a native African dialect. You say 'what's going on in America, when we welcome into our society and give rights to people who are persecuting Christians around the world.' It's time we stood up against this and said 'no more!'

We must demand the State Department do something in relation to the Sudan, in relation to the Palestinian Authority, in relation to Iran, in relation to Saudi Arabia and these other countries that are persecuting Christians. We can't let it happen. And if we don't let our voices be heard, it's going to happen. Now, I think we ought to pray, we should really pray. And then we should do something as well as pray, and let our voices be heard. Speak out wherever we are -- we can't be silent. Look what happened in the Holocaust. A whole race was close to extinction because we were silent. We can't be silent any longer. If it's them now, it'll be us next.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, November 11, 1997,

A letter from the Aljazeera cameraman prisoner in Guantanamo, to his British lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith (the first of three letters)

Punished for three grains of rice and four ants
By Sami Muhydin al-Hajj,

Guantanamo Bay, November 6, 2005

Dear Clive:
Let me make a confession: I cannot stop asking myself this question, why do they punish me? It is becoming an obsession, but I cannot get it out of my head. All these punishments began when they put me in prison in Bagram, Afghanistan.

They only allowed us to go to the athroom twice a day, the first time just after dawn and then just before dusk. We could only go when it was our turn. I remember that once I was very desperate and I whispered to the man in front of me in the queue, to let me get in front of him. The soldier, guarding us, bellowed with fury, “Do not speak!” and then ordered me to get out. He tied my hands to a wire and left me there all day on my feet and shivering with the cold weather. Eventually, I soiled my trousers, to the enjoyment of the soldiers and the whores present.

Then to Kandahar:
In full summer, under the blazing sun and walking on the burning soil, one soldier shouts, “You! Hold it there... the second one... the third one and also the fourth one! Why did you speak? Get on your knees with your hands on your head!

We were left like this, under the torrid sun and kneeling on the burning stones until one of us collapsed and the rest went to his aid.

One week, after arriving in Guantanamo, the soldiers got to the cages, very early in the morning and ordered all the prisoners to put their arms through the gap in the door that they used to get our food to us, because, they said, they were going to vaccinate us against tetanus.

When it was my turn, I said to them that I had been vaccinated before I left Doha, against tetanus, yellow fever, cholera and other illnesses and that according to the doctor there that these vaccines were active for five years. There was no point in having them again. The officer bellowed telling me not to argue, " Get your arm out or we'll get it out for you!” I refused.

They left me alone for the moment, and then, they returned after finishing with the rest. However, I kept refusing again and again. As a punishment they took all my things, from the mattress to the toothbrush, and I had to sleep on the floor for three days and three nights. I kept asking myself the same question that torments me: Why do they punish me?

Are we to take medicines by force? Have we suddenly turned into a flock of sheep? Do we have to accept everything without protest; without objecting to the excesses—without finding out at least what all this is about?


Many things worse than what I have described happened to me. One night I went to bed quite early. I was exhausted after spending many hours under interrogation. I was awakened by the shouts and commands from the soldiers. “Get your head and your hands out of the blanket!” I was startled so I complied. As a matter of fact, it was forbidden for us to sleep with our heads or hands covered by the blanket.

I went to slept again. Some time later a soldier started hitting the door of the cage as hard as he could and started bellowing, "Why did you put the toothpaste in the place of the toothbrush?” He accused me of refusing to obey military laws and regulations and ordered me to get all my things together. I was punished for a whole week.

And here I am again, asking the same question. Why do they punish me? How can they justify punishing me for a week, taking away all my things, leaving me with no mattress or blanket, obliging me to sleep on the floor? Another time, I was having breakfast, which consisted of the cold contents of a can. When I finished a soldier collected the leftovers and the plastic bags. He stopped at the door of the cage and counted the pieces, trying to put them together again. Suddenly he shouted, "Where is it... the piece that is missing?" I started looking among my things but I did not find it.

He immediately went away to report the problem to his superiors and came back with his orders. I had to be made an example. Yet again, they took away all my possessions for three days and yet again the same old question came back...Why do they punish me? What on earth would I want with a small piece of a plastic bag?Once more, providence reunited me in the same cage block with Yamel from Uganda, Mohamed from Chad and Yamel Blama from Britain. The colour of the skin and the hated orange of our boilersuits also united us. The black of our skins was enough to make the guards hate us and make our lives hell. Often they woke us up during the night under the pretext of searching the cage.

One night the soldiers woke me up for yet another search. They did not find anything suspicious, that is, except for three grains of rice on the floor that I had saved for the ants. This time they punished me for seven days and yet again, the same old question came back to haunt me… Why do they punish me?

I just couldn’t understand why three grains of rice and four ants were sufficient reason for them to punish me.

Another night two soldiers stood in front of my door. They were carrying chains and shackles. They banged on the door very hard and I felt afraid when I woke up. They chained me and took me to the Romeo Barracks. They pushed me into a cage. They took my boilersuit and I was left in my underwear. Nothing more, no soap or toothbrush or anything else.

No matter how many times I asked them why I was being punished I never got an answer. However, sometime later I was told that I was in solitary confinement for two weeks, because a soldier found a nail sticking out of the vent in my cage. I asked them from where they thought I got the nail or how did they think that I managed to stick it onto the outside of my cage. No answers—they just turned on their heels and left.

I spent 14 days sitting there, able to say my prayers as I could not do it with respect and dignity in that state of undress. I had to sleep for 14 cold winter nights on the ground without a mattress or blanket.

The harassment and the provocations from the soldiers went from bad to worse. Once we found out that a soldier had trampled on the Holy Koran and left the mark of his boots on it. All prisoners rebelled and decided to return all the copies of the holy book to the administration office so that they were not desecrated in front of us. The Camp Commandant promised that it would not happen again. But, of course, the promise was not fulfilled... The prisoners decided not to leave the cages, not even for walks or desperately needed showers, until they collected all the copies of the Holy Koran.

As always, the culprits came back barking orders and threats. The ruthless riot units arrived. They opened all the cages and beat up all the prisoners before putting shackles and chains on them. They all had their hair; moustaches and beards shaved by force and were thrown into isolation cages.

As it happened to all the others, when my turn came, I was sprayed with gas, beaten up and thrown onto the floor. Once there, a soldier got hold of my head and started banging it against the cement floor. Another one kicked me very hard in the face and immediately blood started pouring out of the injury. All this was happening as I was pinned down to the floor, chained and shackled. Like the others I lost all my hair and was thrown, drenched in blood into an isolation cage.

After an hour or so a soldier asked me through the vent if I wanted to see a doctor. I said no and prayed to Allah, putting before Him the injustices of those who had robbed us of our freedom and dignity. At one point, I felt very faint and I asked to see a doctor. When the doctor got there he gave me three stitches, put a dressing on my head and gave me some sleeping tablets, saying they were antibiotics. All that, through a gap of a few centimetres wide. I fell asleep knocked down by the terrible injustice perpetrated by those men.

The following morning the same old question came back as a curse... Why do they punish us?

Perhaps to defend my faith and my religion is a crime punishable with prison. Is it also a crime to ask that all copies of the Holy Koran are collected and kept in a safe place so they are not desecrated in front of us? Why am I here? Because I travelled to Afghanistan with my camera to film for four weeks the brutal war waged against the Afghan people, working on behalf of Al Jazeera. Is this also a crime, which has to be punished with (so far) more than four years in prison? Why did they accuse me of being a terrorist?

Far too many questions are swimming in my head and tormenting my spirit, together with all the slogans promoting deception and the justifying so many crimes committed by those who like to see themselves as promoters of freedom, defenders of democracy and protectors of peace on earth.



Original : http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/08DE9B0F-391A-42B4-B391-A73AE742F133.htm/ Translated from Arabic into French by Ahmed Manaï, a member of Tlaxcala,the network of translators for linguistic diversity (transtlaxcala@yahoo.com ), from French into Spanish by Juan Vivanco at http://www.rebelion.org , and from Spanish into English by Ernesto Paramo, a member of Tlaxcala. This translation is copyleft.French version : http://quibla.net/guantanamo2006/guantanamo1.htm Spanish version : http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=25069 . Italian version by Mirumir http://mirumir.blogspot.com/