Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
unhappycamper
unhappycamper's Journal
unhappycamper's Journal
January 12, 2013
Hot Stuff: The F-35 Just Became 25% More Vulnerable
By Mark Thompson
Jan. 11, 2013
~snip~
The three versions of the plane – the F-35A for the Air Force, the F-36B for the Marines, and the F-35C for the Navy – have reached their maximum weights, about 30,000 pounds each.
But F-35 engineers know that required tweaks down the runway will force them to add weight to the plane — to strengthen parts that need to be stronger, add protection of one kind or another, or if components end up weighing more than predicted. So they’ve been whittling away at the plane’s evolving design to make it as light as possible.
That can be a problem, as the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation shop has just revealed in its 2012 report on the F-35.
Two changes designed to cut the plane’s weight by 11 pounds have made it 25% more vulnerable to exploding in mid-air, and other unfavorable outcomes.
Hot Stuff: The F-35 Just Became 25% More Vulnerable
http://nation.time.com/2013/01/11/hot-stuff-the-f-35-just-became-25-more-vulnerable/Hot Stuff: The F-35 Just Became 25% More Vulnerable
By Mark Thompson
Jan. 11, 2013
~snip~
The three versions of the plane – the F-35A for the Air Force, the F-36B for the Marines, and the F-35C for the Navy – have reached their maximum weights, about 30,000 pounds each.
But F-35 engineers know that required tweaks down the runway will force them to add weight to the plane — to strengthen parts that need to be stronger, add protection of one kind or another, or if components end up weighing more than predicted. So they’ve been whittling away at the plane’s evolving design to make it as light as possible.
That can be a problem, as the Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation shop has just revealed in its 2012 report on the F-35.
Two changes designed to cut the plane’s weight by 11 pounds have made it 25% more vulnerable to exploding in mid-air, and other unfavorable outcomes.
January 10, 2013
Tomgram: Nick Turse, A War Victim's Question Only You Can Answer
Posted by Nick Turse at 9:30am, January 8, 2013.
In late December 2001, not long after Washington’s second Afghan War began, there was that wedding celebration in eastern Afghanistan in which 110 of 112 villagers were reportedly killed by American B-52 and B-1B bombers using precision guided weapons. Then there were the more than 40 Iraqi wedding celebrants (27 from one extended family, including 14 children) who died when U.S. planes struck their party at a village near the Syrian border back in May 2004, and the Afghan bridal party of 70 to 90 who were taken out by a U.S. airstrike on a road near the Pakistani border in July 2008. (The bride and 46 of those accompanying her died, according to an Afghan inquiry, including 39 women and children.) Added to this list should be the 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women, and children, ranging in age from 3 to 76, murdered by U.S. Marines in November 2005 in the long-forgotten Haditha massacre. And the 14-year-old girl whom American soldiers gang-raped and murdered along with her family in Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, the next year. And then there was the headline-grabbing case of those 16 civilians, nine of them children, 11 from one family, reportedly slaughtered (and some of their corpses burned) by Staff Sergeant Robert Bales in two southern Afghan villages in the course of a single night in March 2012.
Let’s not forget either the 12 Iraqis, including two Reuters employees, shot dead (and two children badly wounded) on a Baghdad street in July 2007 by the laughing crew of an Apache helicopter, as revealed in an infamous video released by WikiLeaks. There were also the 60 children (and up to 30 adults) who died in the Afghan village of Azizabad on an August night in 2008 while attending a memorial service for a tribal leader who had been, villagers reported, anti-Taliban. That, too, was thanks to air strikes. There were also those three (or more) Afghan civilians hunted down “for sport” in the summer of 2010 by a self-appointed U.S. “kill team” who were collecting trophy body parts. And there were the 10 boys, including two sets of brothers, collecting wood for their families in Afghanistan's Kunar Province early in 2011, who were attacked by U.S. helicopters. Only one wounded boy survived. Or most recently, the 11 Yemeni civilians, including women and children, in a Toyota truck killed by a U.S. airstrike and initially labeled “al-Qaeda militants.”
Such a list, of course, only scratches the surface of a reality that we in the United States have hardly noticed and so have to expend no effort whatsoever to ignore. Unlike for the victims of 9/11 or more recently of Newtown, there will be no memorials, no teddy bears, no special rites, no solemn ceremonies. Nothing. The distant dead of our wars have largely paid the price in silence and anonymity for what the U.S. intelligence community likes to call the last superpower’s duty of being a “global security provider” -- and which elsewhere often looks more like inflicting mayhem on local populations.
In addition, the particular form of “security” we’ve brought to such areas via the U.S. military continues even after we leave. U.S. troops are gone from Iraq, for example, but the violence our invasion and occupation set loose has never ended. Iraq Body Count has just issued its report on rising deaths from violence in that country in 2012, both among the Iraqi police (922) and civilians (4,471). It concludes: “In sum the latest evidence suggests that the country remains in a state of low-level war little changed since early 2009, with a ‘background’ level of everyday armed violence punctuated by occasional larger-scale attacks designed to kill many people at once.” We bear genuine responsibility for this, but no longer care a whit.
Tomgram: Nick Turse, A War Victim's Question Only You Can Answer
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175635/Tomgram: Nick Turse, A War Victim's Question Only You Can Answer
Posted by Nick Turse at 9:30am, January 8, 2013.
In late December 2001, not long after Washington’s second Afghan War began, there was that wedding celebration in eastern Afghanistan in which 110 of 112 villagers were reportedly killed by American B-52 and B-1B bombers using precision guided weapons. Then there were the more than 40 Iraqi wedding celebrants (27 from one extended family, including 14 children) who died when U.S. planes struck their party at a village near the Syrian border back in May 2004, and the Afghan bridal party of 70 to 90 who were taken out by a U.S. airstrike on a road near the Pakistani border in July 2008. (The bride and 46 of those accompanying her died, according to an Afghan inquiry, including 39 women and children.) Added to this list should be the 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women, and children, ranging in age from 3 to 76, murdered by U.S. Marines in November 2005 in the long-forgotten Haditha massacre. And the 14-year-old girl whom American soldiers gang-raped and murdered along with her family in Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, the next year. And then there was the headline-grabbing case of those 16 civilians, nine of them children, 11 from one family, reportedly slaughtered (and some of their corpses burned) by Staff Sergeant Robert Bales in two southern Afghan villages in the course of a single night in March 2012.
Let’s not forget either the 12 Iraqis, including two Reuters employees, shot dead (and two children badly wounded) on a Baghdad street in July 2007 by the laughing crew of an Apache helicopter, as revealed in an infamous video released by WikiLeaks. There were also the 60 children (and up to 30 adults) who died in the Afghan village of Azizabad on an August night in 2008 while attending a memorial service for a tribal leader who had been, villagers reported, anti-Taliban. That, too, was thanks to air strikes. There were also those three (or more) Afghan civilians hunted down “for sport” in the summer of 2010 by a self-appointed U.S. “kill team” who were collecting trophy body parts. And there were the 10 boys, including two sets of brothers, collecting wood for their families in Afghanistan's Kunar Province early in 2011, who were attacked by U.S. helicopters. Only one wounded boy survived. Or most recently, the 11 Yemeni civilians, including women and children, in a Toyota truck killed by a U.S. airstrike and initially labeled “al-Qaeda militants.”
Such a list, of course, only scratches the surface of a reality that we in the United States have hardly noticed and so have to expend no effort whatsoever to ignore. Unlike for the victims of 9/11 or more recently of Newtown, there will be no memorials, no teddy bears, no special rites, no solemn ceremonies. Nothing. The distant dead of our wars have largely paid the price in silence and anonymity for what the U.S. intelligence community likes to call the last superpower’s duty of being a “global security provider” -- and which elsewhere often looks more like inflicting mayhem on local populations.
In addition, the particular form of “security” we’ve brought to such areas via the U.S. military continues even after we leave. U.S. troops are gone from Iraq, for example, but the violence our invasion and occupation set loose has never ended. Iraq Body Count has just issued its report on rising deaths from violence in that country in 2012, both among the Iraqi police (922) and civilians (4,471). It concludes: “In sum the latest evidence suggests that the country remains in a state of low-level war little changed since early 2009, with a ‘background’ level of everyday armed violence punctuated by occasional larger-scale attacks designed to kill many people at once.” We bear genuine responsibility for this, but no longer care a whit.
January 10, 2013
Former US Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) holds a news conference on issues before the House Financial Services Committee, November 3, 2009.
Want Pentagon Cuts? Make Barney Frank a Senator
By John Nichols
OpEdNews Op Eds 1/9/2013 at 15:59:38
Well, of course, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick should pick former Congressman Barney Frank to fill the US Senate vacancy that will be created when John Kerry is confirmed as the nation's 68th Secretary of State.
~snip~
Just days ago having finished serving 32 years as one of the most outspoken and engaged members of the US House of Representatives, he's actively campaigning for appointment to Kerry's seat.
Frank makes the best case for his selection, arguing that his experience as a former chairman of and ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee makes him uniquely qualified to serve during a period when -- because the "Fiscal Cliff" deal has set up huge fights over everything from raising the debt ceiling to sequester cuts -- the focus of the Congress will be on issues on which he's something of an expert.
~snip~
He is one of the most ardent and consistent advocates for cutting the Department of Defense budget. And it is hard to imagine how Congress gets beyond the current wrangling over debts and deficits without addressing what President Obama's designee for Secretary of Defense -- former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel -- refers to as a "bloated" Pentagon budget.
Want Pentagon Cuts? Make Barney Frank a Senator
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Want-Pentagon-Cuts-Make-B-by-John-Nichols-130109-655.htmlFormer US Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) holds a news conference on issues before the House Financial Services Committee, November 3, 2009.
Want Pentagon Cuts? Make Barney Frank a Senator
By John Nichols
OpEdNews Op Eds 1/9/2013 at 15:59:38
Well, of course, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick should pick former Congressman Barney Frank to fill the US Senate vacancy that will be created when John Kerry is confirmed as the nation's 68th Secretary of State.
~snip~
Just days ago having finished serving 32 years as one of the most outspoken and engaged members of the US House of Representatives, he's actively campaigning for appointment to Kerry's seat.
Frank makes the best case for his selection, arguing that his experience as a former chairman of and ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee makes him uniquely qualified to serve during a period when -- because the "Fiscal Cliff" deal has set up huge fights over everything from raising the debt ceiling to sequester cuts -- the focus of the Congress will be on issues on which he's something of an expert.
~snip~
He is one of the most ardent and consistent advocates for cutting the Department of Defense budget. And it is hard to imagine how Congress gets beyond the current wrangling over debts and deficits without addressing what President Obama's designee for Secretary of Defense -- former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel -- refers to as a "bloated" Pentagon budget.
January 10, 2013
KBR, Guilty In Iraq Negligence, Wants Taxpayers To Foot The Bill
Ryan J. Reilly
Posted: 01/09/2013 9:37 am EST | Updated: 01/09/2013 11:49 pm EST
WASHINGTON -- Sodium dichromate is an orange-yellowish substance containing hexavalent chromium, an anti-corrosion chemical. To Lt. Col. James Gentry of the Indiana National Guard, who was stationed at the Qarmat Ali water treatment center in Iraq just after the 2003 U.S. invasion, it was “just different-colored sand.” In their first few months at the base, soldiers were told by KBR contractors running the facility the substance was no worse than a mild irritant.
Gentry was one of approximately 830 service members, including active-duty soldiers and members of the National Guard and reserve units from Indiana, South Carolina, West Virginia and Oregon, assigned to secure the water treatment plant, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sodium dichromate is not a mild irritant. It is an extreme carcinogen. In November 2009, at age 52, Gentry died of cancer. The VA affirmed two months later that his death was service-related.
In November, a jury found KBR, the military's largest contractor, guilty of negligence in the poisoning of a dozen soldiers, and ordered the company to pay $85 million in damages. Jurors found KBR knew both of the presence and toxicity of the chemical. Other lawsuits against KBR are pending.
KBR, Guilty In Iraq Negligence, Wants Taxpayers To Foot The Bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/kbr-guilty-iraq-negligence_n_2436115.htmlKBR, Guilty In Iraq Negligence, Wants Taxpayers To Foot The Bill
Ryan J. Reilly
Posted: 01/09/2013 9:37 am EST | Updated: 01/09/2013 11:49 pm EST
WASHINGTON -- Sodium dichromate is an orange-yellowish substance containing hexavalent chromium, an anti-corrosion chemical. To Lt. Col. James Gentry of the Indiana National Guard, who was stationed at the Qarmat Ali water treatment center in Iraq just after the 2003 U.S. invasion, it was “just different-colored sand.” In their first few months at the base, soldiers were told by KBR contractors running the facility the substance was no worse than a mild irritant.
Gentry was one of approximately 830 service members, including active-duty soldiers and members of the National Guard and reserve units from Indiana, South Carolina, West Virginia and Oregon, assigned to secure the water treatment plant, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sodium dichromate is not a mild irritant. It is an extreme carcinogen. In November 2009, at age 52, Gentry died of cancer. The VA affirmed two months later that his death was service-related.
In November, a jury found KBR, the military's largest contractor, guilty of negligence in the poisoning of a dozen soldiers, and ordered the company to pay $85 million in damages. Jurors found KBR knew both of the presence and toxicity of the chemical. Other lawsuits against KBR are pending.
January 10, 2013
Hagel and Kerry Mean Obama Is Ready to Leave Afghanistan -- Finally
Jon Soltz
Posted: 01/09/2013 11:34 am
As the Obama adminstration prepares to meet with Hamid Karzai at the White House on Friday, something significant is happening at the White House regarding Afghanistan, and it is good for American security and our troops.
Not coincidentally, it has to do with two combat veterans, with five purple hearts between them. John Kerry as Secretary of State, and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense mark the clearest intention to date that President Obama believes there is nothing more we can do in Afghanistan, it is time to bring our troops home (leaving only a counter-terror force in the region), and that it is time to definitively shut down the neocons.
In Hagel and Kerry, he is bringing aboard one man who opposed the surge in Afghanistan, and has long called for a drawdown, and another who quickly realized the surge was not a success, and called for a shift in strategy.
"I disagreed with the President Obama -- his decision to surge in Afghanistan -- as I did with President Bush on the surge in Iraq," Hagel told the Financial Times in 2011. "Of course, no force in the world can stand the sophisticated power of American military. Nobody can stay on the field with you, but that's not the issue. That never was the question. The question is then, 'What happens next? Where is this going? What is the end game? Is this going to lead to a unified nation? Is this going to lead to a national resolution of national governance, of freedom for individuals? Is that what we're buying here?' That's the question."
Hagel and Kerry Mean Obama Is Ready to Leave Afghanistan -- Finally
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/hagel-and-kerry-mean-obam_b_2440346.htmlHagel and Kerry Mean Obama Is Ready to Leave Afghanistan -- Finally
Jon Soltz
Posted: 01/09/2013 11:34 am
As the Obama adminstration prepares to meet with Hamid Karzai at the White House on Friday, something significant is happening at the White House regarding Afghanistan, and it is good for American security and our troops.
Not coincidentally, it has to do with two combat veterans, with five purple hearts between them. John Kerry as Secretary of State, and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense mark the clearest intention to date that President Obama believes there is nothing more we can do in Afghanistan, it is time to bring our troops home (leaving only a counter-terror force in the region), and that it is time to definitively shut down the neocons.
In Hagel and Kerry, he is bringing aboard one man who opposed the surge in Afghanistan, and has long called for a drawdown, and another who quickly realized the surge was not a success, and called for a shift in strategy.
"I disagreed with the President Obama -- his decision to surge in Afghanistan -- as I did with President Bush on the surge in Iraq," Hagel told the Financial Times in 2011. "Of course, no force in the world can stand the sophisticated power of American military. Nobody can stay on the field with you, but that's not the issue. That never was the question. The question is then, 'What happens next? Where is this going? What is the end game? Is this going to lead to a unified nation? Is this going to lead to a national resolution of national governance, of freedom for individuals? Is that what we're buying here?' That's the question."
January 10, 2013
The Soul of America
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Posted: 01/09/2013 10:04 am
Despite such terminology as "fiscal cliff" and "debt ceiling," the great debate taking place in Washington now has relatively little to do with financial issues. It is all about ideology. It is all about economic winners and losers in American society. It is all about the power of Big Money. It is all about the soul of America.
In America today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, and more inequality than at any time period since 1928. The top 1 percent owns 42 percent of the financial wealth of the nation, while, incredibly, the bottom 60 percent own only 2.3 percent. One family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans. In terms of income distribution in 2010, the last study done on this issue, the top 1 percent earned 93 percent of all new income while the bottom 99 percent shared the remaining 7 percent.
Despite the reality that the rich are becoming much richer while the middle class collapses and the number of Americans living in poverty is at an all-time high, the Republicans and their billionaire backers want more, more, and more. The class warfare continues.
My Republican colleagues say that the deficits are a spending problem, not a revenue problem. What these deficit-hawk hypocrites won't talk about is their spending. They won't discuss what they did to dig the country into this $1 trillion deep deficit hole. They waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without paying for them. They gave away huge tax breaks for the rich. They squandered taxpayer dollars on the pharmaceutical industry by making it illegal to let Medicare bargain for lower drug prices. They also rescinded financial regulations that enabled Wall Street to operate like a gambling casino, leading to a severe recession that eroded tax revenue and left more than 14 percent of American workers unemployed or underemployed.
The Soul of America
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-soul-of-america_b_2439576.htmlThe Soul of America
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Posted: 01/09/2013 10:04 am
Despite such terminology as "fiscal cliff" and "debt ceiling," the great debate taking place in Washington now has relatively little to do with financial issues. It is all about ideology. It is all about economic winners and losers in American society. It is all about the power of Big Money. It is all about the soul of America.
In America today, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth, and more inequality than at any time period since 1928. The top 1 percent owns 42 percent of the financial wealth of the nation, while, incredibly, the bottom 60 percent own only 2.3 percent. One family, the Walton family of Wal-Mart, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans. In terms of income distribution in 2010, the last study done on this issue, the top 1 percent earned 93 percent of all new income while the bottom 99 percent shared the remaining 7 percent.
Despite the reality that the rich are becoming much richer while the middle class collapses and the number of Americans living in poverty is at an all-time high, the Republicans and their billionaire backers want more, more, and more. The class warfare continues.
My Republican colleagues say that the deficits are a spending problem, not a revenue problem. What these deficit-hawk hypocrites won't talk about is their spending. They won't discuss what they did to dig the country into this $1 trillion deep deficit hole. They waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without paying for them. They gave away huge tax breaks for the rich. They squandered taxpayer dollars on the pharmaceutical industry by making it illegal to let Medicare bargain for lower drug prices. They also rescinded financial regulations that enabled Wall Street to operate like a gambling casino, leading to a severe recession that eroded tax revenue and left more than 14 percent of American workers unemployed or underemployed.
January 10, 2013
Solving the Fiscal Impasse Starts and Ends at the Pentagon
Rep. Barbara Lee
Posted: 01/09/2013 12:14 pm
As Afghan President Hamid Karzai returns to the United States this week, he will meet President Barack Obama at a time when the overwhelming majority of the American people and a strong bipartisan coalition of Congress believe it is long past time to bring the war to a safe and expedited close. Most Americans realize that instead of spending billions of dollars extending our military presence in Afghanistan, we need to commit to a political settlement, bring all of our troops safely home and invest in jobs as well as nation-building here at home.
Yet for too long, we have given the Pentagon blank checks while neglecting our crumbling roads, our aging water systems and our struggling schools. From 2000 to 2010, overall spending on the base defense budget rose from nearly $300 billion to $700 billion. That massive increase in spending, combined with $1.4 trillion (and counting) spent on two wars, and the projected hundreds of billions in costs to care for our returning veterans, were all committed even as we passed tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This is an unprecedented and disastrous policy course that led directly to the debt problem we have today.
After a decade of tax giveaways and extravagant defense spending, Congress has passed more than $1.7 trillion in spending cuts to critical domestic programs on which all American families rely. Most of this came in the summer of 2011 as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling without any revenue. Now, with the fiscal cliff deal behind us, the coming weeks will bring even more heated debate surrounding our budget, across-the-board cuts called sequestration and how to continue growing our economy by protecting the American dream for all. Here is what we should do:
Brings our troops home: Last month, almost 100 bipartisan members of the House of Representatives joined me and the overwhelming majority of the American people in reaffirming our strong conviction to bring the war in Afghanistan to a safe and expedited close. It is long past time to hand over security responsibility to the Afghans and ensure a seamless transition for our brave troops from active duty to civilian life. Doing so would save tens of billions of dollars this year alone.
unhappycamper comment: Other measures Ms. Lee is proposing (in addition to vacating Afghanistan) include job creation, doing something to the obscene pentagon budget and auditing the pentagon which has not been done for decades.
Solving the Fiscal Impasse Starts and Ends at the Pentagon
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barbara-lee/solving-the-fiscal-impass_b_2440632.htmlSolving the Fiscal Impasse Starts and Ends at the Pentagon
Rep. Barbara Lee
Posted: 01/09/2013 12:14 pm
As Afghan President Hamid Karzai returns to the United States this week, he will meet President Barack Obama at a time when the overwhelming majority of the American people and a strong bipartisan coalition of Congress believe it is long past time to bring the war to a safe and expedited close. Most Americans realize that instead of spending billions of dollars extending our military presence in Afghanistan, we need to commit to a political settlement, bring all of our troops safely home and invest in jobs as well as nation-building here at home.
Yet for too long, we have given the Pentagon blank checks while neglecting our crumbling roads, our aging water systems and our struggling schools. From 2000 to 2010, overall spending on the base defense budget rose from nearly $300 billion to $700 billion. That massive increase in spending, combined with $1.4 trillion (and counting) spent on two wars, and the projected hundreds of billions in costs to care for our returning veterans, were all committed even as we passed tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This is an unprecedented and disastrous policy course that led directly to the debt problem we have today.
After a decade of tax giveaways and extravagant defense spending, Congress has passed more than $1.7 trillion in spending cuts to critical domestic programs on which all American families rely. Most of this came in the summer of 2011 as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling without any revenue. Now, with the fiscal cliff deal behind us, the coming weeks will bring even more heated debate surrounding our budget, across-the-board cuts called sequestration and how to continue growing our economy by protecting the American dream for all. Here is what we should do:
Brings our troops home: Last month, almost 100 bipartisan members of the House of Representatives joined me and the overwhelming majority of the American people in reaffirming our strong conviction to bring the war in Afghanistan to a safe and expedited close. It is long past time to hand over security responsibility to the Afghans and ensure a seamless transition for our brave troops from active duty to civilian life. Doing so would save tens of billions of dollars this year alone.
unhappycamper comment: Other measures Ms. Lee is proposing (in addition to vacating Afghanistan) include job creation, doing something to the obscene pentagon budget and auditing the pentagon which has not been done for decades.
January 9, 2013
Abu Ghraib Settlement: Defense Contractor Engility Holdings Pays $5M To Iraqi Torture Detainees
By PETE YOST
01/08/13 06:02 PM ET EST AP
WASHINGTON — A defense contractor whose subsidiary was accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to torture detainees at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has paid $5.28 million to 71 former inmates held there and at other U.S.-run detention sites between 2003 and 2007.
The settlement in the case involving Engility Holdings Inc. of Chantilly, Va., marks the first successful effort by lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers to collect money from a U.S. defense contractor in lawsuits alleging torture. Another contractor, CACI, is expected to go to trial over similar allegations this summer.
The payments were disclosed in a document that Engility filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission two months ago but which has gone essentially unnoticed.
The defendant in the lawsuit, L-3 Services Inc., now an Engility subsidiary, provided translators to the U.S. military in Iraq. In 2006, L-3 Services had more than 6,000 translators in Iraq under a $450 million-a-year contract, an L-3 executive told an investors conference at the time.
Abu Ghraib Settlement: Defense Contractor Engility Holdings Pays $5M To Iraqi Torture Detainees
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/abu-ghraib-settlement-defense-contractor-pays_n_2435226.htmlAbu Ghraib Settlement: Defense Contractor Engility Holdings Pays $5M To Iraqi Torture Detainees
By PETE YOST
01/08/13 06:02 PM ET EST AP
WASHINGTON — A defense contractor whose subsidiary was accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to torture detainees at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has paid $5.28 million to 71 former inmates held there and at other U.S.-run detention sites between 2003 and 2007.
The settlement in the case involving Engility Holdings Inc. of Chantilly, Va., marks the first successful effort by lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers to collect money from a U.S. defense contractor in lawsuits alleging torture. Another contractor, CACI, is expected to go to trial over similar allegations this summer.
The payments were disclosed in a document that Engility filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission two months ago but which has gone essentially unnoticed.
The defendant in the lawsuit, L-3 Services Inc., now an Engility subsidiary, provided translators to the U.S. military in Iraq. In 2006, L-3 Services had more than 6,000 translators in Iraq under a $450 million-a-year contract, an L-3 executive told an investors conference at the time.
January 9, 2013
Is the United States Moving to Africa?
Milli Gazete, Turkey
By Sadrettin Karaduman
Translated By Dayla Rogers
1 January 2013
Edited by Kyrstie Lane
This time the U.S. has turned its gaze to Africa. The Pentagon has pushed the button to send troops to 35 African countries in the name of the “war on terror.” Kenya, the homeland of Obama's father, is on the list of nations slated for military intervention.
~snip~
Strategic interests lie beneath the United States' efforts to create such a comprehensive program to threaten Africa's security. It is thought that competition with China drives this military policy.
America wants to prevent China from winning over the African people by preventing a large Chinese population from entering the continent. America has for some time been discomforted by China's activities in Africa. In order to maintain its control of intelligence and logistics in the region, it has boosted its military presence.
One of the world's key sea routes is found within AFRICOM's jurisdiction. Africa produces 7 percent of the world's petrol. Thirty percent of the world's gold also comes from there. South Africa alone is home to 35 percent of the gold reserves in the world. Ever since rich colonialists set foot on African soil 500 years ago, they have left the place destitute. Westerners have controlled the continent more than Africans for centuries. The U.S., in particular, has been interested in these resources in recent years. This is because the U.S. imports 60 percent of the petrol that it consumes, and 15 percent of this comes from Africa. By 2025 this percentage will rise to 25.
Is the United States Moving to Africa?
http://watchingamerica.com/News/190489/is-the-united-states-moving-to-africa/Is the United States Moving to Africa?
Milli Gazete, Turkey
By Sadrettin Karaduman
Translated By Dayla Rogers
1 January 2013
Edited by Kyrstie Lane
This time the U.S. has turned its gaze to Africa. The Pentagon has pushed the button to send troops to 35 African countries in the name of the “war on terror.” Kenya, the homeland of Obama's father, is on the list of nations slated for military intervention.
~snip~
Strategic interests lie beneath the United States' efforts to create such a comprehensive program to threaten Africa's security. It is thought that competition with China drives this military policy.
America wants to prevent China from winning over the African people by preventing a large Chinese population from entering the continent. America has for some time been discomforted by China's activities in Africa. In order to maintain its control of intelligence and logistics in the region, it has boosted its military presence.
One of the world's key sea routes is found within AFRICOM's jurisdiction. Africa produces 7 percent of the world's petrol. Thirty percent of the world's gold also comes from there. South Africa alone is home to 35 percent of the gold reserves in the world. Ever since rich colonialists set foot on African soil 500 years ago, they have left the place destitute. Westerners have controlled the continent more than Africans for centuries. The U.S., in particular, has been interested in these resources in recent years. This is because the U.S. imports 60 percent of the petrol that it consumes, and 15 percent of this comes from Africa. By 2025 this percentage will rise to 25.
January 9, 2013
Why Has America “Rediscovered” Africa?
Huanqiu, China
By Yin Chengde
Translated By Nathan Hsu
4 January 2013
Edited by Laurence Bouvard
~snip~
For quite some time, the U.S. has viewed Africa as a "backwards" and "failed” continent, and so has largely neglected it. Africa's strategic significance has increased following its revival and accelerated pace of integrated development in the 1990s. As the world began to face an energy crisis and a shortage of natural resources, Africa's value as a treasure trove of energy and resources became especially apparent. It was only then that the U.S. "rediscovered" and began to place greater importance on Africa, as well as make substantial changes to its African policy. In recent years, it has proposed building a "new U.S.-African Partnership" of the 21st century, strengthening every aspect of its operations on the continent. African-American President Obama personally visited Africa after his election, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was even more active with continuous "shuttle diplomacy," bolstering the political links between the U.S. and Africa.
The meat of the U.S. relationship with Africa is in trade. In 2000, the U.S. introduced its African Growth and Opportunity Act, announcing that it would offer unilateral trade benefits for the 48 Sub-Saharan African countries. The 37 countries eligible for benefits were able to export over 6,000 types of products to the U.S. duty-free, and U.S.-African trade increased rapidly. In 2008, aggregate trade between the U.S. and Africa reached $104.6 billion with a year-on-year growth of 28 percent, over three times that of 2001. U.S. aid to Africa has increased correspondingly. In 2005, the U.S. declared that it would increase annual aid to Africa from $4.3 billion to $8.6 billion over the following five years; U.S. aid to Africa stood at 36.2 percent of total foreign aid in 2009.
The U.S. adjusting its African policy to augment its military presence there is both a prelude and an important point in itself. In 2008, it established AFRICOM, something not done even during the Cold War. NATO's 2011 air strikes in Libya were issued and directed by this command. It established military bases and stationed over 1,000 troops in several African countries, and also strengthened its West-African naval force to ensure the safety of oil shipping lanes. In 2012, the U.S. had over 10 military operations and signed military agreements with over 20 states in Africa for the wartime use of airfields and ports. It will deploy over 3,500 soldiers to 35 African countries in 2013.
The basic impetus for this adjustment in U.S. policy and the deepening of relations with Africa lies in reaping greater profits and, in particular, making the control and seizure of African oil and other strategic resources the core objective of its African strategy. Its investments in Africa are primarily concentrated in oil-producing regions. U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil plans to invest $50 billion in Africa over the next 10 years, and Chevron plans to invest $20 billion over the next five years in an effort to expand its African oil production capacity. Outwardly, the U.S. has declared that its increased military strength in Africa is due to "anti-terror" considerations, but in truth, its purpose is to protect U.S. strategic interests in Africa, especially those related to oil. Its military operations in Africa have primarily revolved around energy and natural resource bases and opening up supply lines. The U.S. Army's "anti-terror" operations in Africa have been selective. It only moves against terrorism which threatens its interests, and is content to selectively ignore that which does not, however catastrophic, and simply watch from the sidelines.
unhappycamper comment: It's all about oil. Again.
Why Has America “Rediscovered” Africa?
http://watchingamerica.com/News/190862/why-has-america-rediscovered-africa/Why Has America “Rediscovered” Africa?
Huanqiu, China
By Yin Chengde
Translated By Nathan Hsu
4 January 2013
Edited by Laurence Bouvard
~snip~
For quite some time, the U.S. has viewed Africa as a "backwards" and "failed” continent, and so has largely neglected it. Africa's strategic significance has increased following its revival and accelerated pace of integrated development in the 1990s. As the world began to face an energy crisis and a shortage of natural resources, Africa's value as a treasure trove of energy and resources became especially apparent. It was only then that the U.S. "rediscovered" and began to place greater importance on Africa, as well as make substantial changes to its African policy. In recent years, it has proposed building a "new U.S.-African Partnership" of the 21st century, strengthening every aspect of its operations on the continent. African-American President Obama personally visited Africa after his election, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was even more active with continuous "shuttle diplomacy," bolstering the political links between the U.S. and Africa.
The meat of the U.S. relationship with Africa is in trade. In 2000, the U.S. introduced its African Growth and Opportunity Act, announcing that it would offer unilateral trade benefits for the 48 Sub-Saharan African countries. The 37 countries eligible for benefits were able to export over 6,000 types of products to the U.S. duty-free, and U.S.-African trade increased rapidly. In 2008, aggregate trade between the U.S. and Africa reached $104.6 billion with a year-on-year growth of 28 percent, over three times that of 2001. U.S. aid to Africa has increased correspondingly. In 2005, the U.S. declared that it would increase annual aid to Africa from $4.3 billion to $8.6 billion over the following five years; U.S. aid to Africa stood at 36.2 percent of total foreign aid in 2009.
The U.S. adjusting its African policy to augment its military presence there is both a prelude and an important point in itself. In 2008, it established AFRICOM, something not done even during the Cold War. NATO's 2011 air strikes in Libya were issued and directed by this command. It established military bases and stationed over 1,000 troops in several African countries, and also strengthened its West-African naval force to ensure the safety of oil shipping lanes. In 2012, the U.S. had over 10 military operations and signed military agreements with over 20 states in Africa for the wartime use of airfields and ports. It will deploy over 3,500 soldiers to 35 African countries in 2013.
The basic impetus for this adjustment in U.S. policy and the deepening of relations with Africa lies in reaping greater profits and, in particular, making the control and seizure of African oil and other strategic resources the core objective of its African strategy. Its investments in Africa are primarily concentrated in oil-producing regions. U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil plans to invest $50 billion in Africa over the next 10 years, and Chevron plans to invest $20 billion over the next five years in an effort to expand its African oil production capacity. Outwardly, the U.S. has declared that its increased military strength in Africa is due to "anti-terror" considerations, but in truth, its purpose is to protect U.S. strategic interests in Africa, especially those related to oil. Its military operations in Africa have primarily revolved around energy and natural resource bases and opening up supply lines. The U.S. Army's "anti-terror" operations in Africa have been selective. It only moves against terrorism which threatens its interests, and is content to selectively ignore that which does not, however catastrophic, and simply watch from the sidelines.
unhappycamper comment: It's all about oil. Again.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 16, 2005, 11:12 AMNumber of posts: 60,364
