Category: Archive

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called "20th hijacker" and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a "special interrogation plan," personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski, who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case, ­ has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: "It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ."

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides "universal jurisdiction" allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld’s spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a "a big, big problem." U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld’s resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor’s reasoning for rejecting the previous case ­ that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue ­ has been proven wrong.

"The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor’s previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are underway in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition ­ the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are underway in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against "war criminals" could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet ­ whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration ­ was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

The advent of smart metering was the most significant technology impact in the National Electricity Market (NEM) at present, the National Electricity Market Management Company (NEMMCO) said in its 2006 annual report on metering and retail market development.

All states investigating impact and benefits: NEMMCO said there was no national program in Australia but all state jurisdictions were investigating the impact and potential benefits of smart metering.

COAG encourages their use: A statement from the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) encouraged the use of smart meters to improve supply efficiency through effective price signals to customers.

No formally accepted definition in Australia: While there was no formally accepted definition of the term “smart meter”, a general definition of a “smart meter” was an advanced meter that identified electricity consumption in more detail than a conventional basic (accumulation) meter of the type now used in domestic situations.

More than 4000 readings in a quarter: While a “basic meter” accumulated the measurement of electricity consumption until it was read, providing the total energy volume for the period between reads, a “smart meter” would, typically, provide consumption data in half-hourly intervals (e.g. providing more than 4000 readings in a three-month period).

Readings can be delivered over communications network: A “smart meter” was therefore also referred to as an “interval meter”. The “smart meter” might also deliver the readings over a communications network to a remote location for monitoring and billing purposes, and provides other specialised functions.

Advanced metering infrastructure: This end-to-end arrangement of smart meters and data communications was referred to as AMI (advanced metering infrastructure).

Reference: 2006 annual report by National Electricity Market and Management Company (NEMMCO) on metering and retail market development. 26 October. Address: Level 12, 15 William Street, Melbourne. Vic. 3000. Phone: (03) 9648 8777. Fax: (03) 9648 8778.
http://www.nemmco.com.au

Erisk Net, 13/11/2006

By Mike Whitney

DONALD Rumsfeld never really understood the war he was fighting in Iraq. That’s why the results have been so terrible. He liked to say that “the war in Iraq is a test of wills”, but that just shows that he had no idea what he was doing and was in way over his head.

War shouldn’t be personalized; that just makes it a battle of egos which inevitably clouds one’s judgment. War is a means of using organized violence to achieve political objectives. Period. Rumsfeld never really grasped that point, so it was impossible for him to prevail. His statement just shows the shortsightedness of a man who is incapable of thinking politically and therefore wasn’t able to appreciate the larger strategic goals.

For people like Rumsfeld, violence and deception are the natural corollaries of their distorted views; they become an end in themselves. That is not only tragic, but it also ensures failure. According to the recently released Lancet report, over 650,000 Iraqis have been killed in the conflict so far. This proves that Rumsfeld didn’t know what he was doing so he simply ratcheted up the violence to conceal his ignorance. He had no plan for occupation, reconstruction, security, or victory. The whole thing was a sham predicated on his unflagging belief in over-whelming force. The outcome was not only predictable; it was predicted! Now, the country in a shambles, the society is irretrievably ripped apart, and the entire project is in ruins.

In his parting statement, Rumsfeld reiterated his belief that we are facing a “new kind of enemy” in a “new kind of war”. But this is just more buck-passing from a guy who wouldn’t listen to his subordinates and was thoroughly convinced of his own genius. Anyone who has seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib and Falluja are already familiar with Rumsfeld’s genius and his insatiable appetite for violence. They also know that, to great extent, he is fully responsible for the unspeakable tragedy that is currently unfolding in Iraq.

Besides, Rumsfeld is mistaken; we are not fighting a “new kind of enemy or a new kind of war”. The fundamentals of 4-G guerilla warfare are well known as are the strategies for combating them. Rumsfeld’s problem is that, rather than follow the advice of his generals who understand the nature of asymmetrical warfare; he chose to implement his own untested theories which consistently ended in disaster.

To his credit, he had a fairly decent plan for controlling the flow of information coming from the front (“embedded” journalists) and for quashing unflattering news-coverage. In fact, the DOD’s media-management strategy has been the most successful part of the war-effort. The American people have been effectively blocked from seeing the same kind of bloody-footage that flooded their TV screens a generation earlier during the Vietnam War. We haven’t seen the carnage, the body-bags, the flag-draped coffins; the wounded, maimed or killed civilians who are, of course, the greatest victims of the present policy.

In other words, the Iraq War has been a huge triumph for perception-management and censorship.

Score 1 for Rummy.

The media has played no role in undermining support for the war. Rather it has been the steady deterioration of the security situation, the up-tick in sectarian violence, and the absence of any tangible “benchmarks” for progress which left the American people believing that we were hopelessly trapped in another quagmire. At this point, no amount of media cheerleading will convince the public that the war is anything more than a dead-loss.

Rumsfeld saw himself as a master technician, singularly capable of tip-toeing through the abstruse details of his “new type of war” while developing entirely original tactics. Naturally, he favored blitzkrieg-type military maneuvers and massive, destabilizing counterinsurgency operations, both of which have had a catastrophic effect on Iraqi society thrusting the country into “ungovernable” anarchy.

Was that the point?

Rumsfeld seemed to believe that if he spread chaos throughout Iraq (“creative destruction”) US occupation forces would eventually come out on top. The policy is a reworking of the covert operations (The Contras) which were used in Central America during the Reagan administration. The basic concept is to use extreme violence (El Salvador option) against enemy suspects in a way that discourages others from joining the fight. That’s shorthand for “terrorism” which, of course, the US does not officially support.

Some critics suggested that the strategies which worked in Central America would not succeed in Iraq for various cultural and historic reasons. They turned out to be right; "one size does not fit all". The Iraqis are fiercely independent, proud, nationalistic, and hostile to all manifestations of imperial rule. Although Iraqi society has begun to splinter, the violence has only intensified as more and more people find refuge in tribal groups and well-armed militias. This has caused a steady rise in the number of attacks on American forces. It has also made the country completely unmanageable. Iraqis are not cowed by imperial violence. They are not the submissive, compliant sheeple that Rumsfeld imagined. This is another tragic misreading of history.

There is no antidote for the continuing crisis in Iraq. The inevitable American withdrawal will only hasten the looming battle between the competing political forces. It’s better to get out now and allow that process to begin.

Political pundits and historians will undoubtedly be harsh on Rumsfeld for his iron-fisted methods of trying to establish order, but occupying Iraq would have been difficult, if not impossible, under the best of circumstances. Rumsfeld’s poor decision-making sped up the process but, ultimately, the project was doomed from the beginning.

Ironically, Rumsfeld still refuses to accept any responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of casualties or the complete breakdown of Iraqi society. Instead, he has brushed aside any blame saying that Iraq is too “complicated” for normal people to understand.

Even after being forced to resign in utter disgrace, he still shows no sign of doubting his abilities as a military genius. His ego remains as impervious to criticism as tempered steel.

But the facts don’t lie. Rumsfeld was given the best-equipped, best-trained, high-tech, military machine the world has ever seen. He was given unlimited political and financial support and a ringing endorsement by the American media. All that was expected of him was to establish security and execute the smooth transferal of power from a "widely-despised" tyrant to a provisional government. At the same time, he was supposed to put down an “insurgency”, which (by the Pentagon’s own estimates) included no more than 5 or 6,000 “Islamic extremists and dead-enders”.

He failed completely.

Towards the end of his tenure, he became so desperate that he began to blame leftist web sites and “bloggers” for the escalating violence in Iraq.

If there is an “up-side” to the Rumsfeld saga, it is this. If it wasn’t for Rumsfeld’s sheer incompetence in every area of supervising the occupation, the Bush administration would have pressed on with their plans for toppling the regimes in Tehran and Damascus.

Rumsfeld’s ineptitude, along with the tenacity and steadfastness of the Iraqi resistance, has made that prospect seem far less likely.

Source: Information Clearing House

‘Bound to have major impact’ on policy, chief scientist says

Kenya – A long-awaited report by a U.N. scientific network will offer “much stronger” evidence of how man is changing Earth’s climate, and should prompt reluctant governments into action against global warming, the group’s chief scientist said Monday.

The upcoming, multi-volume U.N. assessment — on melting ice caps, rising seas and authoritative new data on how the world has warmed — may provide “just the right impetus to get the negotiations going in a more purposeful way,” Rajendra K. Pachauri told The Associated Press midway through the annual two-week U.N. climate conference.

The Indian climatologist is chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global network of some 2,000 scientists that regularly assesses research into how carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases produced by industry and other human activities are affecting climate.

In its pivotal Third Assessment in 2001, the panel concluded that most global warming — temperatures rose an average 1 degree in the past century — was likely the result of such manmade greenhouse gases.

In its Fourth Assessment, to be issued in installments beginning in February, “there’s much stronger evidence now of human actions on the change in climate that’s taken place,” Pachauri said.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol requires 35 industrialized nations to reduce their greenhouse emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States and Australia are the only major industrial nations to reject Kyoto. President Bush contends such emissions cuts would harm the U.S. economy.

Looking beyond 2012
At the U.N. conference here, Kyoto parties are discussing what kind of timetables and quotas should follow that pact’s expiration in 2012.

They also are weighing ways to draw the United States, the world’s biggest carbon dioxide emitter, into a mandatory system of emissions caps. Many look toward the scientists’ upcoming assessment for support.

“It’s bound to have a major impact,” Pachauri said.

He said the detailed document will offer significantly more evidence on sea-level rise, the melting of glaciers and the growing scarcity of water. He didn’t discuss those details, since the Fourth Assessment Report is still in the draft stage. But it is likely to cite such recent research findings as:

• World temperatures have risen to levels not seen in at least 12,000 years, propelled by rapid warming the past 30 years.
• Greenland’s ice mass has been melting at what NASA calls a “dramatic” rate of 41 cubic miles per year, far surpassing the gain of 14 cubic miles per year from snowfall.
• The levels of oceans, expanding from warmth and from land-ice runoff, have risen at a rate of about 2 millimeters a year between 1961 and 2003, and by more than 3 millimeters a year in 1993-2003.

Pachauri said increasingly powerful supercomputers allow scientists to run more accurate models of future climate. The match between what the computer models have predicted and what is actually happening to the climate has become “much, much sharper,” he said. This has allowed his panel to refine its range of scenarios for 21st-century climate.

Ranges likely to narrow
In the 2001 assessment, the U.N. network projected temperatures in this century would rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees, depending on many factors, including whether governments move quickly to rein in emissions. In the upcoming report, “we probably have a narrowing of ranges,” Pachauri said. “Some of the uncertainties are being reduced.”

Further warmth of even 1 or 2 degrees would tend to shift climate zones, disrupting agriculture and ecosystems, and producing more extreme weather events, scientists say.

Pachauri credited the ever-deeper ice-core samples taken in Antarctica and Greenland for allowing scientists to look further back at ancient atmospheres. This “gives you a solid perspective on what human beings have done to Earth’s climate,” he said.

Citing growing public acceptance of the science of climate change, Pachauri indicated he believed the United States would eventually accept emissions caps. “Democratic governments will have to take into account the views of the public,” he said.