News & Politics > Briefs
edited by Lorna Tychostup

The Silencing of the Media

During his June 15 appearance on NBC’s "Meet the Press," retired four-star General and CNN analyst Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that beginning on 9/11, he began to receive calls from Bush administration officials urging him to implicate Saddam Hussein in the attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon.

An excerpt from the "Meet the Press" transcript reads:

CLARK: I think there was a certain amount of hype in the intelligence, and I think the information that's come out thus far does indicate that there was a sort of selective reading of the intelligence in the sense of sort of building a case.

RUSSERT: Hyped by whom?

CLARK: Well, I...

RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of Defense, who?

CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?

CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, "You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein." I said, "But-I'm willing to say it but what's your evidence?" And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.

According to information gathered by media watchdog, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), Clark's statement supports a little-noted "CBS Evening News" story that aired on September 4, 2002. Correspondent David Martin reportedly told viewers, "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH [Saddam Hussein] at the same time, not only UBL [Osama Bin Laden]." The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not.

FAIR claims, that "despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence—and therefore the war—may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story."

Graduating first in his class at West Point, Clark spent time in Vietnam, Panama, and was the highly decorated former Supreme Allied Commander of the NATO armies in Europe, which defeated the forces of former Yugoslav president Slobodon Milosevic. Clark was removed three months shy of the end of his first term as Supreme Commander amid rampant speculation that ranged from his being at odds with the Pentagon to accusations of committing war crimes in Yugoslavia (among them ordering the bombing of a Belgrade TV station which killed 20 journalists and other civilians).

In the weeks leading up to this latest chapter of the ongoing US war on Iraq, Clark became a familiar face to TV viewers appearing regularly as an analyst for CNN. A rumored Democratic presidential candidate-in-waiting, the NBC interview was not the first time Clark has been vocal regarding the Bush administration’s inadequate case for war in Iraq. In a Salon.com interview just days into Operation Iraqi Freedom, Clark said, "I don’t think the case [for war] has been made well. It’s been made very poorly."

Clark went on to say that he believed that Bush could have eventually made the case for war, and that actions regarding "the problem of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction" would have to be taken at some point, however, "the element of urgency was always missing." And the actions "didn't have to necessarily be military and they didn't have to be now."

According to Clark long before 9/11 there had been "a US government policy to support an eventual regime change in Baghdad," that was not "aggressively pursued. Subsequent to 9/11, there was a decision then made, ‘Let's go attack Iraq’…and the framework of the decision wasn't ‘Gee, we've got a terrible problem with Iraq, what are we going to do.’…Instead, they apparently moved in their own private counsel and said simply, ‘We've got to have regime change in Baghdad.’" This Clark said, despite the fact that they had "left behind European and world public opinion, which couldn't quite grasp the connection between 9/11 and Iraq."

Indeed, the numerous reported complaints made by the CIA regarding the handling of intelligence related to Iraq were largely ignored during and after the race to war on Iraq. Back in March of this year, a New York Times article reported, "For months, a few CIA analysts have privately expressed concerns to colleagues and Congressional officials that they have faced pressure in writing intelligence reports to emphasize links between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda."

Forged evidence pointing to a uranium connection between Niger and Iraq that the CIA was suspicious of were used by Bush in public," the article goes on to state, with "analysts at the agency" feeling "pressured to make their intelligence reports on Iraq conform to Bush administration policies."

Yet, despite such openly reported admissions of intelligence manipulations by the Bush administration, and despite the fact that American and international intelligence communities have repeatedly stated there is no evidence linking 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration’s war rhetoric continues to this day to falsely link the two. These lies and misleading fictions, coupled with the media-driven accusation of Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction ready to be launched within 40 minute of an attack on Iraq brought many Americans to support the war. Indeed, a poll by CBS and the New York Times taken just before the war began showed that 45 percent of Americans said they believed Hussein was responsible for the attacks. A previous poll taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates showed that 50 percent of the American people believed that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis.

No such weapons—chemical, biological or nuclear—have been found to date, nor were they found to be used during the war. Yet according to a June 10 Gallup poll, 43 percent of Americans believe Saddam did possess weapons of mass destruction, and 40 percent believe he had ties to the Al Qeada terrorist group.

—Lorna Tychostup SOURCES: FAIR, NEW YORK TIMES, SALON.COM, ZPUB.COM, WASHINGTON MONTHLY

RAVE Act Nothing to Rave About

On April 10 of this year, Congress passed the “Amber Alert” legislation, setting up a nationwide voluntary rapid-response network to help find kidnapped children. Attached to the bill, without public notice nor a Congressional vote, was the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act introduced by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE). Formerly known as the RAVE Act, this bill—which became law on April 30—expands the scope of the Controlled Substances Act, often referred to as the “crack house law.” The new law makes it easier for the federal government to fine and jail property owners (for up to 20 years) for the drug offenses of their customers or tenants.

The text of the bill reads, in part: “A bill to prohibit an individual from knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance.”

Last year, when the bill was first proposed by Sen. Biden as the RAVE Act, groups concerned with drug reform and civil liberties contacted the senator and expressed concern for the broad wording of the bill, which makes individuals liable for prosecution if they fail to stop drug use on their property, even in cases where they take steps to reduce drug use.

Bill Piper, associate director for national affairs for the Drug Policy Institute, believes the law is poorly worded and gives too much discretion to the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Justice Department to prosecute individuals who may be unaware that drug use is occurring on their property. “The way they’ve worded it,” Piper said, “they’ve made it a federal crime with a twenty-year imprisonment if you’re caught hosting a party where drugs are used.” Piper added that since the wording of the bill is so vague, everyone is a potential target. “The problem with the law,” Piper said, “is that it applies to any place, so you’re subject to prosecution if you’re a motel or hotel owner, a club owner, a landlord, even in your own home, whether or not you are using drugs.”

On January 28, when Sen. Biden introduced the bill, he stated for the congressional record that his intent with the RAVE Act was to “help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution.”

The first use of the new law, however, was not to break up an Ecstasy ring, but to stop a fundraising concert for the Montana chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy.

On May 30, a Montana-based DEA agent showed up at the Eagle Lodge in Billings, where a benefit was to be held that evening for NORML and SSDP. The agent presented the venue owners with a copy of the RAVE Act and warned them that they could be subject to a $250,000 fine if anyone was found smoking marijuana during the benefit. After consulting their attorneys, the Eagle Lodge canceled the event.

“This confirms all our fears about the RAVE Act,” said Piper. “If this had been a fundraiser for animal rights, it would have been different. But it certainly looks like it was [the DEA’s] intent to shut down a fundraiser [for legalizing medical marijuana]. The RAVE Act is being used to suppress political speech.”

A national coalition of groups, including the Electronic Music Defense and Education Fund, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the American Civil Liberties Union are pressuring Congress to take another look at the law. A large protest against the law is planned for September 6 in Washington, DC. For information, visit www.drugpolicy.org.

—Brian K. Mahoney

World a More Dangerous Place, Says Report

Despite the constant rhetoric of the Bush administration that the “war on terror” will increase the safety and security of Americans at home and abroad, Amnesty International’s Report 2003 says this “diversion” draws attention from other vital human rights issues around the world and has actually made the world a more dangerous place.

“Our fears were once again confirmed over the past year as the drive for security gained greater momentum around the world,” said Irene Khan, Amnesty International's Secretary General. “A combination of forces sought to roll back the human rights gains of the past five decades in the name of security and "counter-terrorism". But the restrictions on liberty have not necessarily led to increased dividends on safety. Greater emphasis on security, far from making the world a safer place, has made it more dangerous by curtailing human rights and undermining the rule of international law; by shielding governments from scrutiny; by deepening divisions among people of different faiths and origins; and by diverting attention from festering conflicts and other sources of insecurity.”

Among the report’s cited sources of insecurity are “the failure to halt the unimpeded flow of small arms, to eradicate extreme poverty and preventable diseases, to arrest and treat the spread of HIV/AIDS, and deal with the social dimensions of globalization. Real security will remain illusory, especially for the poor, so long as police, courts, and state institutions in many countries remain inept or corrupt.”

While “governments have spent billions to strengthen national security and the ‘war on terror’” for “millions of people,” the introduction states, “the real sources of insecurity are corruption, repression, discrimination, extreme poverty, and preventable diseases.”

“Throughout 2002 the international political agenda and media headlines were driven by the ‘war on terrorism’ and the threat of war on Iraq,” said Khan. “In the heightened insecurity due to the 9/11 attacks in the USA and in the name of combating ‘terrorism’, governments chose to ignore and undermine the collective system of security which international law represents. Draconian measures—by democratic as well as autocratic governments—to intrude and intercept, to arrest and detain suspects without trial, and to deport people with no regard to their fate, weakened human rights protection of individuals as well as respect for the standards of international law. Repression of their political opponents increased, and sweeping and often discriminatory laws that undermined the very foundations of international human rights and humanitarian law were introduced.” Among those at risk from these new laws that target political opponents and others whose loyalty is questioned are “trade unionists, journalists, religious and racial minorities, and human rights defenders.”

“Governments are not entitled to respond to terror with terror. They are obliged at all times to act within the framework of international human rights and humanitarian law. The people who organize and perpetrate bombings of buses in Tel Aviv or a discotheque in Bali, who ambush and kill civilians in Burundi, or who take hostages in a theatre in Moscow must be brought to justice in accordance with standards of fair trial. So too must the Israeli soldiers who carry out unlawful killings in the Occupied Territories, the Indonesian police who torture in Aceh and Papua, the Russian security forces who rape villagers in Chechnya. By denying justice and perpetuating impunity, many governments have both undermined their international human rights obligations and contributed to the cycle of insecurity, violence and violations.”

—Lorna TychostupSOURCE: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL