Please send as far and wide as possible.
Editor, The Konformist
FBI Records Cite Quran Abuse Allegations
By ROBERT BURNS
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 26, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The conflicting accounts of how U.S. military guards
handled Muslim prisoners' Qurans at Guantanamo Bay show two sides of
a psychological war between the terror suspects and their holders.
Detainees have claimed guards used the holy books as a weapon to
break their will to resist interrogation. The Pentagon asserts that
some detainees fabricated their claims in a calculated effort to
agitate the wider prison population and undermine the control of the
In the latest disclosure, declassified FBI reports showed that
detainees at the U.S. naval prison in Cuba told FBI and military
interrogators on a number of occasions as early as April 2002 _
three months after the first prisoners arrived at the makeshift
prison _ that guards abused them and desecrated the Quran.
"Their behavior is bad," one detainee is quoted as saying of his
guards during an interrogation by an FBI special agent on July 22,
2002. "About five months ago the guards beat the detainees. They
flushed a Quran in the toilet."
Lawrence Di Rita, chief spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, said Wednesday that U.S. military officials at Guantanamo
Bay had recently found a separate record of the same allegation by
the same detainee, and he was re-interviewed on May 14. "He did not
corroborate his own allegation," Di Rita said.
Di Rita said U.S. commanders have documented a number of cases in
which detainees tore pages out of a Quran, or ripped off the cover,
and then blamed the guards. This was designed, he said, to stir
outrage among other detainees and disrupt the order imposed by the
The statements about guards disrespecting the Quran echo public
allegations made many months later by some detainees and their
lawyers after the prisoners' release from Guantanamo Bay. The FBI
documents show a consistency to the allegations and are the first
indication that Justice and Defense department officials were aware
in early 2002 that detainees were accusing their guards of
mistreating the Quran.
One told an interrogator in March 2003 that guards had repeatedly
mishandled the Quran. The detainee asked why the United States, as a
supporter of freedom of religion, was using the Muslim holy book as
Still another said in October 2002 that he and other detainees had
been "beaten, spit upon and treated worse than a dog."
Separately on Wednesday, Amnesty International urged the United
States to shut down the prison, calling it "the gulag of our time."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the human rights group's
complaints were "unsupported by the facts" and allegations of
mistreatment were being investigated.
Some 540 men are being held at Guantanamo Bay on suspicion of links
to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban government or the al-Qaida terror
network. Some have been jailed for more than three years without
Di Rita said the charges of deliberate Quran desecration by U.S.
military personnel were "fantastic" and "not credible on their face"
because U.S. commanders were careful not to inflame passions among
"Commanders knew it was a very sensitive issue and they didn't need
the trouble," the spokesman said.
Di Rita said some detainees had been trained to make such false
claims as a psychological tactic.
Indeed, the FBI records cite at least one instance in which a
detainee is said to have falsely claimed that a guard had dropped a
Quran. "In actuality the detainee dropped the Quran and then blamed
the guard. Many other detainees reacted to this claim," the FBI
document said, and that sparked an uprising "on or about 19-20 July
In an April 6, 2002, FBI interrogation, one of the detainees said
guards had been "pushing them around and throwing their waste bucket
at them in the cell, sometimes with waste still in the bucket, and
kicking the Quran."
Another detainee stated he had been beaten unconscious at Guantanamo
Bay in the spring of 2002, a period in which U.S. interrogators were
pressing hard for intelligence information they believed some of the
detainees held on the planning, structure and tactics of Osama bin
Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.
The newly released FBI records do not indicate whether the
allegations were investigated or substantiated.
In response to a recent Newsweek story, later retracted, that U.S.
officials had confirmed allegations of Quran desecration at
Guantanamo Bay, Pentagon officials have said repeatedly that they
have turned up no credible, substantiated claims that U.S. military
guards had deliberately treated the Muslim holy book with disrespect.
Di Rita said the Pentagon had not seen the new FBI documents until
they were made public Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties
Union. The ACLU said it had received them in response to a federal
court order that directed the FBI and other agencies to comply with
the organization's request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Large portions of the interrogation summaries were blacked out by
FBI censors before being released to the ACLU.
In January 2003, the military issued a three-page written guideline
for handling a detainee's Quran, including a stipulation that it
should be handled "as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art,"
and that it not be placed in "offensive areas such as the floor,
near the toilet or sink, near the feet or dirty/wet areas."
Sinister Forces - A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft, Book
One: The Nine
-Caveat Lector- www.sinisterforces.info
Author Blog - Peter Levenda
Welcome to the Sinister Forces website and blog!
You have before you an invitation to investigate some of the deepest
layers of history, politics, religion ... and the strange glue of
synchronicity that binds them all together. We will look at
contemporary politics and culture to find the hidden links that
connect current events to ancient, sinister, forces.
Like the book -- Sinister Forces -- this is not a foray into
speculative history. Rather, it is based on a review of primary
sources (declassified government documents, autobiographies, etc).
Neither is this your standard conspiracy theory blog. We believe
there is a third perspective available to us, one that is neither
conspiracy theory nor mainstream history but a way of looking at the
events that shape our lives and our conscious reality that owes more
to cutting-edge physics than it does to classical physics, and to
the technologies of consciousness than it does to classical
psychology and religion.
We believe that the observer affects the event being observed,
whether the event is the smashing of an atom or the election of a
president. We wonder if perhaps both the conspiracy theorist and the
skeptic may be right.
Was the JFK assassination a particle, or a wave?
This is going to be a very important year in the history of our
country, and of the world. Events are taking place that were set in
motion more than a hundred years ago. In the Middle East, we are
still fighting a war that has its origin in ancient times. In the
Balkans, we are still fighting World War I. In Asia, we are still
struggling with the aftermath of World War II and the Korean War.
And in the prisons of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, we are still
experimenting with the techniques developed by the G-scale doctors
of Operations BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, and MK-ULTRA.
The talk-show pundits are used to talking about current events as if
they are only ... well, current. There is no context, no historical
framework, for understanding these events in any kind of
perspective. We don't understand -- have not even begun to
contemplate -- that what is going on today around us has its
spiritual and psychological components and implications. That is the
mistake made by those who experimented upon the human mind in the
1950s and 1960s in the name of the Cold War and in fear of the
practice that has come to be known as "brainwashing". The New Age
gurus and the conspiracy theorists are not talking to each other.
Maybe they should.
In the summer of 1963, a famous New Age teacher and philosopher
hosted a young woman at his estate outside Philadelphia during a
vacation visit. She had some house guests at her home in Dallas who
would later that year become notorious for their roles in the
assassination of a president. This connection -- and all that it
implies -- has never before been made public. Not until the
publication of "Sinister Forces", that is.
That same New Age teacher and philospher had, ten years earlier,
attended a seance in Maine in company with several members of
America's wealthiest families. The man running that seance would
later become famous as a paranormal investigator ... for the US
A man who claimed to be a bishop in an Eastern Orthodox church would
later be implicated -- rightly or wrongly -- in the JFK
assassination. Another man, who claimed to be a bishop in an Old
Catholic denomination, would later be implicated in the RFK
Still another man, who claimed to be a priest in an Eastern Orthodox
denomination, would be implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Religion, mysticism, the occult ... and politics. And history. As we
struggle with the relationship between church and state in the
United States, do we really understand what is really at stake? As
we try to find a way to accomodate religious and moral issues in our
political discourse, even as we turn away from the scenes of torture
and murder that make up the fabric of our news programs and talk
shows, we are confronted with the casualties of another war that may
be taking place below our event horizon, just out of sight of our
most advanced technologies and yet with an unholy resonance in our
own government, our own churches, and right into our own living
Sinister forces. And that's just Book One.
Welcome to another, perhaps more frightening but certainly more
illuminating, look at our world and the stakes we are playing for.
Welcome to the Inner Circle of THE NINE.
Author of Unholy Alliance - A Hstory of the Nazis and the Occult and
Sinister Forces - A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft a
three-volume shocking alternative to the conventional views of
The roots of coincidence and conspiracy in American politics, crime,
and culture are examined in this book, exposing new connections
between religion, political conspiracy, and occultism. Readers are
taken from ancient American civilization and the mysterious mound
builder culture to the Salem witch trials, the birth of Mormonism
during a ritual of ceremonial magic by Joseph Smith, Jr., and
Operations Paperclip and Bluebird. Not a work of speculative
history, this exposé is founded on primary source material and
historical documents. Fascinating details are revealed, including
the bizarre world of "wandering bishops" who appear throughout the
Kennedy assassinations; a CIA mind control program run amok in the
United States and Canada; a famous American spiritual leader who had
ties to Lee Harvey Oswald in the weeks and months leading up to the
assassination of President Kennedy; and the "Manson secret."
Bush May Give Pentagon OK To Weaponize Space
By Ryan Jones
The new space policy in the United States might see President George
W Bush allow the Pentagon greater authority to deploy space-based
weapons, media reports have quoted sources in administration and
defence experts as saying. According to reports, the new policy,
being jointly drafted by the Defence Department, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and others, might see
the proliferation of offensive weapons in space.
Issued by former US president Bill Clinton in 1996, the policy first
aimed at using satellites for defensive purposes like keeping an eye
on disarmament pacts and environmental cleanups. But security
officials showed concerns about the chances of military and global
communications satellites being attacked by enemy nations and said
that with more nations launching satellites, the development of
space weapons might not be far behind.
But industry watchers have warned such a move by United States might
actually result in an arms race with China, Russia, and other
countries. According to sources, the US already possesses the
blueprints for space-based weapon systems and if such a policy comes
through, the creation of such weapons might take as little as 18
months. Space weapons include small satellites attacking other
satellites, and laser and radio waves weapons as also small planes
that drop destructive material on ground targets.
"It certainly has the potential to be a significant moment if the US
embraces a policy that advocates space weapons. That contributes to
other states being interested," warned said Karl Mueller, a defence
policy analyst at Rand Corp, a firm handling research for the
His contentions are echoed by Theresa Hitchens, president, Center
for Defense Information. "I fear it is going to change the direction
of US space policy that has been steady since Eisenhower was
president. Up to now, this has been a campaign by the Air Force to
have the freedom to do what they want to do in space. This will, for
the first time in US history, give them the go-ahead," she said,
adding, "Let's think of a world where US has 'death stars'
everywhere in space that are going over countries every 10 minutes.
Do you think other countries are going to accept that?"
However, the White House has denied trying to 'weaponize
space'. "Let me make that clear right off the top, because you asked
about the weaponization of space, and the policy that we're talking
about is not looking at weaponizing space," said Scott McClellan,
President Bush's media secretary.
However, he added, "Certainly during the last eight or nine years,
there have been a number of domestic and international developments
that have changed the threats and challenges facing our space
capabilities. There are countries that have taken an interest in
space. They have looked at technologies that could threaten our
space systems and so you obviously need to take that into account
when you,re updating the policy." McClellan said that the US
believed in 'the peaceful exploration of space'.
STYLE & CULTURE
Bulworth takes on the Terminator
Warren Beatty enters, stage left, and breaks Hollywood's silence
against the governor.
By Rachel Abramowitz
Times Staff Writer
May 25, 2005
"I see nothing wrong with Maria [Shriver] becoming a Republican. I'd
say many of my best friends are Republicans," says Warren Beatty,
Oscar-winning actor-director and liberal citizen-activist. Over the
phone, his legendary voice purrs. He knows exactly what he's saying,
and although his tone is wry, he's not really joking.
Though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's poll numbers have been dropping
thanks to advertising campaigns by teachers and nurses, Hollywood,
usually a hotbed of liberal activism, has so far remained mum about
this former denizen.
In the last few months, Beatty, the star of and force behind such
seminal films as "Shampoo" and "Bonnie and Clyde," has become the
first big name to break the entertainment community's unofficial
speak-no-evil toward Schwarzenegger and his wife, Shriver.
Over the weekend, Beatty, 68, gave his first commencement speech
ever to the graduating class of UC Berkeley's Goldman School of
Public Policy, and used the occasion to humorously but witheringly
attack Schwarzenegger much like the candid candidate Jay
Billington Bulworth from his 1998 political satire. He derided the
governor for "his reactionary right-wing agenda," "his bullying of
labor and the little guy," his plan to spend money on a "totally
unnecessary special election" and his refusal to raise taxes on the
rich. Beatty asked Schwarzenegger to "cut down the photo ops, the
fake events, the fake issues, the fake crowds
the 'language problems,' the broken promises, the 'Minutemen,' the
prevarications and put some sunlight on some taxes.
"It's become time to define a Schwarzenegger Republican a
Schwarzenegger Republican is a Bush Republican who says he's a
Schwarzenegger Republican," Beatty said. "Can't we accept that
devotion to the building of the body politic is more complex and a
little more sensitive than devotion to body-building?
"Does that make me a 'girlie-man'?" asked one of the 20th century's
most famous Lotharios.
Beatty, a political veteran who's worked for every Democratic
presidential candidate since Robert Kennedy in 1968, dismissed
Schwarzenegger's claims of uniting both sides of the political
aisle. "By bipartisanship, do you mean the Kennedy family?" he said
to the Berkeley crowd. "Governor I knew Jack Kennedy.
"Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Governor, you're no Kennedy
Within hours, Beatty, a blue-chip Hollywood figure famous for 46
years, was swatted down by the Schwarzenegger team. The governor's
communication director, Robert Stutzman, dismissed him as
"I don't think that that's the most intelligent response for Arnold
to have his people give," Beatty muses a couple of days later,
though he seems jazzed by his return to the public policy
limelight. "I guess I needed to say some of those things."
A spokesman for Shriver declined to comment about Beatty's recent
remarks, and Schwarzenegger spokesman Vince Sollitto said, "His
comments don't merit any more of a response than we provided before.
We didn't believe that they're personal in nature." He added a
refrain that the governor's office has tried to inject into the
debate: "Warren's just mad at Republicans because he's afraid
they're going to cut off his Social Security."
Beatty advised the Kerry campaign during the last election, but
stayed in the background because, he says, "I felt that the
Republican campaign was too successfully demonizing the
entertainment community. To be more publicly visible in that
campaign could do as much harm as it would help." Of course, the
stakes change when it's all-Hollywood mano a mano.
"In California, it's much more difficult to demonize the
entertainment community when the governor is an entertainer. If I'm
leading the way on that, that's good," Beatty says. Indeed, this is
the second anti-Schwarzenegger speech that Beatty has delivered in
the last few months, and he's not ruling out more.
In Hollywood, Beatty's "the only one out there," says Andrew Spahn,
a DreamWorks executive active in Democratic politics. "He's been out
front on this and helped to give voice to some disorganized
Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the USC Annenberg School for
Communication, notes, "Schwarzenegger has such a long personal
history with so many players here. On balance, they'd rather be
quiet than express publicly their views that they disagree with him.
He's a very congenial companion so it's tougher to criticize someone
that you have a relationship with than a politician you might not
know. It's axiomatic that Hollywood is a relationship town."
However, he adds: "What [Beatty's] saying is something that people
have been saying in private. He has nothing to lose. In same ways,
he has at least the same kind of standing in this creative community
that the governor does."
Before Schwarzenegger's political ascension, he was regarded as a
waning action star, long on chutzpah and marketing might. Beatty's
recent films might not have attracted the legions of teenage boys,
but inside the community, he is still viewed as a brilliant A-list
talent, part of the permanent aristocracy. Of course, power does
change everything. At the Golden Globes this year, Schwarzenegger
was the only person whose arrival in a room full of celebrities
Still, as it's been for decades, whenever Beatty talks, the media
wonder if he's planning to run for public office. During his speech,
Beatty said that Schwarzenegger "knows I'm a private citizen just as
he was a year ago, I'm an opponent of his muscle-bound conservatism
with a longer experience in politics than he has and, although I
don't want to run for governor, I'd do one helluva lot better job
than he's done." A couple of days later, Beatty demurs and seems
keen on simply being a "truth teller," although he does say, "One
never knows at what point one becomes sufficiently inflamed to take
a step that one does not basically want to take."
One unusual feature of Beatty's address was his reference to his own
relatively modest background. "I grew up a nice Southern Baptist boy
in Virginia. My parents and grandparents were teachers," he told the
graduating class. It seemed a pointed reference to Schwarzenegger's
frequent use of his rags-to-riches story as part of his campaign
sell. Beatty explains that he was trying to make the point that "the
usurpation by the rabid right wing of the message of the church on a
national or state level shouldn't be permitted. As a Democrat, I
feel that the basic tenets of the Christian church that I grew up in
are 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' and 'Love
one another.' I simply believe that the philosophy of the Democratic
Party is closer to those Christian principles than what has become
the principles of what I would call the Republican activist base."