Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis attend groundbreaking ceremony for US military bases

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

It's not that they lie. It's the *transparency* of the lies. How stupid do they think we are?

As the following articles show, Saudi Arabia has kicked out the U.S. military following 12 years of occupation (though no one admits the truth of the occupation or the ejection). And . . . how about that: just in time, Iraq stands ready as the central platform for consolidated U.S. military bases in the Middle East.

It's almost as if this whole war . . . . nah.

Let 'em sleep. No one wants to know. And there's a bullet for you, too, at the end of pointless resistance.

(walking and whistling)

"Yes. Do you accept American citizens? Oh perfect."

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/news-iraq-rumsfeld.html

U.S. Military Pulls Out of Saudi Arabia

By REUTERS

Filed at 11:07 a.m. ET

RIYADH (Reuters) - The United States said on Tuesday it was ending military operations in Saudi Arabia and removing virtually all its forces from the kingdom following the Iraq war.

In a joint announcement, Saudi Arabia said it had agreed the move with Washington. It denied press reports it had asked the United States to withdraw.

The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia generated Arab resentment because of their proximity to Islam's holiest sites. It was a major grievance exploited by Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, blamed by Washington for the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities.

U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia, which doubled to 10,000 during the Iraq war, had already started pulling out of a desert airbase used by U.S. planes since 1991 in their ``Southern Watch'' operation to police southern Iraq, U.S. officials said.

Operations were being moved from the Prince Sultan airbase, used to control U.S.-led air strikes in the Iraq war, to the neighboring Gulf state of Qatar, where the U.S. Central Command has set up another air operations center, they said.

The announcement, made during a tour of Gulf states by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld focused on reducing the U.S. military presence in the region, followed Riyadh's refusal to allow air strikes on Iraq by some 100 Saudi-based U.S. aircraft.

``After the end of Southern Watch ... there is no need for them to remain,'' Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz told a joint news conference with Rumsfeld. ``This does not mean that we requested them to leave.''

Rumsfeld told reporters after talks with the prince that the ``liberation of Iraq'' had changed the situation in the Gulf and allowed Washington to reduce its troops in the region. ``The relationship between our two countries is multi-dimensional -- diplomatic, economic, as well as military-to-military,'' he told a news conference.

LAUNCH PAD

Political and defense analysts said the withdrawal from Saudi Arabia had huge political implications.

The move effectively ends a relationship dating back to 1991 when Washington used Saudi Arabia as a launch pad for the Gulf War to oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait and then based warplanes at the desert airbase to police a ``no-fly'' zone over southern Iraq.

The presence of Western troops in the kingdom irked many Saudis already angry with the United States over its perceived bias toward Israel. Ousting U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia became a battle cry of bin Laden and his al Qaeda militants.

``There are political advantages for both. The U.S. will have greater freedom of action, the Saudis will feel more comfortable -- and neither of them will have to mention that it was a key demand of Osama bin Laden,'' Tim Garden, security analyst at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, told Reuters.

``It certainly means the United States is rid of a huge problem,'' Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, told Reuters in London.

``There has been agitation for a very long time from inside Saudi Arabia. And it was one of al Qaeda's key demands as well for foreign forces to be removed from the holy ground of Saudi Arabia,'' Heyman said.

CROWN PRINCE

U.S. officials said a small number of U.S. personnel would remain in Saudi Arabia to train Saudi soldiers.

The defense secretary later met Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah before he flew on to Kuwait, the next leg of his week-long tour.

``They agreed to move on from here with continued cooperation in areas from training to regular military exercises,'' a senior Pentagon official told reporters after the meeting.

Rumsfeld has already held talks with leaders in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar. He also plans to visit Afghanistan. Defense officials, citing security considerations, declined to say if Rumsfeld would go to Iraq.

Saudi Arabia's ruling al Saud family faces U.S. and internal pressure to liberalize politically and modernize an Islamic education system which influential Americans say produced such militants as those belonging to al Qaeda.

``It is very significant. It reduces America's dependence on Saudi Arabia and it throws open the opportunity for Iraq to become America's favorite base in the region,'' defense analyst Paul Beaver told Reuters in London.

Paris-based defense analyst Francois Gere said Saudi Arabia was also entering a complex reorganization of its leadership.

``There is less need both for Saudi territory and Saudi oil, but one should not exaggerate. I think the second message is 'we Americans are going to withdraw a bit from Saudi Arabia and let these people sort out their domestic problems','' he said.

... and the other shoe drops:

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw030429_1_n.shtml

US and UK reveal plans to set up bases in Iraq

Tim Ripley JDW Correspondent

Kuwait City

As details of US plans to build up its military bases inside Iraq emerge, Jane's Defence Weekly has learned that the UK also plans to construct a major base near Basra to support its troop presence in southern Iraq.

Senior UK officers say plans are being developed to turn Basra International Airport into a major logistics and helicopter base. Elements of the UK's Joint Helicopter Force, including Chinook HC Mk2 heavy-lift and Puma HC Mk 1 medium-lift helicopters, are already moving to the airport to support troops of 1 (UK) Armoured Division operating in and around Basra.

The idea is to set up an air-conditioned 'container city' to accommodate UK troops during the hot Iraqi summer.

It is not yet clear if the UK will establish a fully-fledged airbase inside Iraq. Kuwait International Airport is to remain the main airbase for logistic support of the UK contingent. The Iraqi port of Umm Qasr is also likely to be increasingly used by shipping supporting the UK forces, replacing Kuwaiti ports.

By developing an 'in-country' base infrastructure, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) hopes to be able to scale down massively the number of bases throughout the Gulf/Middle East to save money and reduce the US 'footprint' in countries where the presence of US troops is still controversial.

As the 'Northern Watch' and 'Southern Watch’ no-fly zones in Iraq no longer need to be policed, the large USAF presence in Saudi Arabia and Turkey is being rapidly wound down. It is unclear, however, if the USAF will move its Gulf headquarters from Prince Sultan airbase, outside the Saudi Arabian capital Riyadh, to its alternative facility at Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. Al Udeid is expected to become the main hub for tanker, command and control and airlift aircraft supporting US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Plans are advanced to wind down USCENTCOM's forward headquarters at Camp As Sayliyah and eventually move the deployable headquarters modules to Baghdad, allowing USCENTCOM to run operations inside Iraq.

US military sources say that it is intended that agreements on basing rights with most US Gulf allies will be retained to allow rapid reinforcement in times of crisis.

While the US Navy has already sent two of its three carrier battlegroups from the Persian Gulf to their home ports, the US Navy's Fifth Fleet is expected to retain a strong presence in the region. This will include at least one carrier battle group and a marine expeditionary unit to allow it to support continuing maritime interdiction operations against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist threats.

Was there ever power, without evil? Fate rewards the brutal, who tell their fairy tales to history.

[fansince62]

right..........nothing like knowing all the details.....great investigative work!!!!

[NavyDave]

Glad we are leaving that ungrateful place and soon economically we we will hopefully be leaving them too.

All I have to say is that any american woman still dumb enough to marry a saudi and have rugrats with him is doing it at her own risk after all of the stories have been out there for them to see.

Leaving Turkey and germany is going to be great too.

Good to see one place will be up to specs for our guys to operate, and when we leave it will be a great commercial site for the Iraqis to utilize.

[earl]

4

[earl]

5

[Ignatius J.]

I'm a little confused. Who are you saying is lying?

-DB

[Yomar]

the less we have to do with them the better, we need alt. energy in the worst way, then the next time a terrorist organization heavily financed by the Saudi elite kills thousands of innocent Americans on our soil, we will have no qualms retaliating

[Riggo-toni]

I stated in a thread over a month ago that we should use victory in Iraq as an excuse to pull out honorably from Saudi Arabia. I'm liking Rumsfeld more and more all the time. I like that we're moving out of most of ungrateful Western Europe and into the Eastern countries where they really want us. Eff the Frogs, Krauts, and Wahabbis!:finger: :finger:

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by DrunkenBoxer

I'm a little confused. Who are you saying is lying?

-DB

The Bush Administration. About the rationale for the war against Iraq, and its urgency.

It's impossible to say nice things about Saddam Hussein, but it's all too clear now that Iraq was in no way a near-term threat to deploy WMDs, and Hussein as a bully dictator was probably a lesser danger than Iraq falling to radical Islam.

Far from being a war on terror, the war against Iraq was a capitulation to Osama bin Laden and the ruling elite in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden's primary personal grievance in the past was U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia (as well as U.S. support for Israel and U.S./U.N. economic sanctions against Iraq). Continued U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia threatened to destabilize the Saudi ruling elite, which could have fallen to an internal radical Islamic revolution.

Invading Iraq promised to rid the U.S. of an irritant, but more fundamentally secured a large strategic land base to support continued U.S. military control of the Middle East, even while we exited Saudi Arabia. Iraq is oil rich, and occupying Iraq extends our oil protectorate from Kuwait to the border of Syria, while bisecting the Iran/Saudi corridor of radical Islam.

In addition to the need for a post-Saudi military base, it wouldn't surprise me if the urgency for invading Iraq was not fear of Saddam Hussein's strength, but rather fear of his weakness. If Saddam and his secular ruling Ba'ath party fell to Islamic revolution, radical Islam would extend from Iran through Iraq to Saudi Arabia, a devastating defeat to U.S. control of oil, and a threat to U.S.-supported Israel.

We've apparently killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, on the flimsy pretext of a theoretical danger to the U.S. from scary-sounding WMDs in the hands of Hussein. The war was horrible on many levels, not least the precedent we've made for preemptive action against nations we don't like -- a precedent that any nation can now use in our name. We've shredded the authority of the U.N., turned most of Europe against us, and confirmed suspicions of Arabs and Muslims that the U.S. is a bully empire that must be defeated. And we've given credence to the worst fears that the U.S. is becoming a puppet enforcer for Israel.

I can't take the delight and the patriotism of Americans during all this. We've just slaughtered tens of thousands of people who had every right to live, just like you and me. Most Americans simply don't care. They don't even really care if their government was lying to them about the need and the urgency for war.

At times I've wondered what it would be like to be in an "evil empire". As I look around at the shallow, commercial banality of American life -- barely disturbed by the far-away, silent slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqis -- I realize: yes, this is it. This is what an evil empire feels like, from the inside.

[Riggo-toni]

ASF,

Where do you get your figure "tens of thousands" from? Are you including those who perished because of sanctions, because I've not seen any credible figure on civilian casualties being that high.

Secondly, while we may be establishing temporary bases to keep our troops from frying in the desert sun while we help the Iraqis set up their own government, Rumsfeld has explicitly stated we are not going to be placing any permanent bases there, so your theory that we fought an entire war just to have bases near oil fields is, well, ridiculous.

Consider this - far more Iraqis would have died with the continuation of sanctions than those that died from allied bombing.

[Henry]

I realize: yes, this is it. This is what an evil empire feels like, from the inside.

And obviously the degenration of our culture and values can be traced back to the death of the Golden Age of Cinema, which is of course all the fault of one Mr. George Lucas.

Well, that and all the Hispanics.

[chiefhogskin48]

Evil empire? You're nothing more than a weak-kneed conspiracy theorist if you believe this. I don't really like our MidEast policies, but c'mon ASF, 1+1 /= 3. When people are gunning for you, you can't afford to be isolationist or else we'll look around one day in ignorant, pacifistic bliss and realize not only do they still not like us, but the puppy has grown up. All it would have taken is Saddam with a few nukes and we'd be in the same position as we are with North Korea- SOL.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

ASF,

Where do you get your figure "tens of thousands" from? Are you including those who perished because of sanctions, because I've not seen any credible figure on civilian casualties being that high.

I don't know about civilian casualties. Based on the precision of American military technology and the way the war unfolded (largely outside civilian areas), I would expect civilian casualties to number in the low thousands.

I was referring to Iraqi military casualties. You won't get this (or any) figure from the U.S. government, because the U.S. military is under orders not to estimate enemy casualties of war. The meager argument for this policy is that counting casualties is guesswork and a distraction from the military mission. The obvious primary argument for the policy is that the U.S. does not want to admit or count the casualties of its war machine. If you don't have any numbers, even a FOIA inquiry can't discover them.

However, numerous reports of the military action have indicated directly or indirectly that Iraqi military deaths were in the tens of thousands. Entire Iraqi divisions were "destroyed", without reports of commensurate POWs or fleeing, intact divisions of soldiers.

Here's one source to back up the claim: Dr. Michael Vlahos, a senior member of the Joint Warfare Analysis Department at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Vlahos is hardly a peacenik. His lab collaborates directly with the U.S. Joint Forces Command; his book is now a textbook at the Navy War College Strategy Department; and he is a former fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Center for Naval Analysis. If you want estimates of battle casualties, this is your man. In an article published today reviewing the war, Vlahos states flatly that "U.S. casualties were amazingly low -- while tens of thousands of Iraqi fighters killed.".

We killed tens of thousands of people. Our bullets. Our bombs.

Their blood is on our hands, no matter how tortured the rationale one can make for this war.

Secondly, while we may be establishing temporary bases to keep our troops from frying in the desert sun while we help the Iraqis set up their own government, Rumsfeld has explicitly stated we are not going to be placing any permanent bases there, so your theory that we fought an entire war just to have bases near oil fields is, well, ridiculous.

Let's talk after the U.S. military exits Iraq. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

Obviously the U.S. strategic goal is to install a friendly government that will "request" our military presence.

Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors. We're staying. We'll stay by request, stay by U.S. insistence, stay to "keep the peace" among warring factions. Who knows what they'll type up for the headlines. We're staying.

We paid for those bases.

Consider this - far more Iraqis would have died with the continuation of sanctions than those that died from allied bombing.

Brilliant. So killing tens of thousands of Iraqis was just our way of saving Iraq from U.S.-inflicted death by other means.

You have a future career as a defense lawyer.

[chiefhogskin48]

ASF, with all due respect the blood of "tens of thousands" of Iraqis- and if you are referring to soldiers I agree with the number- are on Saddam's hands.

I have a few problems with the war, but in general I am glad we finally sucked it up, took our medicine, and got rid of Saddam. In no way was he a legitimate leader, so the whole issue of sovereignty is a weak one, because he ruled purely by the sword.

Answer me these questions:

Are the Iraqis better or worse off without Saddam?

Is the world better off or worse off without Saddam?

Do you really think this war is about oil?

Would "being nice" to Arabs Muslims alleviate the hatred that exists? Do you think simply being neutral in the Israeli conflict would bring any immediate or lasting relief from Islamic hatred of infidels?

On these last set of question, it is clear to me that we are already in too deep, so to speak, with Israel. There's no way to change Islamic propaganda on that issue, short of selling out Israel for good. We are infidels to them. We are what we are. Nothing will change that unless we become a Muslim state. Being friendly to them and giving them money won't change that religious truth, as much as I wish it were that easy. Obviously we have to resist the crusade mentality that Rumsfeld seems to be so fond of. But what other changes can we make to our foreign policy that will actually make a difference, while not being isolationist like an ostrich burying his head in the sand?

The fact remains that the world hates us right now, and not usually for good reason. We are on top, by a lot. I understand the resentment that goes on even within European nations (since I live in Italy right now), thinking of America as a land of richness and plenty while they continue to putter in mediocrity. In 2nd and 3rd world nations this is even worse. They can see the way we live, and thus there is no longer a blissful ignorance. We are the Yankees, if you will, and they have a helpless feeling not being able to sway our behavior or opinions in the slightest. As an American I am proud of what we, as a nation, have and will accomplish. But I can see the root of the bitterness and I dont see any end in sight. I'd love to work within the framework of the world, but that framework is increasingly stacked against us (see Kyoto accords and ICC--- and France). We are the common enemy, so to speak. There is no Russia, no Napoleon. But despite the differences of each country, they are able to find a common ground in one thing--- criticizing America while ignoring their own blemishes. We are under the microscope of the world, the microscope of a leftist world media (see BBC world :puke: ) that points out the bad, the terrible, or the ridiculous--- and so this and our pessimistic movies are the only things most people in the world hear about us. How could they ever have a good opinion of us? I know I wouldnt. We may look like the evil empire from the outside ASF, but we arent even close. You seem to be buying into a lot of hype. Please list for me the positives and negatives of the United States, in relation to the world, at this moment. We'll see how much it remembles and evil empire.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

chief,

I understand your points here, and I agree that economic envy drives a lot of the world's anti-American sentiment.

But it's simplistic to say that this is happening just because we are the world's only superpower. There is a major difference between the way the world viewed us in the 12 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989 - 2001), and the way the world views us now.

Understand that I'm making a non-partisan argument here. The period I cited covered the end of the first Bush administration, the entire Clinton administration, and the present Bush administration through 9/11.

We could argue forever about the merits of America during the Cold War, and the merits of America in the 12 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. There was a lot to like during both periods, although still plenty not to like.

What I'm talking about now is something qualitatively different that is happening in the wake of 9/11. In mid-stream, the present Bush administration has transformed itself into one of the most radical presidencies of all time. The policy changes are being driven by DOJ and DOD, spearheaded by Ashcroft at DOJ and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz at DOD, backed by Cheney, and now led by a fully radicalized George W. Bush.

To temper the reaction of the Republicans here, please understand I'm not making a partisan, anti-Republican argument. I voted for Reagan and the elder Bush, and Dole for that matter. I'm not a Republican, but I'm sympathetic enough to certain Republican principles that I tend to vote Republican when given the usual American bi-polar choice between Republicans and Democrats. I regard Reagan as the greatest president of my lifetime, and I still think he's underrated by a mile.

But I can recognize a totalitarian regime when I see one. I'm sorry you can't. I'm sorry -- more sorry than you'll ever believe -- that America can't recognize what is happening to itself. I feel like I've lost my own country, and I don't know what to do about it.

I do like this forum. It's a strange comfort of sorts. I feel more at home in burgundy and gold, and with the people here, than I do in red, white and blue.

[Sarge]

At times I've wondered what it would be like to be in an "evil empire". As I look around at the shallow, commercial banality of American life -- barely disturbed by the far-away, silent slaughter of tens of thousands of Iraqis -- I realize: yes, this is it. This is what an evil empire feels like, from the inside.

I'm sorry ASF, but I'm calling bullsh!t on at least part of your post. Evil Empire, indeed. Have you EVER been in say....the old Soviet Union? Iraq? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Anywhere where there is/was a dictator in power? The old Eastern Bloc maybe? No? I have. Ever talked to anyone living in those repressed countries? I have. If you haven't done any of these things, you simply have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I know left wingers like to dwell in their little world where everybody gets along, but in reality, in the real world, that is simply not the case. And I never cease to amaze at the fact that people like you can call this country evil, yet give a pass to the hussains and assads and ils of the world. Any of the resident lefties can jump in here, but I have never heard a RATIONAL explaination for this thought process. Please explain.

Far from being a war on terror, the war against Iraq was a capitulation to Osama bin Laden and the ruling elite in Saudi Arabia

I don't think so. We are not being "kicked out" of saudi arabia. We are leaving because there is no longer a threat to saudi oil. We are leaving because we are tired of having to man PSAB (Price Sultan Air BAse), **** hole that it is. IF we were truly the "evil empire" you claim us to be, we would stay and they would like it. In fact, we would be selling oil for about $5 a barrel, and there would be very little anyone in the middle east could do about it. We are leaving so that the house of saud can take care of the radical islam problem. It won't be pretty. In fact, I ALMOST feel sorry for the first terrorist a$$holes they catch. A lesson will be taught. I know people like you will feel sorry for these poor terrorist souls because his rights will be violated and all, but that is exactly what will happen. You see, unlike your assertation that the royal family and bin laden get along, that is only true for the lesser members. The ones really in power see bin laden and his type as a threat to their power, and they will deal with it. And we will be in the neighborhood to make sure it happens. A marriage of convenence, if you will. We will just turn a blind eye to the tactics they will use to rid us and them of

di(kheads that need killing.

As for your assertation that we are staying in iraq, you are correct, we are staying. As I write this, we are turning airfields in iraq into places suitable for USAF aircraft. We ain't doing that for the practice. We are going to stay, one way or another.

Now for the reason. With us stratigically placed in the area, look around the map. If I was the terrorist sponsoring sh!thead running iran, I wouldn't be sleeping good at night. Assad in syria probaly isn't either. That is a good thing. A$$holes like them need to stay awake at night and think about the things they condone. They are now going to be pressured to act like they have some common sense and to try and live with the rest of us in a civilized world. If they can't, they will get a boot up their a$$. Which is not a bad thing either. You see, despite the lefts assertation that Bush is a dimbulb, the President understands the arab mentality exactly. The only thng they understand is force and a boot in the a$$. Clinton never grasped this and wanted to talk his way through the middle east. All that got us was a big hole in the New York skyline. Fortunately, we now have an adminstration that takes national security seriously.

As for killing tens of thousands, that's about right from what I hear. And you know what, I could care less, because that's what you do in war. We didn't just kill them, we WIPED THEM OUT. Keep in mind these are the same a$$wipes that stuck up white flags of surrender then fired on our troops, the same ones that hid out with civilians, the same ones that hung PFC Lynch upside down and broke her legs and back with with blunt instruments. So, I have no mercy or compassion for them. It just sucks to be them. And the lesson isn't lost on other countries either.

Evil empire? My a$$. If this was truly an evil empire, someone would have already kicked in your door and hauled you off, because that's what really happens in evil empires. When you respond to this, I'll assume that has not happened.

If this was truly an evil empire, we would take over whole countries and there would be very little anyone could do.

If we were truly an evil empire, we wouldn't go to such extraordinary lengths to make 4000lbs JADAMs that can take out a 10 story building, yet leave the one next door intact so as to minimize civilian casualties.

Evil Empire my a$$.

As for the Euroweenies and the UN, I think they have found out that they need us a lot more than we need them. We did not turn away from them, they turned away from us and turned away from doing the right thing. That's fine, I expect no less from them. As the new national motto of France says, "We're always there when we need you". They have sealed their own fate.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by Air Sarge

As for your assertation that we are staying in iraq, you are correct, we are staying. As I write this, we are turning airfields in iraq into places suitable for USAF aircraft. We ain't doing that for the practice. We are going to stay, one way or another.

As for killing tens of thousands, that's about right from what I hear. And you know what, I could care less, because that's what you do in war. We didn't just kill them, we WIPED THEM OUT.

Thank you, Colonel Jessep.

No more questions.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Apparently the nature of our emerging totalitarian nation is not being fully understood by Americans. Obviously the major media is not covering the story, even though it marks one of the starkest turning points in our nation's history.

The information is out there. Why don't you read about it, while you still can.

Let's turn from Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's handiwork in Iraq to a story close to home. This is a day in the life of John Ashcroft's new America.

Note to the incredibly stupid: Obviously I oppose terrorism. It may shock you, but we had perfectly workable laws for combatting terrorism prior to 9/11. They included court-ordered search and seizures, wiretaps and the like, which could be obtained by any law enforcement agency so long as reasonable cause could be demonstrated. The legal basis for requiring such court orders is found in the Fourth Amendment. That Fourth Amendment, for which the founders of this country died to create as a protection against the tyranny of their own government, now lies shredded at the feet of John Ashcroft. In Ashcroft's new America, the government can wiretap anyone and everyone at any time, and can detain anyone indefinitely, secretly, without trial or just cause.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15770

Patriot Raid

By Jason Halperin, AlterNet

April 29, 2003

Two weeks ago I experienced a very small taste of what hundreds of South Asian immigrants and U.S. citizens of South Asian descent have gone through since 9/11, and what thousands of others have come to fear. I was held, against my will and without warrant or cause, under the USA PATRIOT Act. While I understand the need for some measure of security and precaution in times such as these, the manner in which this detention and interrogation took place raises serious questions about police tactics and the safeguarding of civil liberties in times of war.

That night, March 20th, my roommate Asher and I were on our way to see the Broadway show "Rent." We had an hour to spare before curtain time so we stopped into an Indian restaurant just off of Times Square in the heart of midtown. I have omitted the name of the restaurant so as not to subject the owners to any further harassment or humiliation.

We helped ourselves to the buffet and then sat down to begin eating our dinner. I was just about to tell Asher how I'd eaten there before and how delicious the vegetable curry was, but I never got a chance. All of a sudden, there was a terrible commotion and five NYPD in bulletproof vests stormed down the stairs. They had their guns drawn and were pointing them indiscriminately at the restaurant staff and at us.

"Go to the back, go to the back of the restaurant," they yelled.

I hesitated, lost in my own panic.

"Did you not hear me, go to the back and sit down," they demanded.

I complied and looked around at the other patrons. There were eight men including the waiter, all of South Asian descent and ranging in age from late-teens to senior citizen. One of the policemen pointed his gun point-blank in the face of the waiter and shouted: "Is there anyone else in the restaurant?" The waiter, terrified, gestured to the kitchen.

The police placed their fingers on the triggers of their guns and kicked open the kitchen doors. Shouts emanated from the kitchen and a few seconds later five Hispanic men were made to crawl out on their hands and knees, guns pointed at them.

After patting us all down, the five officers seated us at two tables. As they continued to kick open doors to closets and bathrooms with their fingers glued to their triggers, no less than ten officers in suits emerged from the stairwell. Most of them sat in the back of the restaurant typing on their laptop computers. Two of them walked over to our table and identified themselves as officers of the INS and Homeland Security Department.

I explained that we were just eating dinner and asked why we were being held. We were told by the INS agent that we would be released once they had confirmation that we had no outstanding warrants and our immigration status was OK'd.

In pre-9/11 America, the legality of this would have been questionable. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.

"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."

The USA PATRIOT Act was passed into law on October 26, 2001 in order to facilitate the post 9/11 crackdown on terrorism (the name is actually an acronym: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.") Like most Americans, I did not recognize the extent to which this bill foregoes our civil liberties. Among the unprecedented rights it grants to the federal government are the right to wiretap without warrant, and the right to detain without warrant. As I quickly discovered, the right to an attorney has been seemingly fudged as well.

When I asked to speak to a lawyer, the INS official informed me that I do have the right to a lawyer but I would have to be brought down to the station and await security clearance before being granted one. When I asked how long that would take, he replied with a coy smile: "Maybe a day, maybe a week, maybe a month."

We insisted that we had every right to leave and were going to do so. One of the policemen walked over with his hand on his gun and taunted: "Go ahead and leave, just go ahead."

We remained seated. Our IDs were taken, and brought to the officers with laptops. I was questioned over the fact that my license was out of state, and asked if I had "something to hide." The police continued to hassle the kitchen workers, demanding licenses and dates of birth. One of the kitchen workers was shaking hysterically and kept providing the day's date – March 20, 2003, over and over.

As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself? "We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this."

I most certainly understand that we are at war. I also understand that the freedoms afforded to all of us in the Constitution were meant specifically for times like these. Our freedoms were carved out during times of strife by people who were facing brutal injustices, and were intended specifically so that this nation would behave differently in such times. If our freedoms crumble exactly when they are needed most, then they were really never freedoms at all.

After an hour and a half the INS agent walked back over and handed Asher and me our licenses. A policeman took us by the arm and escorted us out of the building. Before stepping out to the street, the INS agent apologized. He explained, in a low voice, that they did not think the two of us were in the restaurant. Several of the other patrons, though of South Asian descent, were in fact U.S. citizens. There were four taxi drivers, two students, one newspaper salesman – unwitting customers, just like Asher and me. I doubt, though, they received any apologies from the INS or the Department of Homeland Security.

Nor have the over 600 people of South Asian descent currently being held without charge by the Federal government. Apparently, this type of treatment is acceptable. One of the taxi drivers, a U.S. citizen, spoke to me during the interrogation. "Please stop talking to them," he urged. "I have been through this before. Please do whatever they say. Please for our sake."

Three days later I phoned the restaurant to discover what happened. The owner was nervous and embarrassed and obviously did not want to talk about it. But I managed to ascertain that the whole thing had been one giant mistake. A mistake. Loaded guns pointed in faces, people made to crawl on their hands and knees, police officers clearly exacerbating a tense situation by kicking in doors, taunting, keeping their fingers on the trigger even after the situation was under control. A mistake. And, according to the ACLU a perfectly legal one, thanks to the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act is just the first phase of the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. From the Justice Department has emerged a draft of the Domestic Securities Enhancement Act, also known as Patriot II. Among other things, this act would allow the Justice Department to detain anyone, anytime, secretly and indefinitely. It would also make it a crime to reveal the identity or even existence of such a detainee.

Every American citizen, whether they support the current war or not, should be alarmed by the speed and facility with which these changes to our fundamental rights are taking place. And all of those who thought that these laws would never affect them, who thought that the Patriot Act only applied to the guilty, should heed this story as a wake-up call. Please learn from my experience. We are all vulnerable so speak out and organize, our Fourth Amendment rights depend upon it.

Jason Halperin lives in New York City and works at Doctors Without Borders/Medicins San Frontieres.

[phishhead]

ASF,

I know very little about the Patriot Act. Was it a thing people voted on? Or power hungry politicians? Cause I can't see the average(intelligent) American voting for this...

And when did it pass?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by phishhead

ASF,

I know very little about the Patriot Act. Was it a thing people voted on? Or power hungry politicians? Cause I can't see the average(intelligent) American voting for this...

And when did it pass?

It was passed by Congress on October 25, 2001 -- six weeks after 9/11.

The political climate was such that it was considered treason to oppose any anti-terrorism measures. Ashcroft served up the dog food, and the Congress ate it.

Here's the genius part: the core elements had been drafted years before 9/11 by reactionary right-wing control freaks. 9/11 just gave Ashcroft the once-in-a-lifetime sales pitch to sell it.

Similarly, the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive military attack was drafted by Wolfowitz a decade ago.

These guys were ready. They just needed their front man, Bush, and a few thousand dead Americans to swing the deal.

[phishhead]

Whoa.. Makes a lot sense.

So its possible our Gov't was involved? I really hate to think about it like that. I don't really think they would've done that. I mean.... damn.

Could it be, that they left the door open, hoping for something like 9/11 to happen?

Investing our freedom in failure by design?

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by phishhead

Whoa.. Makes a lot sense.

So its possible our Gov't was involved? I really hate to think about it like that. I don't really think they would've done that. I mean.... damn.

Could it be, that they left the door open, hoping for something like 9/11 to happen?

Investing our freedom in failure by design?

I don't know. It's a pretty revolting theory, though certainly plenty of people believe it. Interestingly, the theory is particularly popular in the Arab world, where many people believe the 9/11 attacks were either planned or known about by Israeli and/or American intelligence agencies.

I'm not aware of any direct evidence for this. And as dimly as I view the Bush administration, I haven't brought myself to believe in their participation in or knowledge of 9/11. I just haven't quite ruled it out completely in my mind.

More likely, to me, is that the people driving this administration -- namely, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney -- simply believe that the U.S. has the right and obligation to command and control an unruly world. They believe it is necessary to ensure our nation's survival.

I happen to believe that the fundamental nature of our nation cannot survive their means to our survival.

These guys have every right to hold these beliefs and try to see them enacted as policy. Probably what bothers me most is not the presence of extremists, but the lack of meaningful debate in the media, in Congress, and among Americans. It's Orwellian.

The root of that problem is probably the closely held nature of our major media today. Corporate consolidation has resulted in the domination of media by a handful of companies, who are themselves controlled by a handful of individuals. Sure, you can publish just about anything you want on a Web site or in a tiny newsletter, but if you want to be heard by many Americans, forget it. We watch what they want us to watch. For the appearance of choice, we get hundreds of channels.

It has all the appearance of an X-Files style, smoky room where a handful of guys run everything. I don't quite buy that. It's more like a school of fish, which swim and turn together as a group. It's not centrally directed, but it might as well be. And you can extend that metaphor to the mindless, unquestioning obedience of many Americans today.

(For more on the role of the corporate media, read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent".)

It seems clear to me that the USA Patriot Act couldn't withstand Constitutional challenge. And yet, it has not been challenged in the courts, or widely debated in the media.

Why is that so?

Honestly: what happens today in Ashcroft's America if one dares to challenge Ashcroft's mandate? I keep thinking back to "1984" and what happens to Winston.

Ashcroft can make me disappear at any moment he chooses.

Any moment.

[phishhead]

I'm glad you brought up 1984. I've been thinking a lot lately about the similarities of the story, and the world today.

Its similar in many ways, but we aren't quite to the extremeness of the book, yet.

I'm fascinated by the "continuous war" theory in the book. Actually I'm fascinated by the book, entirely. The book was wrote in 1949, and for a man to have that kind've vision, is incredible.

[Yomar]

You are overreacting to an overreaction, we are in the midst of a debate on how to balance our security with our liberty, and while disagreement and discussion are important, thinking that anyone is really interested in kidnapping you in the middle of the night is pretty ridiculous. Surely you understand the sentiment for security, high-level well-financed criminals/terrorists are pretty hard to catch before they actually commit a crime. So if we want law enforcement to stop these people before they mass murder again, law enforcement is going to need to have access to information and freedoms which before 9.11 would have seemed very Orwellian indeed. But I'll be honest, there is a part of me that is glad they are detaining large numbers of people on questionable grounds because I'm not so sure we wouldn't have seen another terrorist attack if they didn't. I probably wouldn't feel that way if someone I knew went missing, but I know no one who has been secretly detained nor anyone who knows somebody who knows somebody. I certainly don't think it’s a long-term solution and it’s important to allow only that which is necessary, so the proposed permanency of Patriot Act II is unsettling. This ultimately is not something that will fall on the Department of Justice to solve, in the long term this is a matter for the Department of State, but in the time being this isn't about stripping away as many civil liberties as quickly as possible, its about security and while I think discussion is healthy meeting hysteria with hysteria is not terribly productive.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

Originally posted by phishhead

I'm glad you brought up 1984. I've been thinking a lot lately about the similarities of the story, and the world today.

Its similar in many ways, but we aren't quite to the extremeness of the book, yet.

I'm fascinated by the "continuous war" theory in the book. Actually I'm fascinated by the book, entirely. The book was wrote in 1949, and for a man to have that kind've vision, is incredible.

I couldn't agree more. The book is one of the most brilliant, visionary books ever written.

I have a developing theory about this new emerging America, which believes itself to be free, but is by degrees becoming a totalitarian state similar to that in "1984". The theory is based on two principles:

First: Total Information Awareness, which is both a specific DOD program being run by John Poindexter (see: Iran-Contra) and a general description of comprehensive government surveillance powers (notably, via the USA Patriot Acts, but also via IRS oversight of financial reporting, etc.). The idea is that the government tracks the flow of essentially all information (all email, transactions, surveillance files, etc.), ostensibly for anti-terrorism or revenue efforts, but usable for any purpose.

Second, the Balzac insight -- namely, "Behind every great fortune lies a crime." This means that any person of any significant power attained that power (or momentum toward that power) at some point through crime or corruption. It could be any sort of crime or corruption, but whatever it was, it enabled that individual to emerge with power. That power then begets further power: the Balzac principle requires at minimum only one crime. I would extend that Balzac insight further to say, "Everyone has something to hide." It could be a porn habit, a mistress, tax evasion, anything. Whatever our virtues, we all have something to hide.

Combine these two principles, and you suddenly have a command-and-control, totalitarian state. It is not necessary anymore for the state to imprison or execute its enemies, because it can expose the secrets of its enemies -- for criminal prosecution or simply personal ruin. The same vulnerability extends to corporations, which are forever in danger of exposure to government attack on accounting and tax practices, among many potential misdeeds. Even innocent people and corporations can be ruined by the impossibility of defending unrelenting inquisition.

The result is absolute control, absolute domination: 1984.

Everyone has something to hide. The difference is, in Ashcroft's world, the government actually knows what you're hiding, or at least you can't be sure they don't.

Watch the fish swim together: no one steps out of line. Fear inspires obedience, to the point of instinct.

Yomar: have you ever been audited? Have you ever run a corporation? Do you have any secrets at all? Disappearances and coercion take many forms. Trust me: anyone can disappear at any time, without ever leaving their desk. It takes a phone call.

When you hang up the phone, you're still there. For the rest of your life, you wait for the second call.

Turn on the TV. Do you believe for a goddamn second that a multibillion-dollar corporation run by a handful of multimillionaire criminals cares about the value of free debate?

Everybody's got a phone on their desk, Yomar.

Relax. Make some money. Enjoy yourself. It's a pretty big tank, and you'll do fine as long as you keep close to the other fish.