War On You: Breaking Alternative News

“Remember the Maine,” was the battle cry across the US. From the Eastern seaboard states all the way to California, Americans were repeatedly told that the Spanish had attacked and sunk the USS Maine on February 15, 1898, as it lay anchored peacefully in Havana Harbor. It didn’t take long for Americans to start showing up at military recruiting stations across the land to defend the honor of the US Navy. There would be hell to pay if other countries feel they can just attack a US ship during peacetime and get away with it.

The core problem with all of this was the fact that the Spanish were being falsely accused for masterminding the tragedy. Unbeknownst to the American public, a new and treacherous form of journalism had just reared its head for the first time. As I wrote in my talk on The Rise of Yellow Journalism, one of the most infamous incidents with regard to the influence that yellow journalism practices had on the Spanish-American War is a short dialogue between William Randolph Hearst and his hired illustrator/Cuban correspondent, Frederick Remington. Upon his arrival in Cuba in January of 1897, Remington noticed that none of massive reported battles were actually happening. He cabled to Hearst: “Everything is quiet. There is no trouble. There will be no war. I wish to return.” Supposedly, although he denied it afterwards, Hearst quickly wired back: “Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”

Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involved sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting newspaper sales and exciting public opinion. At 9:40 on the evening in question, a terrible explosion on board the USS Maine shattered the stillness in Havana Harbor. Later investigations revealed that more than five tons of powder charges for the vessel’s six and ten-inch guns ignited, virtually obliterating the forward third of the ship. The remaining wreckage rapidly settled to the bottom of the harbor. Most of Maine’s crew were sleeping or resting in the enlisted quarters in the forward part of the ship when the explosion occurred. Two hundred and sixty-six men lost their lives as a result of the disaster: 260 died in the explosion or shortly thereafter, and six more died later from injuries.

Seizing upon the opportunity to capitalize on the growing spirit of American patriotism, two major newspapers owned by Hearst and rival newspaper owner Joseph Pulitzer printed sensational anti-Spanish stories. They both blamed Spain directly for the sinking of the Maine. Graphic illustrations commissioned from some of the country’s most-talented artists and stories written by premiere authors and journalists of the day were fodder for fueling the flames of war. Together, Hearst and Pulitzer created frenzy among the American people by reporting the alleged brutality of the Spanish toward the Cuban rebels. By the time the USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor, the pro-war press had roused national sentiment to the point that President McKinley feared his political party would suffer if he did not engage in war with Spain.

On April 25, 1898, Congress declares war on Spain and eventually increases the military to 200,000. By June 10, a battalion of Marines land at Guantanamo Bay. The Chicago Tribune, in an article written on June 22, argues for Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines to become part of US territory. “All of these islands will belong to us by sovereign right of honorable conquest. They will be American soil from the moment the Stars and Stripes float over them. Annexation of all three is the natural outcome”

After serious losses to U.S. troops in San Juan, Lawton, and El Caney, the entire Spanish squadron is annihilated by July 2. A few days later, Santiago is occupied by American forces, which forbid the Cuban rebels from entering. By July 16, Spain and the U.S. sign a peace agreement. Towards the end of the year, the Cuban Educational Association (formed by the Wood administration) reports that only certain Cubans are considered fit to be “Americanized,” and that darker skinned Cubans “could not gain admission” to many American universities and colleges.

The Cubans were obviously dismayed. Their decades old struggle for independence had been hijacked by American sensationalism and the Cubans would wind up merely trading one colonial power for another. Even though the Teller Amendment, which passed both houses of Congress on April 20, 1898, specifically stated that Cuba was to be given its independence as soon as possible, there was wide spread opposition in the US which felt like it had won the war and was, therefore, the owner of the prize.

Finally, in 1903, The Platt Amendment is passed and the US grants sovereignty to Cuba. Well sorta. Article 3 of the amendment gives the US the right to intervene in the sovereign affairs of Cuba when the US wants to. Throughout the amendment, strict standards are imposed on the island, with the United States being the sole arbiter and judge of achievement. And then there’s Article 7. “That to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its defense, the government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States.”

This article was “to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba.” The surreal hypocrisy of this statement is not lost on Cubans even to this day. During the early 20th Century, Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine were two pillars of American foreign policy that seemed to find their way into many foreign policy decrees such as the Platt Amendment. This becomes the birth of the US military base at Guantanamo Bay on the island of Cuba. The oldest US overseas base and the only one that is located in a “hostile” country. To this day, the US pays a usury fee for the base and the Cuban government refuses to cash the check.

Over the years, the base has been used for many different projects. The base has seen tens of thousands of Cuban and Haitian refugees pass through, it has been used as the staging ground for many different military maneuvers, and it has even been used as an interdiction base to halt illegal Chinese being smuggled into the US. It has been immortalized in the psyche of Americana through films like, A Few Good Men, where Jack Nicholson uttered the immortal phrase, “You can’t handle the truth.” Few at that time could have ever prophesied just how true his words would eventually become.

With the disaster that visited the US on September 11, 2001, a whole new paradigm shift quickly took hold of the American mindset and their perceived outlook about the world and America’s role in it. A month later, the US military attacked the people of Afghanistan in the hopes of destroying the terrorist encampments, training camps and infrastructure which were deemed to be of great importance in the preparation and execution of the attacks one month sooner. Few people, then or now, fully reflect on the absurd hypocrisy that these same terrorists training camps and infrastructure were originally bought and paid for by the American taxpayer before and during the Soviet/Afghan war of the 1980s. The CIA term blowback, made famous by Chalmers Johnson over just these same facts, has been proven time and again to accurately reflect what happens when a nation uses unscrupulous methods to conduct its foreign policy and there is no more glaring proof of this than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

And the prosecution of this new form of battle was to create a whole new group of terms, many firsts and others redefined to further mystify and confuse the world at large. Though the words “enemy combatant” were first used by FDR in 1942 under his proclamation number 2561, President Roosevelt noted that enemy combatants are “all persons who are subjects, citizens, or residents of any Nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such Nation and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States or any territory or possession thereof, through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law or war”.

This concept was to sit in a back corner of US foreign jargon until revived by the Bush administration some 60 years later. In his February 24, 2004, “Remarks” before the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security, Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to President Bush, said: “Under these rules, captured enemy combatants, whether soldiers or saboteurs, may be detained for the duration of hostilities. They need not be ‘guilty’ of anything; they are detained simply by virtue of their status as enemy combatants in war. This detention is not an act of punishment but one of security and military necessity.”

But that’s not how the Bush Administration played it up in the news media. In 2002, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld famously referred to Guantanamo prisoners as “the worst of the worst.” As recently as June 2005, he said, despite massive and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, “If you think of the people down there, these are people, all of whom were captured on a battlefield. They’re terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama bin Laden's] bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9/11 hijacker.”

And Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, chimed in, “They were so vicious, if given the chance they would gnaw through the hydraulic lines of a C-17 while they were being flown to Cuba. These are the people that don’t know any moral values,” he said, adding that “the threat they pose is real – at least 12 former detainees have been killed or captured on the battlefield after their release.”

Polls taken since the infamous attack have consistently shown that Americans have been overwhelmingly convinced that these horrific monsters needed to be corralled, chained to the ground, and watched over indefinitely. The torture methods described in the countless documentaries surrounding Gitmo, which are the same ones eventually used at Abu Ghraib, have been tacitly accepted and condoned ever so quietly by the American public because of the hype the Bush Administration kept pouring on about their evil ways.

The National Journal published the results of several national polls regarding terrorism in their “2006 Polling On Terrorism”

A poll conducted 6/22-25/06 by TNS, showed that 57% of Americans support the federal government holding suspected terrorists without trial at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Their poll also showed that one in four Americans agreed that the detainees should be held indefinitely without charges. Two in three Americans felt confident that the US was adequately protecting the rights of those held at Gitmo even though it had already been shown that widespread torture and abuse started there before moving on to Abu Ghraib. And two thirds acknowledged that Gitmo had damaged the image of the US in the rest of the world even though over half felt safer from terrorism as a result.

In a nationwide poll conducted 7/21-25/06, nine out of ten respondents stated that they had heard about the detention facility at Gitmo and over half said they favored its continued role in the war on terror. Only one in three said they wanted it shut down.

But in what has to be one of the most worrisome and controversial results in the US, a poll conducted 7/28-8/1/06, asked this: “As you may know, since 2001, the United States has held foreign terrorist suspects at a detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Supreme Court recently ruled that before the United States military can imprison or execute suspected terrorists, it must give them a fair trial under military rules adopted by Congress. In your view, what legal rights should be given to these detainees? Do you think they should have the same rights American civilians receive in U.S. courts, or should they have the same rights that American military personnel receive in military courts, or should they have some rights, but not all those that are given to American military personnel, or should they have no rights?”

The result, 38% of respondents stated that they deserved only a few rights while 23% stated that they deserve no rights at all. This answer demonstrates clearly that nearly two thirds of the public prefer to ignore Supreme Court Constitutionally-based rulings if they hear something different from the main stream media and the government. In other words, the false rhetoric of the administration, e.g. Rumsfeld’s erroneous claim about the worst of the worst, along with its nonstop repetition by the MSM, is more highly valued and believed by the US public. Even though the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that some of Bush’s policy was unconstitutional, the vast majority of Americans will still side with Bush and his lies rather than uphold the Constitution. That, in and of itself, should raise alarm bells across the country that so many would be willing to trash the Constitution in favor of unconstitutional rhetoric, lies and policy.

The Bush Administration has steadfastly insisted that those who were put into detention at Gitmo represent the most cruel, inhuman and barbaric terrorists on the planet. Many in Congress have echoed his sentiments time and again.

Jim Ryun, Republican Representative from Kansas noted, “Guantanamo allows us to secure dangerous detainees without the risk of escape, while at the same time providing us with valuable intelligence information on how best to proceed in the war against terror and prevent future attacks.”

He’s was also quoted as saying, “I was most impressed with the professionalism of our soldiers stationed there, and I am now more confident than ever that that the operations at Guantanamo are being conducted in a humane and necessary manner.”

Joseph Christopher “Chris” Chocola, Republican Representative from Indiana until 2007 offered, “Guantanamo Bay houses enemy combatants ranging from terrorist trainers and recruiters to bomb makers, would-be suicide bombers, and terrorist financiers.”

It was later found out that President Bush had ordered specific torture techniques in 2004 when he signed an Executive Order approving the use of military dogs, sleep deprivation and other tactics to intimidate Iraqi detainees. An uncovered FBI memo from may 22, 2004, stated specifically that the Bush Administration authorized all torture techniques so minutely that they even went so far as to provide the maximum number of times a certain torture technique could be used against a prisoner.

At the same time, White House Council, Alberto Gonzales, pointed out that President Bush had determined, “that Geneva does not apply with respect to our conflict with al-Qaeda. Geneva applies with respect to our conflict with the Taliban. Neither the Taliban or al Qaeda are entitled to POW protections.”

At the same time, John Yoo, then a deputy in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, presented a legal opinion on torture to the Bush Administration on March 14, 2003. It essentially provided military interrogators with legal cover if they resorted to brutal and violent methods to extract information from prisoners. “If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al-Qaeda terrorist network,” Yoo wrote. “In that case, we believe that he could argue that the Executive Branch’s constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions.”

The legal opinion for military interrogators was virtually identical to an earlier memo that Yoo had written in August 2002 for CIA interrogators. Widely called the “Torture Memo,” it provided CIA interrogators with the legal authority to use long-outlawed tactics, such as waterboarding, when interrogating so-called high-level terrorist suspects.

From the very outset, Guantanamo Bay has been set up to detain people who had fallen into the vast outstretched web of capture created by the Bush Administration and implemented by the soldiers in the field. There appears to be almost no set procedure in place at any time that the soldiers could use to make a meaningful and qualified assessment of the person in question. Many times the soldiers had to accept the word of a total stranger. The fact that rewards were given to those who brought in suspected terrorists only further muddy the process.

Once these suspects arrived at Gitmo, they were stripped of almost all connections with the outside world. It is obvious from the earliest records from Gitmo that torture was authorized as per John Yoo’s torture memo and other documents, that the torture was approved in the oval office with VP Dick Cheney, Sec. of State Donald Rumsfeld, NSA Chief Condoleeza Rice, and President George Bush present, and that it was carried out, not only at Gitmo but at Abu Ghraib as well.

The Bush Administration led a searing attack of these detainees in the news media across the country. Both military and non-military personnel in the various parts of the Executive pounded a nonstop drum of epithets aimed at convincing the American public that those being detained were, to use Rumsfeld’s words, “the worst of the worst.” In poll after poll, Americans showed that they not only willingly bought the administration’s story, hook, line and sinker, but that they were quite willing to trash the United States Constitution if its interpretation was other than what the Bush administration was claiming.

Detainees at Gitmo have waited for up to 7 years to speak to any legal attorney about their case. At the same time, many were never officially accused of any crime, never given an end date to their detention, and never allowed to speak to anyone outside the camp about their case.

So as the end of this unfortunate project of torture and abuse by the US military with the full agreement from the executive and legislative branches of our government approaches, what is the final bottom line result? After over 7 years of governmental assurance that those being held at Guantanamo Bay are, “the worst of the worst,” that they needed to be tortured in order to properly extract actionable intelligence to be sent back to the front lines, and that they had no POW rights, no humanitarian rights, and fell outside the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights which is supposed to govern all human beings on planet Earth, what has the US government provided to the world about their latest and greatest techniques to stop these evil imps from ever continuing their satanic ways in public again?

Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of January 2009, approximately 245 detainees remain.

Three have been convicted of various charges:

* David Hicks was found guilty under retrospective legislation introduced in 2006 of providing material support to terrorists in 2001
* Salim Hamdan took a job as chauffeur driving Osama bin Laden.
* Ali al-Bahlul made a video celebrating the attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67).

Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest.

After 7 years, countless epithets about the most evil of people, after repeated practices of torture, indefinite periods of isolation, the loss of even the most minimal rights as guaranteed by the DHR, the “worst of the worst” turned out to be only 3 people who were ever convicted to date. One was convicted for providing material that a seventh grader could easily get a hold of, another was convicted of be a personal taxi driver, and the third was convicted of making a film about an attack. Absolutely no one has been convicted of killing anyone, convicted of torturing anyone, nor convicted of harming anyone in the slightest. The “worst of the worst” turn out to be people who carried some papers, a driver’s license, car, and a camcorder. Most of the rest of these evil people are back in the public once again able to continue as before, but with one major difference. They were illegally, unlawfully, and erroneously kidnapped, detained, tortured and abused for up to seven years of their life by the government of the only super power on planet Earth.

There is no truer demonstration of the oft-cited refrain that the ultimate demise of the US will come from within, not without. If the horrors at Gitmo are any indication that demise will probably come sooner rather than later.

1. http://beyond.euskalaretoa.com/belief/YaBB.pl?num=1239952795/0#0

2. &&&&http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/time/timetbl2d.htm

3. &&http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/teller.htm

4. &&http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/time/timetbl2d.htm

5. &&http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Enemy_combatant

6. &&Idem

7. &&http://www.truthout.org/article/william-fisher-the-worst-worst

8. &&http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/polltrack/2006/issues/06terrorism.htm

Jim Ryun and Chris Chocola quotes from:
http://www.brainyquote.com/

9. &&http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/6-bushs-torture-quote-undercuts-denial.html

10. &&http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp