Gettleman off the point in NYT Week in Review Aug 16/09

In an unnecessarily long and windy piece in the NYT week in review Jeffrey Gettleman, "Our Man in Central Africa" opines that the excessive news coverage of the gaffe about Mrs. Clinton and her husband happened because "Americans" care more about celeb personals than about Africa. But here's an obvious case of the media mistaking its own interests and inclinations for those of the public. Gettleman spent many paragraphs over several days on the gaffe but just one or two on an African's opinion about US foreign policy in Africa.

(A Congolese student asked Mrs. Clinton if the US would assassinate him if he became president are followed an independent course of policy not in synch with US's perceived interests. She gave a dignified but humble answer that acknowledged problems with past US actions there.)

Contradictorily, Gettlement criticizes Mrs. Clinton's young team as elitist for hurrying the news team along and getting her quickly to the airport on a highway closed for that purpose.

In the same article, though, he describes how Mrs. Clinton courageously organized several public forums in Congo so that citizens could question her and express their views. Too, she put herself on the front lines in eastern Congo to interview refugees and focus on the massive problem of rape in the war zone.

Maybe this reporter should have slept in yesterday and waited until he had more illuminating, useful, and consistent comments on our Secretary of State's truly historic trip to a huge, rich, vital country that, but for colonial and neocolonial abuses should be the "US" or "Brazil" of Africa.

Comment on Scott Shane's NYT Week in Review CIA Assassination Article

Comment on Scott Shane's NYT Week in Review CIA Assassination Article

Scott Shane didn't do his homework for his article on CIA assassination projects and he missed the point about the CIA's failure to accomplish assassinations of foreign leaders.

First, he attributes Lumumba's murder to a "rival Congolese group" and states that the CIA failed in its attempt because the would-be American assassin balked. The CIA did not fail because any American hit-man balked. In the multiple CIA assassination projects against Lumumba, there were multiple hit-people and none were American.

The reason why CIA failed is the same reason many CIA projects fail: the CIA offficials who planned the attempts were clueless about the motivations of the other nationals involved and therefore unable to get them to do what they wanted. Since it was a stringent requirement by US leaders that absolutely no US involvement be provable, CIA had to try to get a non-US agent to try to kill Lumumba with the abundant cash and weapons CIA provided, such as poison for his toothpaste and a sniper's gun and ammo. These local Congolese agents and the two European criminals recruited happily took the money but always found some problem that prevented them from carrying out the final deed. This pattern is quite similar to what happened when CIA bribed Congolese members of Parliament to try to get them to make a vote of no confidence against Lumumba. The Congolese politicans, however, gladly took the money and then voted their consciences, and no vote of no confidence against him was made by Parliament despite the CIA efforts.

As for who actually killed Lumumba, it was not, as Shane claims, a rival Congolese group, though that is what the US plotters always hoped people would think.

During the months Lumumba was under the control of Congolese military directed by Congolese politicians, he stayed alive. But only six hours after he was transferred into the hands of White soldiers in Katanga, at the behest of American and Belgian plotters, he was dead, shot by a firing squad composed of Belgian men, led by Belgian officers, who were directed to kill him by Belgian officials, and his body was disposed of by Belgian officers. All the knowledgeable sources of the time state that these men were under the control of and loyal to the Belgian government, not to any Congolese faction.

So, based on this kind of past history, which is only one instance of many, I'd say that the probable reason why the CIA never got to first base in the project to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders is that they never were able to figure out how to get a non-American team of agents to do the deed.

My comments to President Obama about the torture memos 05/14/09

Torture photos 2

President Obama:

Your reversal on the release of the "torture photos" is shocking and a great mistake.

The published reason for your change: that leaders of the armed forces have urged you to because of possible retaliation against US troops is not a valid one.

First, you must know that security forces, of which the army is one, will always resist circulation of the truth about abuses carried out by them.

Second, retaliators do not need more reasons to act against our troops. There are more than enough already, such as the killing of civilians in ill-informed and ill-advised bombing actions. One more will not make a difference, and, as you can see, other countries' armed forces that have committed abuses are not as retaliated against as ours are. Therefore, exposure of such abuses cannot be an important reason for such retaliation.

Third, hiding such abuses prevents their punishment and ensures that they will not effectively be prevented in the future. Abuses must be exposed, debated, and recompensed for legally. The idea that doing so is harmful is a very weak and fatuous one.

Openness and proper prosecution of abuses against people's civil and human rights must be followed.

Sincerely,

A. C. Roosevelt

My comments to President Obama on the US threat to Britain about their release of intel documents in court 06/06/09

Re: US's threats to UK on the release of the intelligence memo on the interrogations of Binyam Mohammed by security officers

Dear President Obama:

I wish to express my strong opposition to your administration's threats against the UK in regard to the release of information about the interrogations of British subject who was accused of being a terrorist. Your administration apparently has told UK that the US will further limit intelligence sharing if the information is released.

As in the other cases in which your administration is trying to prevent the publication of evidence about our military and security agencies' treatment of detainees, concealing what went on will help no one except officers and administrators who misbehaved. Wrongdoing in important maters of national interest cannot be prevented in the future if it is not exposed, discussed, and punished.

Sincerely,

Anna C. Roosevelt

My comments to President Obama on releasing the torture photos and documents 04/17/09

The Obama administration did the right thing to release the torture memos today April 17, 2009.

No abuse of human rights, rule of law, or justice should be concealed, regardless of embarassment and future difficulties in the operation of the agencies and individuals involved.

Abusive techniques are not needed for intelligence or law enforcement. They do more harm to that endeavor than they help, because they elicit false information and create future legal and other difficulties.

It's very important not to listen to the pleas of intelligence officials. There is only one reason they need secrecy about these matters: to conceal culpability and to prevent future use.

The American people need to know about crimes by government officials so that they may be punished and prevented in the future.

My comments to President Obama on Judge Sotomayor 06/06/09

Re: Sotomayor for Supreme Court

I wish to commend your choice of Ms. Sotomayor as a candidate for the Supreme Court.

As you know, the American public has expressed a majority of support for her candidacy. In this, they have disregarded the spurious claims from some politically extreme commentators.

This judge has shown a wonderful combination of intelligence, common sense, clarity, restraint, and honesty in her decisions and comments.

Furthermore, she is just the right seasoning to add to the mix of justices on the court today. She is scrappy, outspoken, determined, fearless, but warm, friendly, a giving colleague, and a non-partisan voter.

I am sure you realize that it is outrageous that the composition of the court in this day and age is dominated by white men from the corporate law world. This, rather than Sotomayor's thoughtful and acidulous comments on the best potential role of ethnic and racial diversity in the justice system, truly is racism. This gender group and ethnic group that represent nothing but the tenacious control of power of the very group that colonized our land should not rule the final legal decisions of our country. It is very wrong.

I hope that you persevere in putting forward this nomination. The American public is for it.

Anna C. Roosevelt

Evanston, IL

My comments to President Obama on the national forests 06/06/09

National forests

Dear President Obama:

I wish to register my opinion in support of your shift of US policy toward roads and access to our national forests.

As you know, these forests represent a tiny fraction of the magnificent stands that greeted the first colonists. As such, the need to be protected with vigilance and energy.

The forests give so much beyond the timber and other economic products generally recognized. They are havens for our wildlife, which is under siege from pollution, overdevelopment, and improper management of introduced species.

But more important, the forests are the local source of most of our rain. More than half of moisture that ends up as rain is held in the body of the forest or captured from the air by the trees when they intersect clouds or winds. When forests are cut, that moisture is lost from the system. Worse, the uncovered land then heats up and dries, and those conditions further desiccate the remaining moisture from other sources. The rain that then falls does not filter into the ground to support vegetation and replenish groundwater but it scours the ground of topsoil and the floods off to foul the waters of our reservoirs and fisheries.

Thank you for contributing to the future of our forests and the maintenance of all their great services to our country.

Sincerely,

Anna C. Roosevelt

Evanston, IL