Sunday, January 6, 2008

1/11: International Day of Action to Shut Down Guantánamo - Wear Orange!

Published on Witness Against Torture

CALL TO ACTION: International Day of Action to Shut Down Guantánamo

"There is little question of how history will respond to Guantánamo…it will be looked back on with condescension and bemusement. How could we be so foolish, misguided, cruel? How we will respond is a legal question and a political question. But it is most of all a moral question. Will we respond with courage or cowardice? This is our choice."

- Joseph Margulies, a lawyer challenging the indefinite detention of the prisoners at Guantánamo

On January 11th, 2002, twenty hooded and shackled men shuffled off a plane from Afghanistan, arriving at the U.S. prison at Guantánamo. In an attempt to sidestep the Geneva Convention protections for prisoners of war, the Bush administration created a new category of “enemy combatant” for these men captured in the “war on terror.”

Since that time, more than one thousand men and boys have been imprisoned at Guantánamo. Accounts of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment have been condemned by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch and other reputable bodies. The prisoners have resorted to hunger strikes as a way of protesting their treatment. Many have attempted suicide; three men killed themselves on June 10th 2006. Desperation, fear and frustration mark their confinement.

Five years later, not a single prisoner has been charged, tried or convicted of any crime. Many have been released because no evidence has been found against them, but more than 430 men remain in indefinite detention without hope of release. The United States has abandoned law and justice.

January 11th, 2007 marks five years of unjust imprisonment, isolation, beatings, interrogation and abuse for these men. We must say: no more. We must say: no longer. For our nation of laws, for our democracy, for our humanity and theirs, we demand small but essential steps to help return our nation to the best of our own traditions.

We call on the United States government to:

· Repeal the Military Commissions Act and restore Habeas Corpus.
· Charge and try or release all detainees.
· Withhold funds for the proposed $125 million construction of new military courts at Guantánamo.
· Clearly and unequivocally forbid torture and all other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, by the military, the CIA, prison guards, civilian contractors, or anyone else.
· Pay reparations to current and former detainees and their families for violations of their human rights.
· Shut down Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and all other U.S. prisons overseas, including secret CIA detention facilities.

We mark January 11, 2007 as a day of national shame. But we can also mark it as a day of citizen action. How? By acting on behalf of our fellow human beings in Guantánamo, their bereaved families and all victims of the “war on terrorism.”

We declare January 11, 2007 an International Day of Action to Shut Down Guantánamo. In Washington, DC we will march from the Supreme Court to the U.S. Federal Court. At the Supreme Court, Guantánamo Lawyers and others will address the press. Individuals will then proceed to Federal Court, taking on the names and identities of the men in Guantánamo and submitting Habeas petitions on their behalf. With our action and our bodies, we will forge the path that the Center for Constitutional Rights and other legal advocates demand on behalf of their clients. Outside the Federal Court on Constitution Avenue, people will read testimonies and names of prisoners, perform street theater and hand out information. There will be solidarity demonstrations from Amsterdam to Boise, Idaho and a National Call-In Day to Congress.

We invite you to come to Washington and participate, either as an individual or as part of an affinity group. If travel is not an option, join or plan an action in your own community. Around the country, groups are planning vigils and actions at courthouses, federal building and public squares. In other countries, the focus will be on U.S. Embassies and military facilities. For a full list of both National and International actions, visit www.witnesstorture.org

If you plan on coming to DC, we encourage you to form affinity groups and be in touch with organizers ahead of time for details on the scenario. Contact Matt Daloisio (Daloisio@earthlink.net) or Frida Berrigan (Frida.Berrigan@gmail.com).

Source URL:
http://www.witnesstorture.org/node/429

LA Event on the Eve of 1/11

Dozens of groups such as Witness Against Torture, Amnesty International and the ACLU have called for a day of international protest to shut down Guantanamo. On the eve of this very important day where we seek to see orange blooming all over the place, we will be holding a forum in Los Angeles.

What: Forum: Shut Down Guantanamo! Drive Out the Bush Regime!

When: Thursday, Jan. 10th at 7:15 p.m. on the eve of the International Day of Action to Close Guantanamo.

Where: Echo Park United Methodist Church, 1226 N. Alvarado Blvd. (one block north of Sunset), in Los Angeles. Street Parking. Metro Bus Routes #2, #4, #704, or #302
,
Who: The World Can't Wait-Drive Out the Bush Regime presents:

Michael Rapkin, an ACLU Union and Foundation Board Member. Represented an 'enemy combatant" in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His client was imprisoned for five years without charges or trial, and was tortured. Michael met with his client in Guantanamo. Michael will discuss the conditions in Guantanamo, including torture, lack of basic protections, and the assault on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Dennis Loo, Ph.D. sociology professor at CalPoly Pomona and co-editor of "Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush & Cheney". Member of The World Can't Wait National Steering Committee, Dennis created the "Declare It Now - Wear Orange Daily" (DIN) campaign. Dennis will speak about the importance of individuals taking personal responsibility for acting daily and publicly through DIN, and what difference individuals make by wearing orange and changing the dynamic in society.

Sunsara Taylor, writer for Revolution newspaper and World Can't Wait National Advisory Board member, who occasionally spars with Bill O'Reilly. Sunsara will address the critical moment that we face with the revelation of the CIA's destruction of the torture tapes. Will the people in this country be silent and accept this as the new norm? Or will millions speak out and reverse the direction that the Bush administration, and the Democrats who are complicit, are taking society?

Actor and activist John Heard will read from the powerful new book, "Poems from Guantanamo."

Why: Your government is openly torturing people, justifying it and is poised to normalize it. Caught destroying evidence of torture, the Bush Regime is every day providing more reasons why they must be driven from office and held accountable for their crimes. This event kicks off Friday, Jan. 11th, International Day of Action to Close Guantanamo. WCW joins with ACLU, WitnessTorture, Amesty International, Code Pink and others to ask people to wear orange and demand closure to this vile prison.

Other: A $5 donation will be requested at the door. No one will be turned away for lack of funds. For more information, please call World Can't Wait - LA at 323.462.4771, or e-mail us at worldcantwait_la@yahoo.com. Visit www.worldcantwait.org to learn more about this movement.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

The White Rose At the Rose Parade 1/08



(By the by, while giving this speech I donned a coat jacket which obscured the orange ribbon on my shirt. Was running late, what can I tell you?)

Friday, January 4, 2008

The NYT's Editorial "Looking for America" and My Response

The New York Times ran the following editorial on 1/31/07. They accurately enumerate a number of the war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed by the Bush White House in appropriately passionate language. At the end they offer as a solution not impeachment but the hope that a new president in 2009 will somehow right these wrongs. Their criticism of Bush and Cheney is welcome, albeit it's very late, rather like allowing a mass murderer to do his dirty work for years and then finally slamming him for it. Indeed, it isn't "rather like," it is.

In response to the editorial and in particular their electoral solution, I submitted a comment that, much to my surprise, they not only ran but highlighted in their editorial's online edition in a colored side bar along with selecting my comment as one of the Editor's Selections.

As Reading Between the Lines notes (their reposting of my comment is missing the last paragraph, by the way), what's extraordinary in this instance is not that the Times was denouncing the Bush White House but that they would feature my comment given that I slam the Times for their collusion in the White House's crimes. Perhaps a guilty conscience?

Who knows? I'm glad at least that they gave my argument some prominence because the points I was making are sorely, grievously lacking from the media. Had the Times, for instance, looked closely at the smoke and mirrors "evidence" of WMD and had they brought up the issue of the UN Charter and international law (which make crystal clear that attacking a country that has not attacked you and does not threaten you is the highest war crime of all), then the more than a million Iraqis who have died because of our invasion, and the thousands of Americans who've needlessly died, would have been avoided.

It is true that the Times, after it was too late, made a self-criticism of their credulous coverage of the Iraq war buildup, but then, they are repeating the same pattern currently viz a viz the justifications being offered by the Bush White House for a war on Iran. Will we see them make another self-criticism after a disastrous attack on Iran? Or will they criticize themselves - too late - for not calling for impeachment when the Bush White House has done nearly everything imaginable to merit impeachment? Only time will tell. (Or perhaps: only the Times will tell.)

My comment follows their editorial. Take a look. If you look over the 416 comments submitted to their editorial online you'll see that a very hefty proportion of them also ask the obvious question of the NYT: why didn't you and why aren't you calling for impeachment? In their print edition today (1/3/08) the Times ran several letters to the editor about their editorial. None of the letters that they selected to print, however, call for impeachment.

December 31, 2007

EDITORIAL

Looking at America

There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.

It was not the first time in recent years we’ve felt this horror, this sorrowful sense of estrangement, not nearly. This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001.

The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

We have read accounts of how the government’s top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions — and both American and international law — to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review.

Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didn’t go just a bit too far and actually kill them.

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws. Prisoners are held there with no hope of real justice, only the chance to face a kangaroo court where evidence and the names of their accusers are kept secret, and where they are not permitted to talk about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of American jailers.

In other foreign lands, the C.I.A. set up secret jails where “high-value detainees” were subjected to ever more barbaric acts, including simulated drowning. These crimes were videotaped, so that “experts” could watch them, and then the videotapes were destroyed, after consultation with the White House, in the hope that Americans would never know.

The C.I.A. contracted out its inhumanity to nations with no respect for life or law, sending prisoners — some of them innocents kidnapped on street corners and in airports — to be tortured into making false confessions, or until it was clear they had nothing to say and so were let go without any apology or hope of redress.

These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

End of NYT editorial

My comment:

Bush and Cheney would not have been able to carry out their crimes against humanity without the mass media and Congress permitting them to do so. When the Times had the information that the White House was spying on us all it sat on the information for a year before publishing it. When Bush and Cheney stole the 2000 and 2004 elections the Times didn't mention that the exit polls showed that the elections were fraudulent. Indeed, the Times coverage didn't even bring up the subject of exit polls in its coverage.

While I am pleased that you are editorializing - in essence - against the high crimes and misdemeanors of this criminal gang, why aren't you calling for their impeachment? If you were mute when the last two elections were stolen, why should we have any confidence that EVEN IF a Democrat does get the most votes in '08 that the election won't be stolen once again and the Times won't be mute once again?

None of the major candidates for president have called for the repeal of the Military Commissions Act or the Warner Act. None of them have committed to pulling the troops out of Iraq by even the end of their first hypothetical term. Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all endorsed a military attack on Iran. None of them have called for impeaching Bush and Cheney. Nancy Pelosi, we now know, knew for years about the spying and the torture and said nothing.

In times such as these, the American people must speak up and make their sentiments known, acting independently as THE PEOPLE. Let us not go down in history as infamously standing silent in the face of grave crimes the way the "Good Germans" allowed the Nazis to carry out their atrocities.

Wear orange - a ribbon, wristband, bandana, and so on - daily. Its wearing is a sign of solidarity with those our government imprisons and tortures. Its wearing means that you stand against torture and tyranny. The time for private grumbling is over. The time for speaking out and acting is here. (dennisloo.blogspot.com)

— Dr. Dennis Loo, Los Angeles

A Different Metaphor: Taking the Castle

[This is an extended metaphor that I wrote back in Spring of 2007 at the website Show It Off!. I am reposting it here.]

Our opponent has very few steadfast soldiers, but they do have a lot of heavy artillery that they are using against us and they are holed up in the castle. The number of soldiers that we have in the field directly engaged in battle at the moment is also small, but we have a huge reservoir of forces waiting in the wings. The question is whether we can get that reservoir of soldiers - who number in the millions - to join in the battle. If we do we’ll overwhelm the enemy.

Some of those on the wings truly despise the enemy in the castle and can't wait to plunge in. They're donning their battle gear as we speak. Many others would join the battle, but they've never been in battle and they're asking, how do I do this? Among them are also ones who are saying: "Is the enemy really that bad? I hear another king or queen may be taking power in a couple years and there are rumors that they are promising that our invasion of other countries in the East will be handled more competently."

Others on the wings aren’t sure that they ought to join the fight. Many are thinking – I’m just one person, what difference can one person make?

Still others are saying to themselves, I’m not a fighter, I’m not a soldier, I’ve never been in a battle, I can leave this battle up to the professional soldiers. Let them do it. I'm just going to tend the fields and enjoy the festivals.

Another segment on the wings are asking – how do I know that we will win? Can you guarantee me that we will win?

Then, of course, there are those who are lolling about among the tents saying: “What battle?” “There’s a battle going on?”

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Creating a Scene That Can Be Seen By All

As I wrote in my book, Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney: "We face a situation today in which political institutions, public officials, the two major parties, and the mainstream and right wing media are more out of touch and at odds with the public than at any other time in this country’s history."

The Achilles heel of the movement against Bush and Cheney has been the fact that while we have the majority on our side - a majority has been telling pollsters since summer of 2005 that they want Bush and Cheney gone - the leading institutions of the society treat impeachment as verboten - as if it were the crazy uncle in the attic. Thus, in the absence of the legitimation of impeachment by these leading institutions, the mass sentiment for impeachment remains largely diffuse and unexpressed except to pollsters, in widespread, private grumblings, and in sporadic demonstrations and in essays by the most committed activists.

There have been a handful of journalists and a number of prominent citizens who've been advocating for impeachment, but irrespective of their prominence, they remain voices muted by the rest of the leading institutions who are dead set against it. A classic instance of this was when Seymour Hersh published his explosive piece in the New Yorker's March 7, 2007 issue. This is part of what I wrote about it previously in my blog:

"Seymour Hersh, arguably the most important investigative reporter we have (we'd want to include Greg Palast in the same breath) - they don't come more credible and don't have a better batting average than Hersh - publishes an explosive piece in The New Yorker, arguably the best magazine in the country according to many observers. The article, "The Redirection," shows, among other things, that the Bush White House has been carrying out black OPS inside Iran since at least summer 2004, is funding Sunni terrorist groups (remember that it's Sunnis who are inflicting the greatest damage against US troops in Iraq), many of the same crew who brought us Iran-Contra have been carrying out these dirty deeds completely bypassing Congress, the CIA and the military, running this through the Vice President's Office... and the rest of the mass media can hardly stifle their yawns!

"What should happen and hasn't, as [Tom] Engelhardt points out, is that this should be headline news around the country, Congress should be screaming bloody murder, Op-Eds should be demanding impeachment and mass resignations, and issuing subpoenas and demanding testimony from the White House right, left, center, up, down and every other dimension.

"What does this tell us? Hersh's credentials and prestige puts him at the New Yorker, the New Yorker to its credit, runs stories like this, and yet, it isn't enough!"

The leading investigative journalist publishes a piece in the leading magazine, and it raises nary a ripple throughout the rest of the media world and among politicians. The most credible journalist and the best, most highly respected magazine aren't enough to turn the tide.

We face an enormously difficult uphill climb to hold these White House criminals to account and to reverse the direction of our government and society. Many within the movement continue to hope that traditional protests - mass marches and rallies - will do the trick. But a way must be found under this particular set of circumstances to pierce the paralyzing atmosphere. The usual tools aren't up to the task. A way does exist: if we can create a scene that is seen by all then we can overcome to a significant extent, perhaps to a decisive extent, the suffocating dark cloud that has been asphyxiating us.

The key to this strategy lies in the fact that millions - a majority in fact - do in fact dislike or despise this White House and are disgusted with Congress' inability and unwillingness to hold these war criminals and torturers accountable. The solution lies in finding a way to uncork that sentiment in a meaningful way. Activists are accustomed to mobilizing people in marches and rallies (and sometimes civil resistance or civil disobedience). The public in general is accustomed to following the news through the traditional news outlets and taking their cues from the pronouncements of public officials. Those among the public who do go beyond the usual voting ritual are used to writing letters, placing phone calls, and/or attending a demonstration or two or three.

What is called for in these times is something radically different. While marches, rallies and civil resistance are extremely important and must happen in a much bigger way, the numbers of people who must declare themselves politically must be in the millions and the magnitude of the resistance must be much greater than perhaps ever in our history. The incipient police state where everyone is being spied upon by Big Brother, where anyone can be picked up, held indefinitely, transported to a black site through rendition and tortured, where wars are launched against countries that have not attacked us and do not threaten us, is not a fever-racked nightmare that might come. It is here right now. It is the USA in January 2008. This is America. This is where we are. The direction and trajectory of all of this is monstrous. It is going to take something unprecedented to stop this and reverse it.

The atmosphere of the whole society must be altered in a way that by-passes the blockade put up by the mass media and the two major political parties to the mass sentiment against Bush and Cheney. As David Addington - Dick Cheney's chief of staff and one of the key architects of the Bush regime's torture policy - is quoted as saying in Jack Goldsmith's new book The Terror Presidency: "We're going to push and push and push until some larger force stops us."

That larger force can be none other than the American people acting as THE PEOPLE, as an independent political force, not beholden to or voluntarily subordinating itself to any political candidate or party.

If everywhere you look - in rural, suburban and urban places - there are signs of protest against the Bush regime, if you see not only people wearing orange jumpsuits and carrying out other forms of political/street theatre both in the streets literally and indoors in theatres, but a multitude of other expressions of resistance, people engaging in civil resistance, people blocking the doors to politicians' offices demanding that they move for impeachment, people shutting down and/or blockading the war industry, people going to work and going everywhere in their lives wearing orange ribbons daily, crowds at sporting events and athletes in the games wearing orange, students breaking out of schools in a blaze of orange, cars and store windows, apartment balconies and office buildings festooned in orange banners, rallies, marches, trees and posts donning orange, people walking their dogs with orange ribbons on their pets - then we will be demonstrating in an unmistakable, dramatic fashion the fact that there are people in the millions all over the land who are standing up against these moral monsters, demanding a different path and a bright future, committing themselves to that task on the everyday level.

Some people who have heard of the Declare It Now: Wear Orange Daily campaign think that wearing orange isn't enough, that wearing orange couldn't possibly do what needs to be done. This is like saying while in a crowded stadium at night with no lights on that if I light a candle or turn on a flashlight it won't do anything to break the darkness that envelopes us. But if many, many of the individuals in that crowd do the same thing, a magical thing happens.

Let us further imagine in this metaphor that the show producers have a spotlight aimed upon part of the stage where the entertainment is going on. The rest of the stage is in darkness. Some people in the crowd discover that in the darkened section of the stage and backstage terrible events are occurring - theft, robbery, assassinations, torture, murders - and that people are being systematically picked up from the darkened crowd and subjected to these horrors, almost all of whom do not return. A few do return and try to tell the others in the audience what is going on. But their ability to convey this news to others is limited by the fact that they are swallowed in the darkened stadium and don't have access to the microphones on the stage.

Occasionally - very occasionally - the spotlight veers away from the featured attraction and for a very brief moment illuminates the monstrous, unseen events. This startles the crowd for a time. But then the dirty deeds are obscured again and most of the crowd, while feeling uneasy in the pits of their stomachs, go back to watching the main show. Those who are less swayed by the producers' antics and/or closer to the stage and can hear some of the muffled screams of those being tortured and murdered, try to alert the rest of the crowd. But because the klieg lights aren't in their hands, their ability to turn the crowd onto the truth is restricted. Some people try to get the attention of the people on the stage and plead with them to turn up the stadium lights, to stop the show, and to announce to the whole crowd what is going on. The people on the stage, however, turn a deaf ear to this because they are getting paid to stay quiet and they want to be one of the spotlighted star entertainers themselves. After all, the life in the spotlight is a good one with lots of perks.

Some other people in the crowd decide that they will try to get a lot of people to light a candle or turn on their flashlights. Some people within this group are not sure that they can convince enough people to do this. After all, most of the crowd did get a glimpse of the crimes going on, yet reverted back to swaying to the music from the lightened part of the stage. Some in the crowd also say back to these activists on the ground - what good will it do if I light a candle? I'm just one person and the darkness is so thick around us. What about all these other people who aren't lighting a candle? I'll do it when the rest of them do it. Until then, I'd rather stay in the dark and enjoy the show. The activists persist, even in the face of some of their own doubts, realizing that if enough people do this then the darkened stage that is concealing these horrors will be revealed to more people who in turn will start to spread the word themselves, turning on their flashlights. They are driven too by the knowledge that if they don't do something the horrors will spread.

That's what DIN and 333 are about. They are part of creating an unprecedented situation on the grassroots level and on the level of everyday life of people taking personal responsibility to fight the forces of the night and usher in a different condition altogether. Be not afraid dear friends. We have much to do. But we can win this fight.

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Why Electing a Democratic President Won't Wash Away the Blood Shed by the Bush White House

Many people hope that they can put the horrors of the Bush White House behind us - and the world - by getting a Democrat into the White House in 2009. The New York Times editorialized this same wish in their 12/31/07 editorial "Looking for America." The Democratic Party leadership and the major presidential candidates have all said that impeachment's "off the table," that these are not impeachable offenses (?!) and, as John Conyers put it, the solution is through the ballot box.

As stunning and incredible as this stance of refusing to impeach is to millions of Americans who recognize - in varying degrees depending upon how much they've been following events - that terrible things have been done and are being done by this White House, and that, infuriatingly, electing Democrats has not done any good, many still cling to the thin reed of hope that a Democratic president (or Ron Paul) will end the reign of terror that we've seen under Bush and Cheney and somehow a new president will right the wrongs that have been so ubiquitous and egregious.

As Robert Parry makes clear in effect in the following piece, however, this is a forlorn hope and terrible mistake. The Democratic Party, if you pay close attention and draw conclusions based not on wishful thinking, but on the actual evidence, have made it very clear and continue to make it crystal clear, that they will not hold W and Cheney accountable for their crimes against humanity. Via her husband, Hillary has signaled that she will not go after W and Cheney, as Parry lays out.

Why is this? Many people wonder why the Democrats don't go after the GOP the way the GOP goes after them. They're puzzled that the Democrats haven't pursued investigations and refuse to challenge stolen elections, given that it would benefit the Democratic candidate personally, benefit their party, and benefit the country.

The short answer to this question is that the Democrats are interested in "national unity" more than they are in advancing partisan advantage. I'm going to elaborate in a moment on what the Democrats mean by "national unity," but first this quote cited by Parry in the piece below:

Bill Clinton on why he didn't pursue the scandals evident under Bush I: “I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, even if that split would be to my political advantage.”

The Democratic candidates for president, past and present, are not mainly auditioning to the American people for the presidency. They are mainly auditioning to the people who really run this country: the extraordinarily wealthy and powerful. This is a small group of people that they really must please.

What the Democrats mean by "national unity" then is two things. First, it means that there will be unity among the ranks of the rulers, GOP and Democrat alike. Second, it means that there will not be any revealing of the vast gulf between those who really run the show and the rest of us who are just along for the ride. Democracy is, for those who really run things, a mere convenient fiction to pacify the masses. Pacification of the people is what they mean by "national unity."

We do not need national unity of this kind. This kind of national unity is a terror to the country and to the world. Subordinating ourselves to the Democrats or any other political candidate, no matter how good the words that they pronounce sound, is a grave mistake. Even if a Dennis Kucinich were to get elected, could he do any of the things that he says he will do absent an entirely different political climate in which millions of people are politically engaged and active in the streets in the literal and metaphorical sense? What we need and what the world needs is for the American people to wake up to our duty to act as THE PEOPLE and create a drastically different political climate through the independent actions of the people.

Hillary Signals Free Pass for Bush
By Robert Parry

December 31, 2007

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is signaling that a second Clinton presidency will follow the look-to-the-future, don’t-worry-about-accountability approach toward Republican wrongdoing that marked Bill Clinton’s years in office.

That was the significance of former President Clinton’s remarkable Dec. 17 comment that his wife’s first act in the White House would be to send Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush on an around-the-world mission to repair America’s damaged image.

“The first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again,” said Bill Clinton, who has accompanied the senior Bush on international humanitarian missions over the past several years.

What was perhaps most stunning about the remark was its assumption that Americans would be impressed that the country’s two dominant political dynasties would team up in early 2009 to tidy up some of the mess created by the headstrong son of the senior dynasty, the Bush Family.

The Bushes and the Clintons – who have held pieces of the nation’s executive power for more than a quarter century dating back to George H.W. Bush’s election as Vice President in 1980 – essentially would be keeping matters within the board rooms of the Washington Establishment.

In responding to Bill Clinton’s remark, George H.W. Bush issued a statement making clear he would not join in any slap at his son’s foreign policy. That also means Hillary Clinton’s “first thing” is unthinkable if her new administration were trying to exact any accountability from George W. Bush for his wrongdoing.

So, to get the senior Bush’s cooperation on the worldwide tour, there would have to be an implicit understanding that the second Clinton administration wouldn’t investigate the younger Bush’s crimes – from authorizing torture, ordering warrantless wiretaps, exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity, waging war under false pretenses and other abuses of executive powers.

If Hillary Clinton does get elected, you can expect to hear lots of talk about “leaving that one for the historians” or about the danger of increased partisanship if the Democrats were viewed as trying to “get even” by exposing Bush’s offenses.

The wise heads of Washington surely would nod in approval at this “bipartisanship” of a Democratic administration deciding not to get bogged down in “refighting the battles” of the second Bush administration.

The First Clinton-Bush Deal

That’s exactly what happened in 1993 when Bill Clinton entered the White House after defeating George H.W. Bush.
Clinton and other senior Democrats shut down or wrapped up four investigations that implicated senior Republicans, including Bush, in constitutional abuses of power and criminal wrongdoing during the Reagan-Bush years.

The Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages case was still alive, with special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh furious over new evidence that President George H.W. Bush may have obstructed justice by withholding his own notes from investigators and then ducking an interview that Walsh had put off until after the 1992 elections.

Bush also had sabotaged the investigation by pardoning six Iran-Contra defendants on Christmas Eve 1992, possibly the first presidential pardon ever issued to protect the same President from criminal liability.

In late 1992, Congress also was investigating Bush’s alleged role in secretly aiding Iraq’s Saddam Hussein during and after Hussein’s eight-year-long war with Iran.

Representative Henry Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas who had served three decades in Congress, had exposed intricate financial schemes that the Reagan-Bush administrations employed to assist Hussein. There also were allegations of indirect U.S. military aid through third countries, including the supply of dangerous chemicals to Iraq.

Lesser known investigations were examining two other sets of alleged wrongdoing: the so-called October Surprise issue (allegations that Bush and other Republicans interfered with Jimmy Carter’s hostage negotiations with Iran during the 1980 campaign) and the Passportgate affair (evidence that Bush operatives improperly searched Clinton’s passport file in 1992, looking for dirt that could be used to discredit his patriotism and secure reelection for Bush).

All told, the four sets of allegations, if true, would paint an unflattering portrait of the 12-year Republican rule, with two illegal dirty tricks (October Surprise and Passportgate) book-ending ill-considered national security schemes in the Middle East (Iran-Contra and Iraqgate).

Had the full stories been told, the American people might have perceived the legacies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush quite differently.

But the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats dropped all four investigations beginning in early 1993, either through benign neglect – by failing to hold hearings and keeping the issues alive in the news media – or by actively closing the door on investigative leads.

Clinton let George H.W. Bush retreat gracefully into retirement. [For details on the scandals, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

Joining the Cover-ups

In his 2004 memoir, My Life, Clinton wrote that he “disagreed with the [Iran-Contra] pardons and could have made more of them but didn’t.” Clinton cited several reasons for giving his predecessor a pass.

“I wanted the country to be more united, not more divided, even if that split would be to my political advantage,” Clinton wrote. “Finally, President Bush had given decades of service to our country, and I thought we should allow him to retire in peace, leaving the matter between him and his conscience.”

By his choice of words, Clinton revealed how he saw information – not something that belonged to the American people and had intrinsic value to the democratic process – but as a potential weapon that could be put to “political advantage.”

On the Iran-Contra pardons, Clinton saw himself as generously passing up a club that he could have wielded to bludgeon an adversary. He chose instead to join in a cover-up in the name of national unity.

Similarly, the Democratic congressional leadership ignored the flood of incriminating evidence pouring in to the “October Surprise” task force in December 1992.

Chief counsel Lawrence Barcella told me later that he urged task force chairman Lee Hamilton to extend the investigation several months to examine this new evidence of Republican guilt, but Hamilton ordered Barcella simply to wrap up the probe with a finding that the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign had done nothing wrong.

Some of the new incriminating evidence – including an unprecedented report from the Russian government about its knowledge of illicit Republican contacts with Iran – was simply hidden away in boxes that I discovered two years later and dubbed “The October Surprise X-Files.”

The “Iraqgate” investigation met a similar fate under Clinton’s Justice Department, which chose to ignore or dismiss evidence of covert shipments of war materiel to Saddam Hussein during the 1980s.

In 1996, when former Reagan national security official Howard Teicher came forward with an affidavit describing secret U.S.-backed arms shipments to Iraq, Clinton’s Justice Department went on the offensive – against Teicher, trying to discredit him and bullying him into silence.

That same year, the Clinton administration did nothing when Reagan’s 1984 campaign chief Ed Rollins wrote in his 1996 memoir Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms that a top Filipino politician had admitted delivering an illegal $10 million cash payment to Reagan from Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

"I was the guy who gave the ten million from Marcos to your campaign," the Filipino told Rollins in 1991, according to the memoir. "I was the guy who made the arrangements and delivered the cash personally. ...It was a personal gift from Marcos to Reagan."

The stunning anecdote did attract some press coverage in 1996 but the story died because the Clinton administration made no effort to follow it up. No government investigator demanded that Rollins reveal the identities of the Filipino politician and the Republican lobbyist who handled the pay-off.

(Rollins is now chairman of Republican Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign.) [For details on Marcos-Reagan case, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Huckabee’s Chairman Hid Payoff Secret.”]

Proving Themselves

In the mid-1990s, even as the Republican attack machine pounded the Clintons with allegations about alleged ethical lapses and marital infidelities, the Clinton administration acted like it was determined to prove that it could be trusted with the nation’s dark secrets, that it could cover up wrongdoing with the best of them.

The consequence for America, however, was different. With George H.W. Bush’s dubious public record whitewashed, the door was opened to the restoration of the Bush Dynasty. If the full truth had been known about former President Bush, it’s hard to conceive how George W. Bush ever could have become President.

Now, as Hillary Clinton seeks a strong showing in the Iowa caucuses to solidify her image as the inevitable Democratic nominee, she appears ready to pick up the mantle as the Democratic protector of the Bush Family’s legacy. Though she may utter some tough words about George W. Bush on the campaign trail, she’s not likely to follow up if she wins the White House.
If Bill Clinton is telling the truth about Hillary Clinton’s “first thing” to do as President – recruiting George H.W. Bush for a worldwide goodwill tour on behalf of America’s image – that will require closing the door on any serious investigation of George W. Bush.
The two dynastic families then can look to the future, again.