The "Non-Lethality" Lie: Tasers Have Killed Hundreds Since 2001

H/T to Stephen Soldz, who has been following news on taser abuse for some time, including this recent report on police tasering a 10-year-old child, with the child's mother's consent no less.

In a posting last Saturday, Soldz highlighted an oped in the Tennessean by Jared Feuer, Southern regional director for Amnesty International USA.

Since 2001, about 400 people have died — 39 this year — after being Tasered by law enforcement personnel in the U.S. Amnesty International believes it is time to reconsider the use of Tasers. We believe this is even more essential as Taser International has issued new recommendations calling on law enforcement to avoid shocking people in the chest. This is the first time Taser has admitted a potentially serious health risk with the devices, and we believe it underscores our call for a full evaluation of their use....

The reasons for these deaths are an open question; what we do know is that a Taser gun exposes the victim to a 50,000-volt shock that continues until the officer releases his or her finger or the battery depletes. Such a shock overrides the body’s central nervous system, causing uncontrollable contraction of muscles and instant collapse. In a manufacturer’s study, it was found that additional shocks are required one-third of the time.

Because law enforcement officers do not know the medical history or condition of those being Tasered, they are not trained, required or able to determine the potential impact of the shock. The result appears to have been fatal for hundreds of people. It is for this reason that Amnesty International has urged that Taser use be limited to situations in which officers are faced with an immediate threat of death or serious injury that cannot be contained through less extreme options, if not suspended altogether pending an independent study to determine why people have died after being Tasered.

Tasers should be outlawed. Instead, police forces are turning in greater and greater numbers to this supposed "non-lethal" force alternative. But its non-lethality is a lie, as this story shows.

Of course, the military is interested, too, as this recent story at Wired explains:

A new electroshock weapon being developed by Taser could zap people up to 175 feet away — and keep on applying pain for as long as three minutes in a row. Which is pretty tough to take, since it only takes a second or two of shocks to make most people cry out in agony.

The new 40mm projectile resembles a super-sized version of the shotgun-fired XREP Taser projectile. And like the XREP, it will attach itself to the target and incapacitate him or her with a series of electric jolts....

“This project will likely increase the standoff range by at least a factor of five over already fielded electromuscular devices,” says Wes Burgei, a project engineer at the U.S. military’s Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate, which has given Taser $2.5 million to work on the weapon.

Under the auspices of the new Democratic president, Barack Obama, the worst aspects of the U.S. militarist state and expansion of police powers continues unabated from the Bush years.

What's really news is that the so-called progressive world hasn't yet awakened to this political reality. Thanks to Amnesty, ACLU, CCR, PHR and a handful of other human and legal rights agencies for spending the time and effort to fight back. Have you, dear reader, taken time out to donate money to one of these fine agencies?

Who Will Investigate CIA/RAND/APA Torture "Workshop"?

Originally posted at Firedoglake

Back in May 2007, while researching the activities of the American Psychological Association (APA) in support of the U.S. government's interrogation program, I came across evidence that the APA had engaged in a discussion of torture techniques during a workshop organized by APA and the RAND Corporation, "with generous funding from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)."

The workshop was held at the Arlington, Virginia, headquarters of the privately-held but long linked-to-the-government RAND think tank. APA Director of Science Geoff Mumford acted as liaison to the CIA for the meeting. Susan Brandon, a key APA "Senior Scientist", and former member of the Bush White House's Office of Science & Technology Policy, helped organize the affair, along with psychologist Kirk Hubbard, who was then Chief of the Research & Analysis Branch, Operational Assessment Division of the CIA.

The workshop was titled the "Science of Deception: Integration of Practice and Theory", and it discussed new ways to utilize drugs and sensory bombardment techniques to break down interrogatees. Those are signal techniques of psychological torture long utilized by the CIA and other intelligence agencies and military around the world.

According to the brief APA account:

Meeting at RAND headquarters in Arlington, VA, the workshop drew together approximately 40 individuals including research psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists who study various aspects of deception and representatives from the CIA, FBI and Department of Defense with interests in intelligence operations. In addition, representatives from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security were present.... Following brief introductions and welcoming remarks... workshop participants divided into break-out groups to discuss thematic scenarios....

It was one of the particular "break-out groups" that concerned me. According to APA's Public Policy Office, which publishes an online newspaper called (with perhaps an unconscious taste for irony) "Spin," the workshops covered Embassy "Walk-in" informants, Law Enforcement Threat Assessment, and Intelligence gathering ("What are the dimensions of truth?"). But the workshop on Law Enforcement Interrogation and Debriefing had some shocking language

Marcy Wheeler & David Frakt on Torture & the 9/11 Prosecutions

Marcy Wheeler, aka emptywheel, has an important post up today. She has solicited the opinions of Lt. Col. David Frakt on the issues behind the Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and four other 9/11 defendants in a New York federal court, and other prisoners in the newly reconstituted military commissions. Frakt was the military attorney for teenaged Guanatanamo prisoner Mohammed Jawad.

Marcy, and key commenter-contributor at her blog, Mary, and others, had been wondering if the decision to move KSM and the others to federal courts wasn't in part due to the fact they could charge the 9/11 prisoners with "material support to terrorism" charges, making it easier to convict them, as such charges have been "used to give wide leeway to prosecutors to charge those for whom intent to commit terrorism may not be easy to prove."

There's much to read and ponder at Marcy's post. I found the discussion of the bogus "laws of war" charges actually brought in the military commissions cases to be very interesting. But in this post of mine today, I'm going to pull from Marcy's blog a portion of Lt. Col. Frakt's comments, which Marcy found particularly important, concerning how the issue of torture was handled by the judge in the military commissions case concerning Mohammed Jawad:

I had another couple of thoughts about why the 9/11 case was transferred to federal court, aside from purely political considerations. The Judge in the case, Colonel Stephen Henley, had made a couple of rulings in the Jawad case (my case) which made the government very nervous. First, he ruled in response to a motion to dismiss that I filed on the basis of torture that he “beyond peradventure” had the power to dismiss all charges on the basis of pretrial abuse of the detainee. Although he declined to dismiss the charges against Jawad, the fact that he would even entertain such a thought was very frightening for the prosecution, since they knew that other detainees had been tortured and abused far worse that Jawad, especially the high value detainees. Judge Henley also indicated that he was declining to dismiss because there were other remedies available, such as giving extra sentencing credit against any ultimately adjudged sentence. Assuming that KSM and his brethren were to get the death penalty, the only remedy for their prior abuse would be to commute the death penalty, the government’s worse nightmare. Also, in response to multiple motions to suppress statements that I filed, he had ruled not only that Jawad’s initial confession was obtained by torture, but that all subsequent confessions were presumptively tainted by the earlier tortured confession. He held that the burden was on the prosecution to prove that subsequently obtained statements were no longer tainted by the earlier torture or coercion. Judge Henley applied the law correctly in each of these rulings, applying well-settled principles of due process from U.S. Supreme Court cases. These rulings provide an opportunity for the defense to put the U.S.’ treatment of these detainees on trial, potentially for months, before ever getting to the merits of the case. And in order for the defense to make comprehensive motions, they would have to be made privy to the full scope of the abuses that had been meted out by the U.S. on their clients and should be given the opportunity to develop such evidence in pre-trial evidentiary hearings, as I did in Mohammed Jawad’s case, including allowing the defendants to testify about the abuses they experienced. Those who claim that this type of sideshow can be avoided in federal court simply don’t understand criminal procedure. The real question will be whether the 9/11 defendants authorize their counsel to make such motions or whether they will continue to seek martyrdom and forgo the opportunity to fully litigate the torture issues. [my emphasis (i.e., emphasis by Marcy Wheeler)]

I would be curious, given Lt. Col. Frakt's suggestion that Judge Henley has provided that "pretrial abuse" is actionable and worthy of remedy, why this was not ruled to be the case in the Jose Padilla proceedings.

US District Court Judge Marcia Cooke, of the U.S. District Court, Southern District, Miami, in an ruling in April 2007 (made without a hearing) rejected Padilla's attorneys' motion for dismissal of Padilla's case due to "outrageous government conduct". That conduct included torture through isolation, profound sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, use of stress positions, use of drugs, and other indignities. Padilla had been held since June 2002 at the Naval Consoldidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina as an "enemy combatant". Original charges of constructing a "dirty bomb" had been dropped.

In Judge Cooke's ruling, she accepted "for the sake of this Order" Padilla's claims of mistreatment to be true, but the abuse supposedly did not amount to sufficient outrageous conduct to throw the case out of court. Why? Because the government claimed it would not use any evidence obtained from interrogations while Padilla was in the brig, i.e., from the time when he was tortured. Therefore, legally, Padilla supposedly has no "remedy" against the government.

It will be interesting to see how events unfold in the KSM et al. trial. I hope Lt. Col. Frakt will turn out to be correct, regarding his assumption the government has a lot to risk re bringing out in court the torture issue.

Meanwhile, I thank Marcy/Emptywheel for her excellent reporting, and Lt. Col. Frakt for his standing up for what is right, and fighting this all-important good fight. (If you haven't yet, do spend some time reading Frakt's closing arguments in the Jawad case. Many consider them among the most powerful words yet spoken on the injustice of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld-initiated military commissions system, a system that continues in only slightly modified form in the Obama years.)

Army Threatens Court-Martial For Mother Who Wouldn't Leave Her Child

Dahr Jamail has a story over at Truthout concerning the Army's arrest of U.S. Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson, a single mother about to deploy to Afghanistan, who couldn't find child care for her 11-month-old son after her mother turned out to be unavailable for the job.

According to Ms. Hutchinson's civilian attorney, Rai Sue Sussman, this case is "completely over the top."

The U.S., in its hunger to feed its war machine in Afghanistan, refused to give Hutchinson further delays in order to find appropriate childcare for her son.

Sussman says Hutchinson told her, "It is outrageous that they would deploy a single mother without a complete and current family care plan. I would like to find someone I trust who can take care of my son, but I cannot force my family to do this. They are dealing with their own health issues."

Sussman told IPS that the Army's JAG attorney, Captain Ed Whitford, "told me they thought her chain of command thought she was trying to get out of her deployment by using her child as an excuse." '

The U.S. could care less about its men and women in uniform. Famously, they sent soldiers to fight their illegal war in Iraq without proper body armor or equipment. It was only a few years ago that a Washington Post report exposed the Army's flagship hospital, Walter Reed Medical Center, as a chaotic mess, poorly serving its overcrowded population of injured and sick veterans.

(It's worth noting that Ft. Hood alleged shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was a psychiatrist working with PTSD patients at Walter Reed from 2003 to early 2009. One can only imagine what a madhouse he worked in, and how it may have contributed to his presumed mental instability. -- Mark Benjamin also has a story up over at Salon, reporting on how a Navy psychiatrist was fired by his military contractor, after reporting conditions were so bad among returning Marines at Camp Lejeune, that stressed-out returning soldiers were ready to "blow" in serious violent outbreaks. The psychiatrist told military inspectors. "many patients' lives are imminently at risk." Instead of listening, they gave the doctor the boot.)

Spc. Hutchinson is still confined to base in Savannah, Georgia. She faces a possible military court martial. Her son, according to a recent AP update, is with his grandmother in California. Originally, after his mother's arrest, the child had been placed in a county foster care system. The grandmother apparently has her hands full with caring for another "special needs" child, and does not know how long she can keep the boy.

According to Hutchinson's attorney, Alexis will not be court-martialed... just yet:

"To me it sounds completely bogus," Sussman told IPS, "I think what they are actually going to do is have her spend her year deployment in Afghanistan, then court martial her back here upon her return. This would do irreparable harm to her child. I think they are doing this to punish her, because they think she is lying."

Sussman explained that she believes the best possible outcome is for the Army to either give Hutchinson the extension they had said she would receive so that she can find someone to care for her infant, or barring this, to simply discharge her so she can take care of her child.

Solitary Confinement, Cruel and Unusual: Stop Torture in U.S. Prisons

Angola 3 News has an excellent an article over at Daily Kos on Torture and Human Rights Violations in U.S. Prisons. What follows is a video and a selection from the article, which is an interview with Bret Grote of Human Rights Coalition/FedUp!


Take Action at www.StopMax.org

Sometime prior to or during 2007, Fed Up! became an official chapter of the Human Rights Coalition, a prisoner rights/prison abolitionist organization whose founding chapter was and still remains active in Philadelphia. HRC was the brainchild of prisoners as well. Around the fall of 2007 and early 2008 HRC/Fed Up!—as we were then known—began to focus more exclusively on PA prisons for reasons of capacity and strategy, because, obviously, we have more potential and actual power in this state since we are based here.

During these last two years we have documented hundreds upon hundreds of human rights violations (to view a small portion visit our website) from over 20 prisons in the state system (PA has 27 state prisons). These reports have been collated from thousands upon thousands of pages of prisoner letters and reports, criminal complaints, affidavits and declarations, civil litigation documents, prison records, along with countless hours of interviews and dialogue with current and former prisoners and their family and support people.

What our investigations demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt is that the state of Pennsylvania is operating a sophisticated program of torture under an utterly baseless pretext of "security", wherein close to 3,000 people are held in conditions of solitary/control unit confinement each day.

Important New Book Links the Murder of Frank Olson with CIA Cold War Experiments

The following is a review I wrote at Amazon.com for the newly published book, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments. 

H.P. Albarelli, Jr. has written a fully detailed, compelling account of the murder of CIA-linked 1950s Army biochemist Frank Olson. The somewhat surprising death of an otherwise little-known Midwestern scientist would become for contemporary historians, journalists, and researchers -- years after the event -- a crucial nexus providing a gathering point for the multitudinous strands connecting a welter of secretive Cold War intelligence and military programs. 

The Olson case burst upon the public's consciousness in the mid-1970s, along with other revelations at the time concerning CIA and military domestic spying and medical experimentation upon unwitting victims, thanks in part to a landmark expose by then-New York Times reporter Seymour Hersh. Pursued by Olson's family, attorneys, government commissions, newspaper reporters, and even some CIA agents, the truth behind Olson's death after a hundred-foot fall from a Manhattan hotel window on November 28, 1953, has been obscured over the years by a combination of myth, government misdirection, amateurish or hack "research," and, crucially, a lack of access to essential documentation. Now, after almost a decade of research, writer and researcher Albarelli has produced his magnum opus on Olson's death, and it has been well worth the wait.

"A Terrible Mistake" is part history book, part biography, part memoir, and part mystery tale. In order to understand the story of Frank Olson's life and death, and the cover-up surrounding that death, Mr. Albarelli must take the reader on a journey into the history of Cold War experimentation on mind and behavioral control, implemented by a welter of CIA and military programs whose names have passed into the iconic nomenclature regarding the underworld of American covert activities: Project Bluebird, Project MKULTRA, Project Artichoke, MKNAOMI, and others. In addition, because Olson was a government scientist with top secret clearance working on biological weaponry programs for the Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, the book also offers a peek into this very little reported corner of U.S. history.

The book is quite long, yet remains a page-turner. I won't reveal the mystery Albarelli solves, i.e., who killed Frank Olson and why, but the long build-up describing the various covert operations of the intelligence agencies, well-documented in the book, builds to a startling pay-off.

In the first half of the book, the author describes Olson's life, the government programs that touch upon his work, Olson's death and its aftermath. The latter part of the book picks up from the initial public revelations surrounding his death, coming over 20 years after it occurred, and the following investigations, including the reopening of the murder investigation by the New York City's District Attorney's office in 1996. Throughout, we are entertained by a kaleidoscopic sequence of characters, including former CIA chiefs Allen Dulles and William Colby, CIA psychiatrists, Watergate burglars (for instance, we learn James McCord was the CIA agent initially sent out to deal with Olson's death), former CIA agents, hotel managers, hired assassins, mobsters, high-priced attorneys, dubious informants, U.S. diplomats and generals, politicians (including a mid-1970s appearance by both Don Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney), and many, many more.

This is not just a book about a dusty, decades-old murder case. With the news of the past few years around U.S. use of torture, as well as recent revelations by Nobel Prize-winning Physicians for Human Rights surrounding possible torture experimentation upon detainees held by the CIA, the history of similar activities by the same United States agencies, as narrated in Albarelli's book, has direct significance to crucial news events of our own day.

I strongly recommend this book. The author's honesty and willingness to look at the facts, rather than wishful thinking, or rely upon accepted wisdom, makes this investigatory journey well-worth the reader's time. The book has a fully-documented "Notes" section, which will satisfy the most avid researcher, or those who wish to double-check the author's assertions. Also included is a section with photographs of key documents.

It seems certain that "A Terrible Mistake" will take its place along other classics of its historical genre. But it is also the most fascinating and entertaining book you will purchase for a long time.

[Full disclosure: the author mentions me in his Acknowledgments section. I had no role in the writing of his book, and my earlier contact with the author amounted to literally a few e-mails. When I wrote the author later and wondered why I was included in the Acknowledgments section, it apparently was due to his appreciation of my own investigations into the current torture scandal, as published in various places online. I thank him for that, but wish to make it clear here that this review is solely based upon my own reading and reaction to this book.]

"The Way Men Live Is a Lie"

The way men live is a lie.
I say that I get so goddamned sick
Of all these pigs rooting at each other's asses
To get a bloodstained dollar -- Why don't
You stop this senseless horror! this meaningless
Butchery of one another! Why don't you at least
Wash your hands of it!

There is only one truth in the world:
Until we learn to love our neighbor,
there will be no life for anyone.

The man who says, "I don't believe in war,
But after all somebody must protect us" --
Is obviously a fool -- and a liar.
Is this so hard to understand!
That who supports murder, is a murderer?
That who destroys his fellow, destroys himself?

Force cannot be overthrown by force;
To hate any man is to despair of every man:
Evil breeds evil -- the rest is a lie!

There is only one power that can save the world --
And that is the power of our love for all men everywhere.

By the incomparable Kenneth Patchen, from his book An Astonished Eye Looks Out of the Air (1945), as reproduced in Collected Poems

Andy Worthington on U.S. Tour: "Outside the Law: Stories from Guantanamo" (video)

As Andy Worthington is wrapping up his tour promoting the documentary, "Outside the Law: Stories from Guantanamo" (co-directed by Andy and filmmaker Polly Nash), a notice at his blog announces today that the Future of Freedom Foundation has made the film a talk Andy gave before the sceening of the film in Fairfax, VA, available as a 38-minute video entitled “An Evening with Andy Worthington”.

An Evening with Andy Worthington - "Outside the Law: Stories from Guantanamo" from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.

Andy was also interviewed at Democracy Now! yesterday. The discussion concentrated on plans by the U.S. to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other prisoners (Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al Hawsawi) in federal courts, and other Guantanamo prisoners, including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Omar Khadr, at Obama's newly refurbished -- and deeply flawed -- military commissions.

What follows is from Worthington's interview with Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman:

AMY GOODMAN: .... At the time of this broadcast, Eric Holder is about to hold a news conference, the Attorney General, announcing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in a New York civilian court.

ANDY WORTHINGTON: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response?

ANDY WORTHINGTON: Well, I mean, this is what actually we’ve all been waiting for, to be honest. This was what it was all supposed to be about, was rounding up the people who had a connection to the 9/11 attacks. And, of course, what we’ve actually had over the years is eight years of a prison outside the law holding nearly 800 people, most of whom had nothing to do with it, not to mention all the other prisons that have been used, the secret prisons, the whole CIA program. So, to that extent, it’s good news.

I’m rather disturbed to hear that the second tier of justice, which is the military commission system, has been—we’re apparently going to hear that that’s where one of the men, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, is going to be prosecuted, because the administration and the Senate have tinkered with the military commissions, which were essentially revived as the terror trials by Dick Cheney in November 2001. They were once ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Congress brought them back. They failed spectacularly throughout their history to demonstrate that they were a viable form of justice. And even with these latest amendments, they still fall short of the standards that we would expect from trials and the standards that we would expect from federal court. So it’s rather disturbing to hear that these two layers of justice are still planned....

And, I mean, there is already a problem, which was identified by the administration in summer, and they told the Senate about this, that the charge of providing material support for terrorism is a charge that they think will be subject to appeal in the military commissions system. But the administration has also said they don’t have any problems with trying that in federal courts. So I’m really confused as to why they’re going ahead with it. And, you know, the overall impression it gives me is that they’re trying to rig the system. You know, they have a premier league trial system, and if they have doubts maybe that that’s going to work, then they’ve got this reserve system. And that’s not the way that justice should work, and especially not after the horrors of the last eight years....

I’m surprised there’s no mention there of the habeas corpus petitions, because, you know, this has been an important, very crucial part of the story this year, is that when the men finally secured the right to habeas corpus. And, you know, the Supreme Court last June gave them those rights and made them constitutionally guaranteed, so that lawmakers couldn’t interfere, as they had before. We’ve had thirty-eight cases decided by judges, and in thirty of those cases the judges have said, you know, that the government has failed to provide the evidence used to justify holding these men. Now, that leaves eight people who have—the judges have said, you know, “By a preponderance of the evidence, you have demonstrated that these people had a connection to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and you can continue to hold them.” So, all these people have habeas petitions that are ongoing. And, you know, the administration has to, I think, let this process carry on. And it will result, I have no doubt, in some of these—was it seventy-five?—being cleared.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to an excerpt from your new film, Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo. This is Omar Deghayes, a Libyan British resident who was freed from Guantánamo in December of 2007.

OMAR DEGHAYES: The interrogator said to us, “You will be released one day, yes. You will be released, I’ll tell you that. You will be released. But you will not be released from this place until you are broken wrecks. We will release you. You are terrorists. And we will release you, yes. But you will be physically finished, psychologically finished, and you will be nothing.”

The last time I saw my son was when they abducted us in Lahore, and he was six month years old, I think. Very young. Now he’s seven years old. I haven’t seen him since. I think it is the biggest loss I can, the biggest loss I have lost in Guantánamo, really. Not my eye, not my broken finger, not my broken ribs, not my broken nose, not the humiliation, not the sexual abuse, not all that transport and things. All these are bad enough, but the worst, I think, thing that can—that did happen, I lost there, is not the eye; it’s those years of seeing Suleiman growing up.

AMY GOODMAN: And here’s another clip from the film, featuring British lawyers Gareth Peirce and Clive Stafford Smith.

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: They will close Guantánamo, but so what? That’s not the end of the story, because there are many, many thousands of prisoners held in US secret custody around the world. Guantánamo is the tiniest tip of the iceberg of that.

GARETH PEIRCE: Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan is being reinforced, rebuilt, has now far more prisoners than Guantánamo had.

I had the good fortune to catch Andy on his tour when he spoke in Berkeley at Revolution Books on Wednesday night. He is a rare specimen of an impassioned researcher and activist, a man who, with his landmark book, The Guantanamo Files, really shined light into the dark places of ignorance that surrounded the identities and stories of the hundreds of prisoners rendered to Guantanamo -- a darkness, I may add, deliberately engendered by the United States government. Thank you, Andy, for all your hard work.

U.S. Funding of the... Taliban?!

From a new Democracy Now! article by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales, posted over at Truthout:

In a last-minute dissent ahead of a critical war cabinet meeting on escalating the Afghan war, US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry has cast doubt on a troop escalation until the Afghan government can address corruption and other internal problems. Meanwhile, a report reveals how the US government is financing the very same insurgent forces in Afghanistan that American and NATO soldiers are fighting. Investigative journalist Aram Roston traces how the Pentagon’s civilian contractors in Afghanistan end up paying insurgent groups to protect American supply routes from attack....

“How the US Funds the Taliban” is the cover story of the latest issue of The Nation magazine.

Investigative journalist Aram Roston traces how the Pentagon’s civilian contractors in Afghanistan end up paying insurgent groups to protect American supply routes from attack. The practice of buying the Taliban’s protection is not a secret. US military officials in Kabul told Roston that a minimum of ten percent of the Pentagon’s logistics contracts consists of payments to the Taliban.

Well, well, well. Just when I thought the inanity and corruption of the U.S. adventure in Afghanistan couldn't get any weirder... I thought the scandal about Karzai's heroin-kingpin brother had already topped it all. Then there was the excellent article by Jane Mayer on the Predator assassinations in the Ag-Pak war. Now it's U.S. funding of the Taliban. Oh boy, no wonder Obama reportedly doesn't like any of the options presented on Afghanistan.

How about this, President Obama? Withdraw now.

And, by the way, as long as I've brought up the Predator issue, Mayer is now reporting that:

Philip Alston, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s investigator on extrajudicial executions, issued a formal warning to the Obama Administration, demanding proof that the C.I.A. program doesn’t violate international law:

While there may be circumstances in which the use of such techniques is consistent with applicable international law, this can only be determined in light of information about the legal basis on which particular individuals have been targeted, the measures taken to ensure conformity with the international humanitarian law principles of discrimination, proportionality, necessity and precaution, and the steps taken retrospectively to assess compliance in practice.