Posted At : June 11, 2009 8:06 AM | Posted By : Admin Related Categories: What Not To Do With UXO
Panama City, Florida A 37-year commercial fisherman fishing 50 miles off the coast of Panama City in the Gulf of Mexico caught more than just fish when he pulled in a missile unveiling a curious catch when he returned from an expedition through the Gulf of Mexico this week: A corroded missile that had been fired from an F-15 fighter jet.… The man reportedly kept the eight-foot long missile strapped to roof of his boat for 10 days before returning to port in Madeira Beach, near St. Petersburg.
Fisherman Rodney Salomon hooked the missile about 50 miles off the Panhandle town of Panama City and then kept it on his boat, the Broad Venture, for ten days. Salomon hoped to keep it as a souvenir, but took precautions because he didn't know if it was live.
"I had it secure. I keep it cool," he said, adding that he packed it with ice.
Local authorities first said the projectile was live and unstable, but Eglin Air Force Base later said it was a telemetry missile that carried no explosives. Still, the MacDill Air Force Base Bomb Squad inspected and dismantled the missile after Salomon returned to port on Monday evening in Madeira Beach, near St. Petersburg.
Eglin spokesman Samuel King said the bomb squad was needed to retrieve and dispose of sensitive technology used to measure and transmit data on the missile, which was fired in August 2004 from an F-15 fighter jet during a test.
When the man reported the find to police, they responded with a civilian bomb squad. After confirming that the item was military ordnance, the bomb squad called the EOD unit from MacDill AFB for technical support.
EOD identified the corroded missile as a live AIM-9. EOD rendered the missile safe in a nearby parking lot before transporting it off-site for proper disposal. The Air Force reported that the missile most likely came from a training exercise conducted in August 2004 by the 53rd weapons evaluation group based out of Tyndall AFB.
A local Florida news station covering the story interviewed the man who reportedly stated - "I had it strapped to the roof of my boat as we rode through lightning storms.....I wasn't scared."
Local authorities first said the projectile was live and unstable, but Eglin Air Force Base later said it was a telemetry missile that carried no explosives. Still, the MacDill Air Force Base Bomb Squad inspected and dismantled the missile after Salomon returned to port on Monday evening in Madeira Beach, near St. Petersburg.
Eglin spokesman Samuel King said the bomb squad was needed to retrieve and dispose of sensitive technology used to measure and transmit data on the missile, which was fired in August 2004 from an F-15 fighter jet during a test.
"Once we found out it was ours, our guidance was that it needed to be destroyed," King said.
The Air Force and Navy use Gulf waters off the Panhandle for weapons training. King said that the weapons evaluation group tests about 300 missiles over the Gulf each year.
Salomon told authorities he had seen other missiles in the same area and asked if he could keep his catch once it had been dismantled. The request was denied.
Well, what’s a guy to do: practice catch and release fishing, or get screwed out of your trophy by the government?
As for this Sidewinder Missile being a harmless non-explosive device; I think someone is telling a helluva fish story, and it’s not the fisherman this time!
Be sure to bookmark Judicial Matters for the latest on conservative misinformation in media coverage of President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
On Tuesday morning, President Obama announced his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. In the four short days that followed, understandably, most of the media's attention has centered on the nominee, though much of that attention has been riddled with conservative misinformation.
Yesterday, Media Matters released a special report noting that in coverage of Obama's announcement, the media have advanced numerous myths and falsehoods about Sotomayor. In some cases, the media assert the falsehoods themselves; in others, they report unchallenged the claims of others.
The report suggests that in addition to evaluating these claims on their merits, the media should also consistently report that conservatives were reportedly very clear about their intentions to oppose Obama's nominee, no matter who it was. Their attacks must be assessed in the context of their reported plans to use the confirmation process to, among other things, "help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats."
As documented in the report, the myths that have emerged or resurfaced since Sotomayor's nomination was announced include:
Sotomayor advocated legislating from the bench
Sotomayor said, "Latina judges are obviously better than white male judges"
Sotomayor's Supreme Court reversal rate is "high"
Liberal judges like Sotomayor are "activist[s]"
Sotomayor was "[s]oft on New Jersey [c]orruption"
New Haven firefighters case shows Sotomayor is an "activist"
Sotomayor lacks the intellect to be an effective justice
Sotomayor is "domineering" and "a bit of a bully"
"Empathy" is code for "liberal activist"
Be sure to read the entire report for a detailed breakdown of the facts dispelling these right-wing myths and falsehoods.
In all, this week, Media Matters released more than 100 research items, blog posts, video clips, and columns surrounding media coverage of the Supreme Court and Sotomayor's nomination.
As the week went on, it became clearer that Sotomayor would be a victim of attacks from conservatives in the media reminiscent of those on Obama:
MSNBC's Pat Buchanan called Sotomayor a "lightweight," "an anti-white, liberal judicial activist." He and his sister Bay both claimed that Sotomayor's nomination was the result of "affirmative action."
Media Matters' Eric Boehlert went head-to-head with former Rep. Tom Tancredo on CNN over the context of Sotomayor's past comments. During the segment, Tancredo claimed Sotomayor was a member of the "Latino KKK," earning the right-wing former congressman the mocking of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
Jeffrey Kuhner, filling in for right-wing radio host Michael Savage, claimedSotomayor believes "that America is a racist, sexist, homophobic and misogynist society."
Fox News' Glenn Beck said Sotomayor's appointment was more evidence of a Marxist "hostile takeover" of the United States. He also called her a "racist," who "is not that bright" and "divisive."
Savage described Sotomayor as "Chairman O's pick for the Supreme Court" and a "radical activist."
Radio host and conservative movement leader Rush Limbaugh called Sotomayor "an angry woman," "bigot," and "racist."
Mark Krikorian, over at the National Review Online, had an issue with the pronunciation of Sotomayor's name, writing that "it sticks in my craw."
Fox News' Sean Hannity claimed Obama turned "his back on Mainstream America" by nominating "the most divisive nominee possible," a "radical."
Politico's Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin initially reported that Sotomayor was "a Latina single mother" despite the fact that Sotomayor has no children.
If media coverage of week one of the Sotomayor nomination is any indication, it's going to be a long, hot summer. Fear not, though -- Media Matters will be there through it all.
Other major stories this week:
Is there something in the water at Fox Nation?
Back in March, while promoting its newly launched website, TheFoxNation.com, Fox News ran advertisements telling viewers that "[i]t's time to say 'no' to biased media and 'yes' to fair play and free speech." In the weeks since the website's launch, Media Matters hasdocumented more than 50 instances where Fox Nation failed to come close to the bias-free, "fair play" standard set out by Fox News.
This week has been particularly awful. Case in point:
Be sure to check out the Media Mattersarchive on Free Republic ... er, Fox Nation.
Rush Limbaugh's Failure-palooza
By now, everybody watching the Obama administration remembers Rush Limbaugh's well wishes for the new president the day before his inauguration -- that's when El Rushbo said, "I hope Obama fails." The comment picked up a head of steam in the press, provoking Limbaugh to elaborate two days later, saying, "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles ... because his father was black." A month later, Rush let us all in on "the dirty little secret," as he described it, that "every Republican in this country wants Obama to fail, but none of them have the guts to say so; I am willing to say it."
Since then, Rush has been quick to wish failure on all kinds of things. For example, back in February, Limbaugh said, "I want the stimulus package to fail." In March, he strangelycompared his hope for Obama's failure to a Steelers fan wanting the Cardinals' QB to fail in the Super Bowl. The same month, he seemed to offer up some reverse psychology,claiming, "If there's anybody who wants America as it was founded to fail, it's Barack Obama."
And so, Rush Limbaugh's failure-palooza marched on this week as news of Obama's selection of Sotomayor for a seat on the Supreme Court was reported. Without skipping a beat, Limbaugh said of the president's nominee: "Do I want her to fail? Yeah."
To give you an idea of how completely warped Rush's thinking is, two days after his Sotomayor "fail" comments, Limbaugh claimed, "This country is failing because President Obama is succeeding."
So, Was It Sasquatch Or Chupacabra Driving The Chrysler?
Another week, another bizarre conspiracy theory from the right. Eric Boehlert brings us the story of the budding Obama scandal that's been hatched this week within the right-wing blogosphere, which has all the hallmarks of previous failed Obama conspiracy theories. The latest centers on the idea that Obama's White House, as part of the automaker's restructuring, personally selected which Chrysler dealership would be closed. Not only that, but the Obama White House punished dealerships whose owners gave campaign contributions to Republicans. The horror!
Conservative bloggers excitedly claim that their research proves a massive conspiracy's afoot. Their research? A laundry list of names of dealers who have indeed given money to the GOP and have indeed been closed down as part of the GM restructuring. So why doesn't that prove Obama has a hit list? First, because nearly 800 dealerships are being closed down, yet bloggers detail campaign contributions for less than 10 percent of those dealership owners. Second, all the bloggers actually prove is that a lot of dealership owners are Republicans. Does that surprise anyone?
Statistician Nate Silver demolishes the theory with actual research, noting, "It shouldn't be any surprise, by the way, that car dealers tend to vote -- and donate -- Republican. They are usually male, they are usually older (you don't own an auto dealership in your 20s), and they have obvious reasons to be pro-business, pro-tax cut, anti-green energy and anti-labor. Car dealerships need quite a bit of space and will tend to be located in suburban or rural areas. I can't think of too many other occupations that are more natural fits for the Republican Party."
Slamming prisoners into walls, locking them in boxes with insects; these memos are the smoking gun for the sadistic crimes of the Bush administration.
The Obama administration has finally released four long-awaited legal memos used by the Bush administration to design its torture program -- and although their existence, like U.S. torture itself, has been an open secret for years, the memos are nonetheless shocking.
Written in a dispassionate legal tone, the documents contain the professional opinion of Office of Legal Council attorneys Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury as they assessed the CIA's "harsh interrogation techniques" between 2002 and 2005. Each method is described in sadistic detail, and each would surely be heinous if experienced on its own. But, as pointed out in the famous "Bybee" memo, dated August 1, 2002 -- the "interrogation team planned to use these techniques "in some sort of escalating fashion, culminating with the waterboard, though not necessarily ending with this technique."
The torture memos are available on the ACLU website. But if you can't bring yourself to read them, below are ten disturbing excerpts that provide a hideous glimpse of what was done in the name of Americans in the so-called "war on terror." As you read them, keep in mind that the Obama administration has already announced that it will not seek charges against the people who carried out the actions they describe. "In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution," Obama said in a statement.
"This is a time for reflection, not retribution. ... We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."
Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement, too. "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," he said.
WHICH WAS EXACTLY WHAT
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
INTENDED.
1. Walling (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002) "A flexible false wall will be constructed. The individual is placed with his heels touching the wall: The interrogator pulls the individual forward and then quickly and firmly pushes the individual into the wall. It is the individual's shoulder blades that hit the wall. During this motion, the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect to help prevent whiplash … "You have orally informed us that the false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock or surprise the individual. In part, the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action."
2. The Facial (or Insult) Slap (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002) "With the facial slap or insult slap, the interrogator slaps the individual's face with fingers slightly spread. The hand makes contact with the area directly between the tip of the individual's chin and the bottom of the corresponding earlobe. The interrogator invades the individual's personal space. The goal of the facial slap is not to inflict physical pain that is severe or lasting. Instead, the purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation …"
3. Cramped Confinement & insects Placed In a Confinement Box(Bybee memo, August 1, 2002) "You would like to place (Abu) Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would however, place a harmless insect in the box. You have orally informed us that you would in fact place a harmless insect such as a caterpillar in the box with him...
"Focusing in part on the fact that the boxes will be without light, placement in these boxes would constitute a procedure designed to disrupt profoundly the senses...
"With respect to the small confinement box, you have informed us that he would spend at most two hours in this box ... For the larger box, in which he can both stand and sit, he may be placed in this box for up to eighteen hours at a time ..."
4. Dietary Manipulation (Bradbury memo, May 10, 2005)
"This technique involves the substitution of commercial liquid meal replacements for normal food, presenting detainees with a bland, unappetizing, but nutritionally complete diet. You have informed us that the CIA believes dietary manipulation makes other techniques, such as sleep deprivation, more effective. "Medical officers are required to ensure adequate fluid and nutritional intake, and frequent medial monitoring takes place while any detainee is undergoing dietary manipulation."
5. Nudity (Bradury memo, May 10, 2005) "This technique is used to cause psychological discomfort, particularly if a detainee, for cultural or other reasons, is especially modest. When the technique is employed, clothing can be provided as an instant reward for cooperation. During and between interrogation sessions, a detainee may be kept nude, provided that ambient temperatures and the health of the detainee permit.
"... Interrogators can exploit the detainee's fear of being seen naked. In addition, female officers involved in the interrogation process may see the detainees naked, and … we will assume that detainees subjected to nudity as an interrogation technique are aware that they may be seen naked by females."
6. Abdominal Slap (Bradbury memo, May 10, 2005) "In this technique, the interrogator strikes the abdomen of the detainee with the back of his open hand. The interrogator must have no rings or other jewelry on his hand. The interrogator is positioned directly in front of the detainee, generally no more than than 18 inches from the detainees. With his fingers held tightly together and fully extended, and with his palm toward the interrogator's own body, using his elbow as a fixed pivot point, the interrogator slaps the detainee in the detainee's abdomen. The interrogator may not use a fist, and the slap must be delivered above the navel and below the sternum. This technique is used to condition a detainee to pay attention tot the interrogator's questions and to dislodge expectations that the detainee will not be touched."
7. Water Dousing and "Flicking" (Bradbury memo, May 10, 2005) "Cold water is poured on the detainee either from a container or from a hose without a nozzle. This technique is intended to weaken the detainee's resistance and persuade him to cooperate with interrogators. … A medical officer must observe and monitor the detainee throughout application of this technique, including for signs of hypothermia. "… You have also described a variation of water dousing involving much smaller quantities of water; this variation is known as 'flicking.' Flicking of water is achieved by the interrogator wetting his fingers and then flicking them at the detainee, propelling droplets at the detainee. Flicking of water is done 'in an effort to create a distracting effect, to awaken, to startle, to irritate, to instill humiliation, or to cause temporary insult … Although water may be flicked into the detainee's face with this variation, the flicking of water at all times is done in such a manner as to avoid the inhalation or ingestion of water by the detainee."
8. Sleep Deprivation (more than 48 hours) (Bradbury memo, May 10, 2005) "The primary method of sleep deprivation involves the use of shackling to keep the detainee awake. In this method, the detainee is standing and is handcuffed, and the handcuffs are attached by a length of chain to the ceiling. The detainee's hands are shackled in front of his body, so that the detainee has approximately a two- to three-foot diameter of movement. The detainee's feet are shackled to a bolt in the floor. "… In lieu of standing sleep deprivation, a detainee may instead be seated on and shackled to a small stool. The stool supports the detainee's weight, but is too small to permit the subject to balance himself sufficiently to go to sleep… "… We understand that a detainee undergoing sleep deprivation is generally fed by hand by CIA personnel so that he need not be unshackled… "If the detainee is clothed, he wears an adult diaper under his pants … If the detainee is wearing a diaper, it is checked regularly and changed as necessary. The use of the diaper is for sanitary and health purposes of the detainee; it is not used for the purpose of humiliating the detainee and it is not considered to be an interrogation technique. "The maximum allowable duration for sleep deprivation authorized by the CIA is 180 hours ... You have informed us that to date, more than a dozen detainees have been subjected to sleep deprivation of more than 48 hours, and three detainees have been subjected to sleep deprivation of more than 96 hours."
9. Combination of Techniques (Bradbury memo, May 10, 2005) "Your office has outlined the manner in which many of the individual techniques we previously considered could be combined … "In a prototypical interrogation, the detainee begins his first interrogation session stripped of his clothes, shackled, and hooded, with the walling collar over his head and around his neck. … The interrogators remove the hood and explain that the detainee can improve his situation by cooperating and may say that the interrogators 'will do what it takes to get important information.' As soon as the detainee does anything inconsistent with the interrogators' instructions, the interrogators use an insult slap or abdominal slap. They employ walling if it becomes clear that the detainee is not cooperating in the interrogation. This sequence 'may continue for several more iterations as the interrogators continue to measure the [detainee's] resistance posture and apply a negative consequence to [his] resistance efforts.' The interrogators and security officers then put the detainee into position for standing sleep deprivation, begin dietary manipulation through a liquid diet, and keep the detainee nude (except for a diaper). The first interrogation session, which could have lasted from 30 minutes to several ours, would then be at an end. "If the interrogation team determines there is a need to continue, and if the medical and psychological personnel advise that there are no contraindications, a second session may begin."
10. Waterboarding (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002)
"Finally, you would like to use a technique called the 'waterboard.' In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual's blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of "suffocation and incipient panic," i.e., the perception of drowning...
"We find that the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death. As you have explained the waterboard procedure to us, it creates in the subject the uncontrollable physiological sensation that the subject is drowning ...
"Although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statuatory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering ... you have advised us that the relied is almost immediate when the cloth is removed from the nose and mouth. In the absence of prolonged mental harm, no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture."
The Bush administration’s controversial policies on detentions, interrogations and warrantless wiretapping were underpinned by legal memoranda. While some of those memos have been released (primarily as a result of ACLU lawsuits), the former administration kept far more memos secret than has been previously understood. At least three dozen by our count.
Note: Our list is quite inclusive, but we have chosen to leave off some documents, such as early drafts of later memos.
Click on the headline of each entry to see more information. Or mouse over the timeline and click on a box to jump to the corresponding entry. We’ll update the list if and when more memos are released.
This memo reaffirms the White House's support for the CIA's interrogation program, according to a Washington Post report. The actual date of this memo is not known.
