The Hightower Report

---

THE BUSH MEMOS ON PRISONER ABUSE

Wow, that White House spin machine is in full twirl over the U.S. torture scandals in Iraq!

"Not to worry – those disgusting acts were just the work of a half-dozen low-level grunts who should have known better," whirs the machine, now in nuclear-powered perpetual motion. "No one in command, much less at the Pentagon or White House, had a clue that this was happening, and it's contrary to our official policy against any abuse of any prisoners," they spin. "And look over there," the White House shrieks. "We're prosecuting those bad soldiers to the hilt, so, see, the system works, and that's the end of the story, so let's move on."

But wait – Rumsfeld knew about the torture last year, and he personally told George W. about it in January. They not only had a clue, but they had full, detailed reports from the Army itself and from the Red Cross. Yet, they kept it hush-hush, apparently not feeling disgust until the torture became public.

As far as official policy is concerned, look what has just surfaced: a series of 2001 and 2002 internal memos from Bush's justice department and from his top White House lawyer claiming that the U.S. did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions and other international bans on prisoner abuse. White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who seems to think that his job amounts to finding a rationalization for anything the Bushites want to do, wrote in a 2002 memo to George that the war on terrorism, "in my judgment renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitation on questioning of enemy prisoners."

Obsolete? Fashions can become obsolete. Machines get obsolete, too. But fundamental morals and guidelines for humane conduct cannot, especially not on some partisan lawyer's whim. But there it is in writing – a policy sanctioning abuse and even torture, written on White House stationery. It turns out that those grunts in Iraq were acting within a legal framework devised by the Bushites themselves.

---

THE UGLY ECONOMICS OF PRIVATIZED WAR

Sometimes it takes the unspeakable horror of war to unveil ugly truths about national policies that our so-called leaders don't want us to notice, much less discuss.

Take, for example, the horrible news coming out of Iraq about contract workers for Halliburton and other war corporations being brutally killed and their bodies barbarically desecrated. Naturally, the first reaction is shock and outrage – but then obvious questions come to mind: Why has so much of our military been corporatized, and who are the Halliburtons getting to take these dangerous jobs?

The first question reveals the ugly fact that the military itself has become a for-profit enterprise. Corporations not only provide the weaponry, but increasingly they also provide the war personnel – everyone from armed troops to essential supply squadrons. This is rationalized on the basis that a Halliburton can do it cheaper. But do they? To get people to go to Iraq, Halliburton pays $80,000 to $100,000 a year for a truck driver or mess cook, plus health care and life insurance. Not to mention the overhead and guaranteed profit that Halliburton tacks onto each of the pay stubs it submits to us taxpayers. A soldier doing comparable work is paid a fourth of that.

The second question speaks volumes about America's ugly economic policies. By deliberately pushing outsourcing, union-busting, and low-wage Wal-Mart jobs, our corporate and political leaders have created a huge pool of the working poor. These are the people who, out of necessity, will take Halliburton's paycheck, even though it means separation from family; 14-hour days seven days a week; and exposure to kidnapping, torture, and death. Unlike soldiers, these contract workers are poorly prepared – they get only one week of training.

What we have here is an immoral system of war profiteering at the expense of taxpayers, the working poor ... and America's democratic values.