portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

imperialism & war

Negroponte's Death Squads (Salvador Option) coming soon

Potential Salvador Option as a means to control Americans by the fascists.
We saw in early winter the purging of what was left of the CIA by Goss. Then the last few months we have heard the Porter Goss basically lost his seat next to Mr Bush by Negroponte (the butcher of El Salvidor, Hondorus and Iraq) when Negroponte became intellegence czar. Now Negroponte has the go ahead to break down the FBI and reform it into his own imagine. Beware my brothers and sisters, they will fund deathsquads in the guise of gangs (white supremeists, black, hispanic, asian or whatever) funded off of Afghan heroin to silence you, torture you and slowly squeeze the spirit of hope out of you as you watch your loved ones brutalized by these demons!

White House consolidates Negroponte power

White House gives national intelligence director new authority over FBI

Russia says Afghan heroin output growing rapidly

Migrating Youth Gangs Pose Problems for Law Enforcement

Salvador Option: Death Squads in Iraq

Death Squads
And now meet the NSS for "domestic intelligence" 30.Jun.2005 09:24


Just to add to this, today's announcement of the formation of a new wing of the FBI, called the NSS, or National Security Service. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4636117.stm) This internal secret police will be able to serve as Bush's Gestapo, clamping down on any dissent, and seizing property, all in the name of the war on terrorism.

And this despite the fact that there hasn't been a successful terrorist attack on the US in four years.

It really can happen here, folks. and it is. Be ready.

Way to get these guys-call congress and spread the word 30.Jun.2005 10:47



The War Crimes Act of 1996

No less a figure than Alberto Gonzales, then-White House counsel to George W. Bush and now US Attorney General, expressed deep concern about possible prosecutions under the War Crimes Act of 1996 for American mistreatment of Afghanistan war detainees.

This relatively obscure statute makes it a federal crime to violate certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Act punishes any US national, military or civilian, who commits a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. A grave breach, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, includes the deliberate "killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of detainees. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in death carry the death penalty.


Prosecutions under the War Crimes Act for violations in Iraq do not need to challenge the legality of "opting out of the Geneva Conventions," as would be the case for Afghanistan war detainees. Nor do they need to contend with the Administration's convoluted definition of torture. War Crimes Act violations in Iraq can consist of inhuman treatment alone--whether torture took place or not.


The press plays a key role in educating public officials and the American people about a problem, and focusing attention on it. In Watergate, it was the work of the press, and in particular the persistence of two enterprising young Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, that laid the groundwork for Nixon's resignation.

While the press did a generally excellent job in breaking the Abu Ghraib story and in educating the American public about the brutal mistreatment of prisoners there and elsewhere, it has largely neglected the question of high-level accountability for those acts.

Consider the coverage of Gonzales's January 2002 memo to President Bush. The media gave substantial play to his recommendation that the United States opt out of the Geneva Conventions. Most reporters focused on his first reason for doing so--that certain provisions of the Conventions were "quaint" and inapplicable to the "new" paradigm of twenty-first-century terrorism. But the press did not pay nearly as much attention to Gonzales's second reason--that opting out would reduce the possibility of War Crimes Act prosecutions. As a result, the American people remained largely in the dark about the War Crimes Act. They generally did not know that the act made it a federal crime to engage in inhuman treatment of detainees, or that the act applied to Iraq. They did not know that by recommending that America opt out of Geneva, the White House counsel--and the President, apparently, through his approval--was trying to create a legal loophole that would permit US government personnel to engage in possible criminal behavior with impunity. It was entirely predictable, under these circumstances, that there would be no public outcry about violations of the War Crimes Act or a broad demand for accountability of higher-ups under it.


Questions about the War Crimes Act would have been particularly apt because, as Attorney General, Gonzales might have to prosecute violations of the act--and his role in trying to shield government officials from prosecution under the act could raise issues of conflict of interest.

If this issue were seriously covered by the press, and the public began to express concern about it, Congress would be much more likely to initiate efforts to investigate and hold higher-ups accountable.