Debate between civilian or military courts for 9/11 mastermind is irrelevant

A disheveled mess of tangled hair and bloodshot eyes emerged in the newspapers as Kalid Shaik Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, is granted a public trial in New York City. Many accuse the Obama Administration of using the public trial as a political tool to indict the previous administration’s use of torture during the “war on terror.” Mohammed had been waterboarded 183 times, according to the New York Times. A public trial could also allow Mohammed a podium for his anti-American propaganda and to present his own indictment of American foreign policy.

Some argue that Mohammed should be tried in a military tribunal as an unprivileged enemy belligerent. Only 29 percent of voters agree with the President’s decision to not hold the trial in a military tribunal and only 30 percent think suspected terrorists should have access to US courts, according to Rasmussen Reports. However, military tribunals can only be used when there has been a formal declaration of war. At the moment, there is no precise definition of a formal declaration of war. The last time a piece of US legislation was passed with the phrase “declaration of war” in the title was in 1942 against Romania.

The President has not been allowed to formally declare war since the passage of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This resolution gave Congress exclusive power to formally declare war. The President is also required to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

However, the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution has been questioned. Every President since its passage has treated the act as possibly unconstitutional. The reports to Congress, which the Resolution requires of the President, have been drafted to state that they are “consistent with” the War Powers Resolution and not “pursuant to” the Resolution, implying the Presidential position that the Resolution is unconstitutional.

The Obama Administration, at first, seemed to be in alignment with the War Powers Resolution in regards to Guantanamo. President Obama had immediately halted the military tribunals in Guantanamo when he was elected, pursuant to a Supreme Court decision. However, he has then resumed the Guantanamo military tribunals with a new experimental legal system, which is a hybrid of civilian and military courts. President Bush had previously argued that the military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay were authorized by a congressional joint resolution, which served as a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court rejected this assertion, ruling that only with the consent of Congress can the President use military tribunals. It also stated that the detention camps in Guantanamo is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Obama, then, with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, defied the Supreme Court's interpretation of the War Powers Resolution and granted the President the right to try the detainees in military tribunals.

This implies that Obama is resuming military tribunals in Guantanamo despite the Supreme Court's ruling that Guantanamo violates the Geneva Conventions. Despite public opinion, there does not seem to be any legal way the President could try Mohammed or any of the other terrorist suspects in military tribunal courts. The debate about whether or not Mohammed should be tried in a military tribunal is irrelevant, because the rule of international law has already been abandoned.

US Government Neck Deep in Heroin

The US government is neck deep in heroin. The CIA maybe contributing to heroine trafficking from Afghanistan, while thousands of veterans of the War on Terror come back home seeking substance abuse treatment. The CIA may have been using government money which is suspected of being used to traffic heroin from Afghanistan into the US and other Western countries. Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of Afghani president Hamid Karzai, has been receiving payments from the CIA for acting as a go-between for negotiations with the Taliban. Karzai is also suspected of aiding in the trafficking of opium, which eventually ends up as heroine in the US and other Western nations. This adds to the continuing history of the CIA's involvement in the illegal drug trade. However, the US War on Terror’s impact on heroin trafficking reaches further than Afghanistan.

America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have caused destabilization in both of these countries, enabling drug traffickers and suppliers to more easily distribute opiates throughout Europe and the US. Afghanistan in particular is of concern, because it is the world’s largest producer of heroine. Since the US invaded Afghanistan in 2006 opium production in the country has increased rapidly from 3400 tons, peaking at 8200 tons in 2007 and finally leveling out at 7700 tons in 2008, according to UN Drug Reports. Ninety-two percent of the world’s opium comes from Afghanistan poppy plants, according to the 2008 UN World Drug Report.

However, the US government’s problem with heroin does not end in Afghanistan. Thousands of US military personnel are becoming addicted to opiates while serving in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. Twenty-two thousand Iraq and Afghanistan veterans sought substance abuse treatment in 2008, which is more than double from 2006, according to Signs of the Times. Despite hard evidence of access to heroin in Afghanistan and widespread drug abuse problems among US soldiers the Drug Enforcement Agency does not any case officers serving in Afghanistan or Iraq looking into drug trafficking. It maybe likely that heroin will become a major problem, in many ways, for American society as a result of the US War on Terror.

Corporations Win, Public Loses in Healthcare Debate

Many see the heathcare debate as socialized versus privatized heathcare systems. But, no matter what side wins the American public loses. Both sides of the debate are controlled by big corporate interests, which are only interested in filling their own pockets and care nothing for the good of the American public. In fact, the U.S. health care system has already been partially socialized and partially private sector. Medicare has been providing socialized healthcare since 1965. There are also non-profit insurance providers who are closely connected to the government.

But, larger private sector insurance companies have become too powerful. A small handful of corporations control a large portion of the industry, ensuring a corporate monopoly on the healthcare industry. Corporate executives fill their pockets while millions of Americans are left without insurance or are left with inadequate coverage. Private insurance corporations also use large amounts of money to influence congress to vote for measures beneficial to maintaining this monopoly, which keeps healthcare costs and drug prices high. This has caused havoc for personal finances of many Americans. Fifty-five percent of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical debts or illness. Seventy-five percent of those people were insured, according to Alternet.org.

So what is the answer to the private sector's monopoly over the healthcare system? Although he maybe willing to compromise on adding the public healthcare option, President Obama’s original proposed healthcare overhaul plan claims that more government sponsored healthcare and also stiff regulations on private insurers will increase competition and result in lower premiums and healthcare costs for consumers. Obama’s plan will tax the wealthy in order to pay for the increased burden on the government to pay for public healthcare. The estimated cost for the overhaul is $1 trillion over ten years. That equates to about $100 billion per year.

This may seem like a lot of money, however we are actually spending more than that per year on the War on Terror. In the proposed 2010 budget the White House is asking for $130 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, there is no talk of diverting funds from these military endeavors to the healthcare system. The most Obama has done is divert funds from the war in Iraq to Afghanistan, therefore keeping money in the pockets of corporate military and defense contractors, such as Blackwater and Halliburton. These entities, like the private insurance and drug companies, are corporate entities with no duty to act in the best interests of the American people.

In fact, Obama has gone out of his way to protect corporate interests in his attempt to pass his bill for overhauling our healthcare system. Some may claim that Obama's plan will destroy the private corporate healthcare industry. But, he is actually protecting corporate entities from responsibility for corrupting our healthcare system in the first place. Obama promised to cap the total required amount the drug industry would be required to contribute to the overhaul to under $80 billion. Many Democrats in the House argue that this is too little. The drug industry was responsible for much of the chaos amidst the healthcare industry, yet Obama is still inclined to protect the big corporations who monopolize the drug industry to keep prices high for consumers. Many of the larger drug corporations pay smaller generic manufacturers to keep their product from reaching the marketplace, denying the public access to affordable medicine. Obama has struck a similar deal with the hospital industry as well.

Although opponents to Obama's plan fear that socialized medicine will destroy the private sector it is clear that the Administration still has the interests of wealthy corporate allies in mind, just like they did when they bailed out the financial sector and continued funding of the War on Terror. Whether it is healthcare, the economy or foreign policy the Administration continues to keep corporate interests ahead of the well-being of the American public.

Pope Benedict's Motives Are Questionable

Pope Benedict’s recent trip to the Middle East was surrounded by controversy. Many have accused Pope Benedict of anti-Semitism due to his time as a Nazi Youth and also other questionable decisions he made during his Papacy. He has also offended many in the Muslim community with his comments in a 2006 speech given at University of Regensburg in Germany which many claimed characterized Islam as a violent religion. His Excellency attempted to silence criticism of the Vatican through addressing the Holocaust and supporting a Palestinian state. Many question his sincerity.

Pope Benedict had served in the Nazi Youth movement and had also served with a German army anti-aircraft unit and witnessed Jews being herded to death camps, according to Times Online. Pope Benedict enlisted in the Nazi Youth shortly after enlistment was made mandatory in 1941. He claims that he was an unhappy participant and refused to attend meetings. His father was an outspoken opponent of the Nazi party. Pope Benedict eventually deserted in 1944 and spent a short time in a prisoner of war camp.

Despite his lack of enthusiasm about his time in the Nazi party and army, Pope Benedict refused to visit the Israeli Holocaust Museum during his visit to the Middle East. The museum contains a display criticizing the wartime Pope Pius XII for being a passive observer during the Holocaust. Pope Benedict was criticized for considering the beatification of Pius XII, which would mean that the Catholic Church would officially recognize Pius XII as a saint. Many oppose this claiming that Pope Pius was to blame for his lack of action to stop the Jewish holocaust. The Vatican claims that Pius XII used diplomacy to save Jews during the Holocaust, according to Jerusalem Post. Most likely in an attempt to avoid controversy, Pope Benedict has postponed the beatification of Pius XII for a period of reflection. Pope Benedict also received heavy criticism for revoking the excommunication of Richard Williamson, a bishop who denied the Holocaust.

Benedict condemned the Holocaust in his speech at Yad Vashem, Israel’s holocaust memorial. Many criticized him for lack of emotion during his speech. He also avoided using the words “Nazi”, “German”, and “murder” in order to downplay his own Nazi past. During his farewell speech many observers claimed that he was visibly more emotional while addressing the Holocaust, which more than likely was an attempt to reverse the criticism from his earlier address at Yad Vashem. Whether he was sincere or just putting on an act is anybody’s guess.

The Muslim community also attacked Pope Benedict regarding his 2006 comments at the University of Regensburg in Germany. Many had interpreted his speech as being offensive towards Islam. Benedict had quoted a Byzantine emperor who had described the Islamic faith as violent in nature. “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” said Pope Benedict while quoting Manuel II Paleologus, the last Christian ruler before the fall of Constantinople.

Pope Benedict claimed that his statement was taken out of context and that he had never meant that his own view of Islam was the same as Paleologus. There are translational differences between the German version and the English version, which make it difficult to discern whether Pope Benedict agreed with the Emperor’s interpretation of Islam. However, interpreting Islam does not seem to be the main point of the Pope’s 2006 lecture. Pope Benedict’s main point in quoting Paleologus, according to the Vatican, was to illustrate that violence in the name of religion defied reason and therefore went against God’s will.

The Pope was able to significantly quell his Muslim critics, when he stated that he was in favor of a Palestinian state. But, when a Muslim cleric appealed to the Pope in person to condemn Israel for killing innocent Palestinian civilians with missiles and bombs, the Pope avoided controversy and quickly left the stage. The Pope’s stand for non-violence and peace only went so far. His visit to the Middle East was just as much about saving face for the Vatican as it was about promoting peace for humanity.

American Foreign Policy Spreads Illegal Drug Trade Worldwide

The Taliban has been smuggling Afghan opium into Western nations, such as Great Britain in order to finance its war against the American occupation. The American War on Terror has caused the illicit drug trade to explode worldwide, just as American foreign policy has continually done throughout history. The unstable situation in Afghanistan has caused illegal opium production to jump 34 percent in 2007 from already record levels in 2006, according to a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The Taliban has been smuggling Afghan opium via central Asia and West Africa en route to consumer nations, such as the United States and European nations. Drug profits are being used by the Taliban to finance its insurgency against Western occupation forces in Afghanistan. About $4 billion worth of opiates were exported from Afghanistan in 2007.

However, this is not the first time that illegal drugs have been used to finance an insurgent or rebel war. The same situation had occurred during the Reagan administration’s cold war against communism. This lead to the U.S.-backed Contra war against the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and then eventually spawned the Iran-Contra scandal. Ironically, this time the drug smuggling was occurring on the American side of the conflict. It was the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who had knowingly dealt with drug smugglers in Nicaragua in order to further Reagan’s anti-Communism campaign in Latin America, according to Gary Webb’s “Dark Alliance,” a series of articles originally printed in the San Jose Mercury News. Webb later wrote about the controversy surrounding his series of articles in a 600-page book, Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion. In 1989, Sen. John Kerry conducted a highly-detailed senate report which “found cases in which high U.S. officials," due to fear of disrupting Reagan’s war against communism, “intervened to stop law enforcement operations aimed at nailing drug kingpins.” Money from smuggling cocaine into the United States was funneled to the Contras for weapons and other supplies in their war to overthrow the Russian-backed Sandinistas.

Although the CIA denies knowledge of any drug smuggling operations, many of their agents were being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). "In my 30-year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA,” said Dennis Dayle, former chief of an elite DEA unit, according to Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America, Updated edition , a book by Peter Dale Scott.

The largest cocaine smuggler in the history of the United States was Barry Seal, a CIA agent. Although the government had suspected him of being a drug smuggler they kept Seal on their payroll as an agent. The CIA would have Seal fly to Nicaragua to deliver arms to the Contras in Nicaragua in order to fight the communist Sandinistas. On his way back from Nicaragua he would bring back shipments of cocaine. After U.S. authorities seized $1.5 million in drug money during a sting operation, in which Seal acted as a DEA informant, Lt. Col. Oliver North suggested that the drug money be used to help the Contras, according to Kerry’s subcommittee report. The DEA ultimately denied North’s request. However if the drug bust never occurred the money probably would have gone to the Contra cause. More than likely North and the CIA were well aware of that.

During the Vietnam War, the same “secret army” the CIA had trained and equipped in Laos to fight the Vietnamese Communists were responsible for growing opium, which eventually found its way in the form of heroine to American troops fighting in Vietnam. One of the CIA’s operatives, Edgar "Pop" Buell, was responsible for teaching the Hmong, the mountain tribes recruited by the CIA, advanced agricultural techniques for growing opium in order to help fund covert actions against Vietnamese Communists in the hills of Laos, according to Professor Alfred W. McCoy’s book, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. Also, after the end of the war North Vietnamese rulers who were put into power by the U.S. government were responsible and profited from the illegal heroine trade, which found its way to U.S. soldiers. Eventually many of the troops who survived the Vietnam War came back to the United States as heroine addicts, causing dramatic increase in demand for the deadly substance back home.

Historically, US foreign policy has caused instability in developing nations, which in turn causes an increase in the world wide illegal drug trade. In some instances the U.S. government is at best negligent, if not complicit, in speeding up the flow of drugs into its own streets as is the case during the Iran-Contra and the Vietnam War. At other times, such as with the war in Afghanistan American foreign policy is the destabilizing catalyst for drug smuggling into Europe and the U.S. With a dramatic increase in opium production from Afghanistan, a surge in heroine addiction in consumer countries such as the United States and European nations will surely occur.

Mumbai and 9/11: Links Run Deep

The recent terrorist attack on Mumbai was meant to be India’s 9/11, claimed Azam Amir Kasab, 21, the only surviving gunman. This is just one connection between the terrorist attack in Mumbai and the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York. In both attacks authorities and security agencies were warned beforehand. However, in both incidences, security was decreased just before the strikes.

Prior to the recent attacks in Mumbai the US intelligence warned India of a possible plot by terrorists to launch a waterborne assault, according to CBS. India was also warned that terrorists were planning to attack monumental and symbolic sites, such as the Taj Mahal. Security at the Taj Mahal was increased as a result. Taj Mahal security is operated by the Tata Group, India’s largest private corporation. But, instead of keeping security tight at the Taj Mahal, Tata Group decided to scale down previously added security measures prior to the attacks. “It's ironic that we did have such a warning and we did have some measures," Rattan Tata, Tata Group’s CEO, told CNN.

"People couldn't park their cars in the portico where you had to go through a metal detector… But if I look at what we had -- which all of us complained about -- it could not have stopped what took place”. Tata claims that the attackers had not gone through the entrance of the hotel, which previously had metal detectors, therefore claiming that scaling down the Taj Mahal security measures was inconsequential to preventing this specific attack.

Ironically, before 9/11, the US government had received intelligence of a possible terrorist attack using hijacked planes. Just before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Vice President Cheney ordered the Air Force to stand down. The US government was also criticized for its slow response time. Some critics such as essayist, Gore Vidal in his book Dreaming War: Blood For Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta, claimed that the Bush administration purposely ignored warnings of the attacks.

Another common thread between 9/11 and Mumbai is American International Group (AIG), which had been in the news for receiving $85 billion in US government bailouts. AIG is the majority shareholder of Kroll Associates, the company in charge of security at the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attacks. AIG also has links with Tata Group, who was in charge of security at the Taj Mahal. Tata Group had teamed up with AIG to form Tata-AIG, which insures the Taj Mahal and other hotels against terrorist attacks.

The attacks on the World Trade Center resulted in a declared “War on Terror” by the Bush Admistration. This lead to war in Afghanistan followed by war in Iraq. Kasab claims that he and his fellow gunmen were a part of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a jihadist group based out of Pakistan.

This has caused increased tension between India and Pakistan. This alarmed the world community because both India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons. India and the US had just signed the 123 Agreement, which allows the US to exchange equipment and information to aide India in developing nuclear power. Coincidentally, AIG, even while asking for a government bailout, was still spending millions of dollars to lobby congress to sign the 123 Agreement. The US government denied Pakistan’s request for a similar agreement.

AIG Bail-Out May Threaten Civil Liberties

The recent $152 billion government bailout of American International Group (AIG) may have given the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) access to the personal information of millions of people in America and all over the world. AIG, its subsidiaries, and its founder have a history of fraud allegations and collaborating covertly with the CIA in espionage and illegal arms smuggling.

AIG is the majority shareholder of Kroll Associates, which is one of several private companies, which the CIA employs to conduct espionage and illegal arms smuggling. Kroll was used to smuggle arms to the Contras in El Salvador as part of the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration. Kroll’s privatized status keeps it free from much of the congressional oversight that an official arm of the CIA would have to comply with. It is more difficult for Congress and the press to probe into Kroll’s potentially illegal activities. This would also be true of AIG.

AIG is America’s largest insurance provider. It also provides insurance internationally in 130 countries and jurisdictions. Insurance companies have access to more personal information on US citizens than almost any other entity in our society. They have access to our financial records, medical history, banking records, and much more. This puts into question whether the CIA may now be using AIG to conduct illegal espionage on American citizens in the name of the War on Terror.

It would not be the first time that the US government used insurance data to spy on those they considered dangerous or a threat. During World War II, the US government created the Insurance Intelligence Unit, a component of the Office of Strategic Services, a forerunner of the a forerunner of the CIA, and its elite counterintelligence branch X-2. This specialized intelligence group used international insurance data and information to gain knowledge of Germany’s economy and financial institutions, according Los Angeles Times article in 2000. The man who was in charge of the CIA’s secret insurance spying unit was Cornelius V. Starr, who later founded AIG.

In 1968 Starr chose Maurice Greenberg as his successor at AIG. In 2005 Greenberg was investigated by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for securities fraud. The investigation led to a $1.6 billion fine for AIG and criminal charges for some of its executives. Although the criminal charges against Greenberg have been dropped after AIG settled the case, Spitzer has taken the case to civil proceedings where many of the major allegations are still part of the claim. Spitzer’s successor, Andrew Cuomo, is now running the investigation. Greenberg was eventually forced to resign as CEO of AIG.

Maurice is not the only Greenberg who has had to deal with allegations of illegal activity. In 2005, his son, Jeffrey W. Greenberg, was forced to resign as CEO of Marsh & McLennan, after the company’s insurance brokerage unit was charged with bid-rigging and accepting kickbacks, among other allegations.

AIG, its subsidiaries, and those that are connected to the company have a history and a reputation of operating outside of the law and sometimes on behalf of the CIA’s domestic and international agendas. As part of the bailout, the Federal Reserve now owns 79.9% of AIG. The company’s history is riddled with fraud allegations, criminal convictions, and ties with Kroll, nobody knows if favors were agreed upon behind closed doors in return for the government bailout.