|
Banned
|
We live in the most severe period of uneven distribution of wealth and political power in the US in 75 years. The wealthy elite who "own" (control) the assets and political power number less than the top half of the top ten percent of our population. The citations in the last five quote boxes, cover the preparations that they are making to control the coming reaction to the real estate valuation decline that will gouge the comparatively meager concentration of wealth centered currently in the hands of the masses, and some of the methods used during mass civilian detentions by US authorities in Iraq.
The top ten percent own most of the more liquid and still appreciating assets in the US, the stocks and bonds. The more illiquid, maintenance and property tax intensive residential real estate assets are mostly in the hands of the most tapped out and vunerable, lower 80 percent of the population, as these assets just begin a long decline in value. (read Russ Winter's article, linked in the OP)
The wealthy have prepared....DHS was not solely created to deal with the GWOT....the new domestic detention camp contracts bely that reality.
I am not advocating violence...if it comes, it will most likely be in response to premature and brutal repression by the authorities, themselves. They've been busy illegally wiretapping our phone calls, duping us into supporting the rights and privacy transfers contained in the patriot acts. Putting a new emphasis on tracking and reporting who is planning to exit the US, instead of who is trying to enter the country.
It is "us" vs. them....they know it, they plan for it....they intend to use the domestic security apparatus to maintain the status quo....they own most of it.
The question is...why are we all so complacent ....so accepting, and when will that change? First, a little history:
This is a snippet of our history of violent "blowback":
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/search/quer...tanks&srchst=p
#
Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase TOLL RISES TO 36; 1,000 Guardsmen Go to South Bend, Ind., to Quell Disorders Detroit Riots Reported... [PDF]
DETROIT, Thursday, July 27 Negro snipers waged a daylight guerrilla operation yesterday, but National Guard tanks and armored personnel carriers brought the situation under control last night....View free preview
July 27, 1967 - By GENE ROBERTS Special to The New York Times - Front Page
#
Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase TROOPS BATTLE DETROIT SNIPERS, FIRING MACHINE GUNS FROM TANKS; LINDSAY APPEALS TO EAST HARLEM; DETR... [PDF]
DETROIT, Wednesday, July 26--National Guard tank crews blasted away at entrenched snipers with .50-caliber machine guns early today after sniper fire routed policemen from a square-mile area of the city....View free preview
July 26, 1967 - By GENE ROBERTS Special to The New York Times - Front Page......
.........#
Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase DETROIT RIOTS REPORTED CURBED AFTER TANKS BATTLE DAY SNIPERS; 4 NEGRO LEADERS CALL FOR ORDER; ASK M... [PDF]
Four national civil rights leaders appealed yesterday to Negroes to end the mob rule and violence that have spread through the urban ghettos....View free preview
July 27, 1967 - By M.S. HANDLER - Front Page
#
Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase U. S. TROOPS SENT INTO DETROIT; 19 DEAD; JOHNSON DECRIES RIOTS; NEW OUTBREAK IN EAST HARLEM; TANKS ... [PDF]
DETROIT, Tuesday, July 25--President Johnson rushed 4,700 Army paratroopers into Detroit at midnight last night as Negro snipers besieged two police stations in rioting that brought near-paralysis to the nation's fifth largest city....View free preview
July 25, 1967 - By GENE ROBERTS Special to The New York Times - Front Page
#
Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase Detroit Is Swept by Rioting and Fires; Romney Calls In Guard; 700 Arrested; Negroes in Detroit Defy... [PDF]
DETROIT, Monday, July 24 --Thousands of rampaging Negroes firebombed and looted huge sections of Detroit last night and early today. Gov. George Romney ordered 1,500 National Guardsmen, backed by tanks, to quell the riot....View free preview
July 24, 1967 - Front Page
#
Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase News Summary and Index; The Major Events of the Day [PDF]
View free preview
July 27, 1967 - Article
#
Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase Black Challenge; The Violence Spreads [PDF]
The reports were like communiques from a major war theater. From city after city, during one of the tensest weeks of domestic crisis the nation has ever known, came a story of racial violence. The scale varied, the pattern was frighteningly similar. Negro...View free preview
July 30, 1967 - Article
#
Article available with TimesSelect subscription or for purchase A Negro Leader Defines; A Way Out of the Exploding Ghetto [PDF]
THERE is no longer any denying that this country is in the throes of a historic national crisis. Its ramifications are so vast and frightening that even now, shocked into numbness and disbelief, the American people have not yet fully grasped What is hapen...View free preview
August 13, 1967 - By BAYARD RUSTIN - Article
|
Quote:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ruling03m.html
<center><img src="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2005/06/02/2002297133.jpg"><br><i>A Seattle police riot-squad member jabs a gun barrel against the neck of a protester at Sixth and Union amid rioting during the World Trade Organization meeting in late 1999.</i></center>
Friday June 3, 2005 - 12:00 AM
HARLEY SOLTES / THE SEATTLE TIMES, 1999
Court upholds WTO no-protest zone
By Maureen O'Hagan
Seattle Times staff reporter
It was lawful for the city of Seattle to deem part of downtown off-limits during the volatile 1999 World Trade Organization protests, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday. But the court also said that police enforcing the rule may have gone too far by targeting only those opposed to the WTO, in violation of their First Amendment rights.
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially overturned a 2001 decision by U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein, who had ruled in favor of the city's actions during the WTO protests. It also means that some demonstrators may pursue a class-action claim that the city violated their constitutional rights.
"It's not total victory," said assistant city attorney Sean Sheehan. "But certainly from a policy standpoint, the important interests of the city were vindicated by the court."
"It's an important decision," said lawyer Steve W. Berman, who represented some of the plaintiffs. "If people were being arrested solely because they were there to peacefully protest and that was the only reason people were being arrested, that's unconstitutional."
The 9th Circuit Court ruling is one of many legal ripples still emanating from the Seattle WTO meeting, which drew delegates from 135 member nations as well as an estimated 50,000 protesters. While only a small minority of demonstrators were violent, they wreaked disproportionate havoc by blocking access to events, damaging businesses and waging street battles with hundreds of police. Damage was later estimated at $2.5 million, and hundreds of protesters were arrested.
Because of the threat to public safety, then-Mayor Paul Schell issued an unusual edict. Known as Order No. 3, it prohibited entry into a 25-block area of downtown. Exceptions were granted for those participating in the WTO meeting, employees of area businesses, police and emergency personnel. The rule led to numerous arrests and confrontations with police.
The prohibited area became known as the no-protest zone. And to civil-rights groups, it was a violation of the Constitution to declare such a zone — particularly one so large — let alone to enforce against peaceful protesters.
Yesterday's Circuit Court opinion addressed two cases which had been consolidated and involved hundreds of plaintiffs who claimed that Order No. 3 muffled legitimate protest against the WTO.
For example, some protesters complained that police seized their anti-WTO signs and leaflets. One man was arrested even though he was a WTO participant and had a right to be in the no-protest zone. Several others who worked within the zone said police made them remove anti-WTO slogans from their clothes before allowing them to pass through.
By targeting only WTO opponents, the plaintiffs' lawsuit said, the order violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from suppressing opinions it doesn't like. The city countered that Order No. 3 was aimed only at calming the chaos, and that it was "content-neutral" in that it did not support one point of view over another.
The U.S. District Court took the city's side and threw out the plaintiffs' lawsuit. The plaintiffs then appealed.
The 9th Circuit yesterday agreed with the city's argument that it was not trying to suppress free speech.
"The purpose of enacting Order No. 3 had everything to do with the need to restore and maintain civic order and nothing to do with the content of Appellants' message," the majority opinion stated.
But the court's consideration of Order No. 3 did not end there.
In some cases, the court said, it appeared police were targeting only those opposed to the WTO. So while Order No.3 was neutral on its face, it may have been applied in a way that violated the First Amendment.
"In some instances police conduct may have gone too far," the ruling said.
The court's ruling means a number of the plaintiffs' cases will go back to the lower court, which will consider individual circumstances to determine whether rights may have been violated. The lower court will also consider whether the plaintiffs can be grouped together in a class action.
Arthur Bryant, an attorney for some of the plaintiffs, called this aspect of the decision a "great victory," because the court held that the city violated the First Amendment "if in fact it applied the no-protest-zone order to arrest only anti-WTO protesters. That is, of course, exactly what they did. That's the reason the lawsuit was brought."
Former Police Chief Norm Stamper, who was harshly criticized for the Police Department's handling of the protests, said in some ways he felt vindicated.
"I believe the court made the proper call in affirming the city's right to contain part of downtown at the height of the violence that week," he wrote in an e-mail. Nonetheless, he said he respected the judges' decision to send individual cases back for trial on the facts.
Stamper resigned shortly after the WTO debacle. In his new book, "Breaking Rank," Stamper blames himself for failing to adequately prepare police for the protests and violence.
The case is one of several lawsuits over the WTO protests.
Last year, the city paid $250,000 to settle a case with 157 protesters arrested outside of the no-protest zone. The settlement came after a federal judge's ruling that police lacked probable cause to arrest them.
In 2003, the city settled with two college students arrested while Christmas shopping on the first anniversary of the protests.
In 2002, the city agreed to pay the legal bills of the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued after the city failed to disclose a key WTO-related document under a public-records request.
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112101145.html
DEMONSTRATIONS
Police Agree to Protester Reforms
Lawsuit Alleging Abuse During 2001 Inauguration Is Settled
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 22, 2006; Page B02
The D.C. police department agreed yesterday to pay $685,000 and take steps to protect protesters from police abuse and ensure their rights to settle a lawsuit over the treatment of demonstrators at President Bush's inauguration in 2001.
The lawsuit uncovered evidence that the department had suspended rules limiting the use of force during the protests, had pressed undercover officers to infiltrate protest groups and had sought to provoke protesters and uninvolved bystanders by attacking them with batons and pepper spray.
Under the settlement, the department denies any guilt but agrees to change its police handbook to better protect protesters, adding a requirement that officers report the use of force during a mass demonstration and prohibit arrests without evidence of a crime. Officers assigned to civil disturbance units will be reminded of the changes in a new, mandatory 40-hour training course and annual refresher session.
The Partnership for Civil Justice, a civil liberties advocacy group, and a group of local residents brought the suit five years ago to try to force the police department under Chief Charles H. Ramsey to change what it considered an illegal pattern of treating protesters like suspected criminals. One of the suit's lead attorneys, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, said yesterday that the group thinks that it achieved much of that goal through painstaking litigation and depositions that revealed the department's behavior and led to the D.C. Council passing legislation last year to reform police handling of protests.
A spokesperson for the D.C. attorney general's office declined to comment yesterday. Ramsey also declined to comment, saying that other lawsuits are pending.
The settlement, which comes as Ramsey is preparing to leave his post, is the latest in a series of payments the city has made stemming from police conduct at demonstrations. In January 2005, the District government agreed to pay $425,000 to seven people caught up in a mass arrest at Pershing Park in September 2002. More than 400 people were rounded up at the downtown park during demonstrations against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Several investigations found that Assistant Chief Peter J. Newsham, after conferring with Ramsey, had ordered arrests without warning or evidence of a crime -- including of people who had nothing to do with the protests.
In that Pershing Park settlement, Ramsey was also required to send an apology letter to each of the plaintiffs....
......Mike Shinn, a security consulting company owner who joined in the suit settled yesterday, said he was glad that the department would be forced to follow the laws of the country. Shinn, a Bush supporter who went to watch the inaugural celebration, said he felt he was in another country when police pushed him, other spectators and protesters against a wall and an officer hit him on the head from behind with a baton.
"I tried to explain what I was doing and ask him what he wanted me to do, and he hit me again," Shinn recalled. "He said, 'Do you want some more of this?' I was just shocked, just utterly shocked. I thought: What in the world are they teaching them?"
Shinn said he hopes the incoming chief, Cathy L. Lanier, and the departing Ramsey learn a lesson.
<b>"You can't arrest people for just having opinions, as unpopular as they may be," he said. "You don't just arrest everybody on the streets because you think they might have an opinion. It flies in the face of everything that is America."</b>
|
Quote:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/098_print.html
Billionaires
In Praise of Inequality
Nigel Holloway, 03.17.03
A disparity of income and wealth is good for us, as long as people can move up the ladder.
....Taxes and philanthropy push the distribution of living standards a long way in the direction of equality.
Do these two forces go far enough toward equality? That is the great debate for social philosophers. When President Bush announces his plan to cut taxes, his opponents greet the proposal with cries he is helping the rich. In Venezuela the divide between haves and have-nots has made the country virtually ungovernable. China's leaders have chosen to ride the capitalist tiger even if rapid economic growth leads to social tension.
Economic inequality has two effects, one good, one bad and both named by economists Joseph Zeira, John Hassler and José Rodriguez Mora. The good one is the incentive effect. The greater the disparity between wealth and income, the harder people strive to be successful, and by their striving they enlarge the pie. The bad effect, called the distance effect, is that inequality begets more inequality--the children of the poor have to work harder to succeed, compared with the children of the rich. Just compare the schools in a deprived neighborhood with those in a better-class one.
A society can choose to reduce the distance effect by taxing the rich and spending the proceeds on the poor. But in so doing it reduces the incentive to get ahead. European countries tend to have a lower Gini than the U.S.--and higher unemployment as well. In 1980 U.S. economic output per capita was just about the same as in France and Germany. Since then the per capita output in those countries has gone sideways, while in the U.S. it has climbed 50%.
More than tax structures are at work, to be sure. Egalitarian South Korea has seen a fivefold gain in living standards in the past 22 years. Korea is not merely capitalist but also socially homogeneous, and a place where hard work, saving and education are prized.
One lesson of all this is that societies where the spoils are more unevenly divided, such as the U.S., had better be mobile--or else. If a large enough number of people believe they have a fair shot at success, then they will put up with the megarich. <b>But if large numbers feel stuck at the bottom, sooner or later they will explode.....</b>
|
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...can+convention
This is old news. There was "order" in Iraq, before the US invasion. The same sonic weapon deployed in Iraq, was used in 2004....guess where.....?
It's a public address sytem....or it bursts ear drums:
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=99472
Unusual Forms of Sound to Emanate From RNC
By Amanda Onion
Aug. 25, 2004 - Coming soon to a convention near you: Sound like it has never (or at least, rarely) been heard before.
As politicians at the Republican National Convention use microphones to make themselves heard from the podium, other sounds in and around the event will be emitted in cutting-edge audio technology.
Outside the convention hall, New York City police plan to control protesters using a device that directs sound for up to 1,500 feet in a spotlight-like beam. Meanwhile, a display of former Republican presidents inside the hall will feature campaign speeches that are funneled to listeners through highly focused audio beams.
"These are totally different from the way an ordinary speaker emits sound," said Elwood (Woody) Norris, founder and head of American Technology Corp. of San Diego. "It's like it's inside your head."
Norris, an intrepid entrepreneur who has no college degree but more than 43 patents to his name, invented both the crowd control tool, called the Long Range Acoustical Device (LRAD), and the display audio technology, called HyperSonic Sound (HSS).....
Quote:
http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/soundcannon_photos.htm
Sound Cannon in Place in NY Pointed at Protesters
Infowars.com
sept 9, 2004
Here are photos from NY of the sound weapon in place and pointed at protesters. One time, the sound weapons was turned on to a low hum. So the weapons they are using on Iraqis are going to be used on American citizens. This is the nature of the Police State we're living in.....
|
....The Department of Defense gave Norris and his team funding to develop LRAD following the 9/11 attacks. The concept is to offer an intermediate tool to warn and ward off attacking combatants before resorting to force.
"Regular bullets don't have volume control on them," said Norris. "With this, you just cause a person's ears to ring."......
|
|
<b>Some details of the plans to maintain domestic security, i.e., to control us and to detain us if they feel threatened enough......</b>
Quote:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=2006_register
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6–11064 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6760–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection
19 CFR Parts 4 and 122
[USCBP–2005–0003]
RIN 1651–AA62
Passenger Manifests for Commercial
Aircraft Arriving in and Departing From
the United States; Passenger and Crew
Manifests for Commercial Vessels
Departing From the United States
AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend
existing Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection regulations concerning
electronic manifest transmission
requirements relative to passengers,
crew members, and non-crew members
traveling onboard international
commercial flights and voyages. Under
current regulations, air carriers must
transmit to the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP), Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), passenger
manifest information for aircraft en
route to the United States no later than
15 minutes after the departure of the
aircraft. This proposed rule implements
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 requirement that
such information be provided to the
government before departure of the
aircraft. This proposed rule provides air
carriers a choice between transmitting
complete manifests no later than 60-
minutes prior to departure of the aircraft
or transmitting manifest information on
passengers as each passenger checks in
for the flight, up to but no later than 15
minutes prior to departure. The rule
also proposes to amend the definition of
‘‘departure’’ for aircraft to mean the
moment the aircraft is pushed back from
the gate. For vessel departures from the
United States, the rule proposes
transmission of passenger and crew
manifests no later than 60 minutes prior
to departure of the vessel.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before August 14, 2006.
|
Quote:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?s...25201&from=rss
<b>Disabling the RFID in the New U.S. Passports?</b>
slashchuck writes "Along with the usual Jargonwatch and Wired/Tired articles, the January issue of Wired offers a <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/start.html?pg=9">drastic method</a> for taking care of that RFID chip in your passport. They say it's legal ... if a bit blunt. From the article: 'The best approach? Hammer time. Hitting the chip with a blunt, hard object should disable it. A nonworking RFID doesn't invalidate the passport, so you can still use it.' While this seems a bit extreme, all indications seem to be these chips aren't very secure. How far will you go to protect or disable the RFID chip in your passport? Do you think such a step is necessary? Does anyone have an argument in favor of the technology's implementation here? "
|
Quote:
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/02/0...ton.html?fta=y
Halliburton Subsidiary Gets Contract to Add Temporary Immigration Detention Centers
Published: February 4, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers to Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been criticized for overcharging the Pentagon for its work in Iraq.
KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space, company executives said. KBR, which announced the contract last month, had a similar contract with immigration agencies from 2000 to last year.
The contract with the Corps of Engineers runs one year, with four optional one-year extensions. Officials of the corps said that they had solicited bids and that KBR was the lone responder.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Jamie Zuieback, said KBR would build the centers only in an emergency like the one when thousands of Cubans floated on rafts to the United States. She emphasized that the centers might never be built if such an emergency did not arise.
"It's the type of contract that could be used in some kind of mass migration," Ms. Zuieback said.
A spokesman for the corps, Clayton Church, said that the centers could be at unused military sites or temporary structures and that each one would hold up to 5,000 people......
|
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-nation
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...cid=1112224284
National News
Guantanamo needs courthouse, Pentagon says
By Carol J. Williams, Times Staff Writer
December 27, 2006
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA — Although the Pentagon estimates that no more than 80 of the 400 or so terrorism detainees here will ever be tried, <b>it is moving forward with plans for a $125-million legal complex.</b>
Air Force Col. Morris Davis, chief prosecutor of the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban supporters, says he expects to file charges against 10 to 20 prisoners soon after new trial rules are presented to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates next month.
The Supreme Court in June found the Bush administration's military tribunal system unconstitutional, and Congress passed the Military Commission Act in September to replace it. But less than 20% of the prisoners held here are expected to face charges under the new commissions. "At the end of the day, I think the total will be about 75, give or take a few," Davis says.
<b>Much of the legal work is done in Washington or in other U.S.-based offices of the military's judicial network — not at Guantanamo Bay.
Still, Davis says, there is just one courtroom here, in a converted air terminal that also houses legal staff and a high-security lockup. The new compound would have three courtrooms, restaurants, parking and accommodations for at least 800 people.</b>
"It's going to take longer to do these trials one at a time in one courtroom," Davis said. A more rigorous pace could be undertaken if the complex is ready by July, as the Pentagon envisions.
Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for detainee affairs, insists the legal facility is vital to bringing terrorism suspects to justice. Even with back-to-back trials, he said, it would take over a decade to prosecute an expected 60 to 80 detainees using one courtroom.
"We're fiscal conservatives by definition. We're not building the Taj Mahal here, Stimson said.
Doubts about the future of Guantanamo and the logic of investing in an operation many U.S. allies want to see shut down may doom the building project.
Calling the complex "a massive boondoggle," the American Civil Liberties Union has urged the incoming Democratic-controlled Congress to deny funding.
"No one thinks more than a few dozen detainees will ever be tried there," said Chris Anders, the ACLU legislative counsel. "I just don't see the next Congress authorizing any significant construction for additional courtrooms."
<b>There is nothing in either the Military Commissions Act or in the rules governing courts-martial that requires war-crimes trials to be conducted in a courtroom — or even at this remote naval base, Anders said.</b>
The Pentagon earlier this month backed down from a plan to fast-track the legal compound without approval from Congress; it is expected to be part of a supplemental funding request in February or March.
"We want these procedures to be full and fair, and do not want the lack of facilities to be a reason to delay the process," Pentagon spokesman Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey D. Gordon said.
Davis says he expects to have cases ready to try by March. But Navy Cmdr. Pat McCarthy, the staff judge advocate, said no one is certain how long the rule-writing and legal challenges to the Military Commissions Act could take.
The dispute over whether and how much to invest in facilities for holding and trying terrorism suspects has been fueled by demands from European allies and human-rights activists for release or trial of the men here — most of whom will mark five years in detention in 2007.
"I think it is excessive," University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said of the legal-complex proposal. "They only scheduled 10 [trials] to date and with so much legal uncertainty, I think this is going to get a thorough review" by a skeptical Congress.....
|
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AB0994DE404482
American Recalls Torment As a U.S. Detainee in Iraq
*Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics. More information.
December 18, 2006, Monday
By MICHAEL MOSS (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 5, 2558 words
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Article in series Law and Disorder, examining legal system and law enforcement in Iraq, recounts ordeal of American contractor detained in error for 97 days at United States military's maximum-security detention site in Baghdad; finds haphazard system of detention and prosecution that has evolved, where detainees are often held for long periods without charges or legal representation, as authorities struggle to sort through endless stream of detainees to identify those who pose real threats; Donald Vance, Navy veteran who went to Iraq as security contractor, wound up as whistle-blower who passed information to FBI about suspicious activities at Iraqi security firm where he worked; American soldiers who raided company at his urging detained him and another American, unaware that he was informer; he describes being shackled, blindfolded, interrogated, rousted at random times, made to stand in his cell, forbidden to cover his face to block light, noise and cold; he is among thousands of people held and released by American military in Iraq; his account provides one of few detailed views of Pentagon's detention operations since abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib; he says he will sue former Defense Sec Donald H Rumsfeld on grounds that his constitutional rights were violated; Pentagon spokeswoman claims he was 'treated fair and humanely'......
|
|