Abusing Detainees

The American public learned in April 2004 that some detainees were being abused in Iraq by U.S. military police who were encouraged to do so by Military Intelligence and by civilian employees of private intelligence contractors, of which there were sixty in Iraq. Little more would come to light about the private contractors, but eventually a substantial body of evidence developed suggesting the use of torture in the war on terror was by no means confined to isolated occurrences. As late as May 2006, the director of human rights for Amnesty International reported that “this increasing outsourcing of war has created a virtual rules-free zone for private military companies” and that the “awarding, overseeing, and enforcing of contracts is shrouded in secrecy....” She noted, “Contractors have been linked to shootings of civilians and to sexual abuse and torture of detainees.” One CIA contractor has been sent to prison for eight years for torture resulting in the death of a detainee. Two other cases have been thrown out of court, and seventeen others are languishing in the office of the US attorney for Eastern Virginia. That office is packed with loyal Bush appointees, who are not expected to investigate or act. The Justice Department has told Congress that there are jurisdictional problems in pursuing cases involving mercenaries. Experts, including those from Amnesty International , believe that the abuse cases involving military contractors easily run into the hundreds. In 2005, videotape footage surfaced showing contract employees machine-gunning occupied civilian cars on an Iraqi highway. This did not involve detainees, but it suggests that some contract employees are lawless cowboys. It is known that the number of contract employees in Iraq is about 2/3s of the number of Armed Forces personnel.

In 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a memorandum authorizing severe physical interrogation techniques that were to be combined with harsh psychological methods. Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey objected and warned that those involved in producing the memo would be ashamed of themselves when the world eventually learned of this policy. The policy memorandum was signed at a time when the administration was vigorously denying that the U.S. was involved in torturing prisoners. When the memo came to light in 2007, the administration refused to provide Congress with any of the paperwork that had been developed as background and underpinning for the memo.

By August 2006, there were 450 prisoners at Guantanimo, as the US had released some prisoners due to international pressure. Those being released were told not to talk to a lawyer and often were asked to sign confessions as a condition for release. Five hundred people were detained in Afghanistan, where the US had used at one time or another 35 different detention centers. Another 13,000 were held in Iraq, and 98 died while in various detention centers. There was no data on how many were held in secret CIA prisons around the world.

In May 2004, photographs surfaced that showed two soldiers posing with the dead body of a detainee who had apparently been beaten to death by CIA or private intelligence contractor operatives. The body was there because the CIA and military interrogators could not agree on who should dispose of it. The Red Cross had been complaining about the abuses since October 2003 and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had also expressed deep concern about the abuses. The FBI had been complaining since 2002 that interrogation techniques at Guantanimo had crossed the line of propriety and that detainees were being abused. The administration claimed abuses were isolated to a handful of wayward National Guard personnel. Yet some of the photographs revealed torture techniques known only to skilled professionals. The interrogations were ultimately under the control of military task forces that answered to the Joint Special Operations command. A seasoned retired CIA officer claimed that these teams “had full authority to wack—to go in and conduct ‘executive action’….”

It is likely that the techniques were based on decades of the study of “no-touch” torture techniques. In the 1960s, the CIA spent enormous amounts on these investigations that included sleep deprivation, strange eating schedules, stressful positions, loud noises, self-inflicted pain, sexual humiliation, intense never ending light, and scrambled sleep. Some of the work was farmed out to experimenters at Cornell and McGill Universities. It was found that the interrogators easily slipped from no-touch techniques to traditional brutality.

It soon became apparent that a pattern of abuse had existed in Afghanistan and at the Guantanimo detention facility. In Bagram, Afghanistan two men died due to repeated beatings in December 2002. At first, the military tried to sweep the matter under the rug, but eventually seven soldiers were charged with abuses. The investigation continued for two years, but documents were somehow lost, key people not interviewed, and evidence was mishandled. Finally, in October 2004, it appeared that twenty others might be charged for offenses ranging from lying to unintentional manslaughter. A year later, a regiment of the 173 Airborne burned the bodies of two Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan, a clear violation of Islamic custom. Across the globe at Guantanimo, authorities were looking into charges that soldiers had degraded the corpse of a prisoner.

It became known that commandos, probably acting under operation “Copper Green,” seized people in Afghanistan and placed them in “the Pit” and other detention centers, where they were subjected to various forms of abuse, including sexual. They had learned that sex, especially homosexual sex, was especially taboo among Muslims. It was thought that sexual degradation and photographing people in compromising sexual situations would produce information and even recruit prisoners to become informers. The prisoners would do whatever was necessary to prevent the photographs from being shown to their families. These techniques would also be employed in Iraq, and interrogation methods designed to play upon Islamic sensibilities were to be widely reported in Afghanistan, Guantanimo, and Iraq.

One of the Military Intelligence units involved in Bagram abuses was transferred to Iraq, where they continued to ply their skills. Months after the first revelation,, reports began to surface that some prisoners who were released from Guantanimo were claiming that they had been tortured by “prostitutes.” At Guantanimo, under the command of General Geoffrey Miller, interrogators played upon the detainees sexual sensitivities. A whole range of unspeakable techniques was used on Mohammed al Kahtani. This was the first indication that the pattern of abuse existed in Afghanistan and Guantanimo before we had military prisons in Iraq. Evidence surfaced that women questioned these men at Guantanimo in late night sessions that included the use of fake menstrual blood. Female interrogators wore Tight T-shirts, engaged in sexual touching, and paraded in miniskirts, and left bras and thong underwear hanging in the room. This often reduced the detainees to uncontrollable crying. One woman in a tight shirt rubbed her breasts against the back of a praying internee and then mocked him because he had an erection. A class action suite brought the Center for Rights has brought some complaints by detainees. One named Ahmed, was held for five months and tortured in various ways including being frequently bound, stripped, exposed to extreme cold, and kicked and beaten. He was also kicked in his genitals. Ahmed also had to watch his father being tortured. His savings were confiscated and his house destroyed.

Four months of extreme abuses at Abu Ghraib seemed to begin after the Guantanimo Camp X-Ray commander, Major General Geoffrey Miller was ordered to visit the site. Rumsfeld sent him there with oral orders to “Gitmoize” the camp. He was sent to “Gitmoize” the facility, and he told its commander Reserve Brigadier General Janice Karpinski to turn over effective control of the prison to military intelligence. General Miller told the staff to “treat these prisoners like dogs” and said that the guards should soften up the detainees for the intelligence people. Even before his visit, the prison was a hellhole due to overcrowding and the failure of higher command to provide adequate supplies and staff. Karpinski was refused permission to release people who had been cleared. After Miller’s visit, the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade had control of the facility. When news of the torture came out, Karpinski was relieved of command, and the Bush administration later reduced her to colonel on charges that had nothing to do with Abu Gharib. She had no opportunity to defend herself

Lt. General Keith Alexander, as Army Chief of Staff, was sent to Iraq to persuade Colonel T. Pappas, the intelligence officer who had been given control of the camp, to comply with General Jeffrey Miller’s plan to “Gitmoize” interrogation facilities in Iraq by intensifying interrogation techniques. In 2006, Pappas faced the possibility that he could be charged with permitting prisoners to be abused. .
On September 14, 2003, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez also ordered more intense questioning methods, but they did not include the most troubling techniques revealed in photographs, except the use of dogs. Most of the abuses occurred in Cellblock 1A, which was off-limits to Karpinski and her Reserve troops. General Miller had ordered some unusual interrogation techniques for Mohammed el Quahtani, the so-called “Twentieth Hijacker.” This person was dressed in women’s underwear and required to perform sex acts in the presence of a female. A leash was placed around his neck and he was required to perform dog tricks. A leaked December 2005 inspector general’s report stated that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld monitored these sado-sexual practices via telephone.

It is unclear what measures Major General Miller recommended. At some time after the visit, he was briefed –“read in”- about “Copper Green” which Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice had approved after 9/11, and was most probably pursuant to the program Bush, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft signed off to, which was designed to extract information from “high value” prisoners. It was a “black”, special-access program (SAP) that authorized elite personnel from the CIA, Seals, and other agencies to “Grab whom you must. Do what you want.”

Dr. Rice signed off on Copper Green, but there is evidence that she did not know about the 2002 “torture memo” which made Copper Green and its outgrowths so horrible. However, it is known that Dr. Rice played a major role in shaping torture policy. She and other NSC officers carefully reviewed what the CIA could do to detainees. They all but orchestrated interrogation sessions, detailing whether slapping. Simulated drowning, etc. could occur. President Bush acknowledged that he knew that these discussions took place and approved of them.

On January 11, 2002, CIA briefers met with White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and David S. Addington, Cheney’s lawyer. The briefers said they would have problems obtaining actionable intelligence if they had to work within the rules of the Geneva Convention. Vice President Cheney took it upon himself to lead the effort to promote “robust interrogation” by finding a way around international law by redefining torture. The famous memo justifying torture was the work of Gonzales, Timothy E. Flanigan of the White House, Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, John Yoo, also of Justice, and Addington. Yoo, who is usually given most of the credit for the memo, later said it would be dangerous to let the military implement the memo. Built into it was a defense for the torturer. If he or she acted with the intent of obtaining information rather than inflicting harm, no crime was committed. Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney’s old mentor, claimed Cheney was the driving force in forging the new policy. Rice and Colin Powell learned of the August, 2002 memo on June 8, 2004. International Law professor Jordan Paust wrote, “Not since the Nazi era have so many lawyers been so clearly involved in international crimes concerning the treatment and interrogation of persons detained during war.”


It was the creation of the Copper Green program and its subsequent extension to Iraq that set the scene for horrible transgressions of human rights and international law.. Among them were guards urinating on detainees, riding them, and having snakes bite them. There were reports of homosexual rape and of guards jumping on the injured leg of a prisoner. It was later learned that some of the Arabic-speaking interrogators/torturers were the same people the Israelis used in South Lebanon in 1991. Under- Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone authorized “Copper Green” tactics at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq. Apparently “Copper Green” originally dealt with the abuse of high value detainees. Cambone’s order made possible the use of these techniques against many more detainees. More Military Intelligence and civilian intelligence people appeared, using aliases, and instructed military police to abuse the detainees. Some detainees were singled out for such extensive abuse that their names were not recorded. They were “ghost detainees” who existed in no records. Cambone resigned in late 2006.
Specialist Charles A. Garner, Jr. confided to whistle-blower Joseph M. Darby, “The Christian in me says its wrong. But the corrections officers says, ‘ I love to make a grown man piss on himself.’” In one instance, the sickly son of a former Iraqi official was stripped naked, driven around in a truck with mud spattered over him in order to induce the “high value” detainee to talk. He did so when more threats were made against the boy and rest of the family. The boy was later placed in cellblock where a sergeant warned he was likely to be raped. Smothering and chest compression techniques were often used to bring on near asphyxiation as a means of getting other high value captives to talk. At least two high-ranking Iraqi officers died this way, and there are believed to be at least six other homicides; although twenty-seven people died under interrogation in Iraq. One of the dead was the former head of the Iraqi Air Force, Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush.

There have been complaints of Islamic women being raped. A British paper first broke this story. Then Newsweek said that unreleased photographs showed a soldier having sex with a female detainee and soldiers having sex with juveniles. Nadia, a reporter for a London-based paper, was held there for six months and was first raped bt five soldiers to the refrains of heavy metal music. She reported :
One month later, a soldier showed up and told me in broken Arabic to take a shower. And before finishing my bath, he kicked the door open. I slapped him but he raped me like animals and called two of his colleagues, who forced me to have sex with them for up to 10 times," added Nadia.

Four months later, the female soldier came along with four male soldiers with a digital camera. She stripped me naked and started fondling me as if she was a man while her male colleagues broke into laughter and started taking photos.
Reluctant as I was, she fired four shots close to my head and threatened to kill me if I resist. Then, four soldiers raped me sadistically and I lost conscience. Later, she forced me to watch a clip of my raping, saying bluntly: ‘You were born to give us pleasure’.

When it was clear that the operations at Abu Ghraib prison had gotten out of hand, the CIA withdrew from the project. Several military Judge Advocate general officers tried unsuccessfully to get the New York State Bar Association to intervene. There was also great concern about the number of civilian contractors used in the operation because they were subjected to no restrains. For months, the International Red Cross and various human rights organizations had alerted the administration to the growing abuses.

It is unclear if the deaths of high value detainees at Al Asad, a remote air base, were connected to this program. There is unmistakable evidence based on photographic evidence that Sunni tribal leader Abdul Kareem Abdul Jaleel was tortured to death there. American medical personnel said he died of natural causes. About five bodies a week are delivered to Forensic Institute in Baghdad from American detention facilities. The Iraqi coroners and scientists are forbidden to examine bodies for which there is a US- issued death certificate, but they do look at them. Off the record, they say the bodies show obvious signs of torture.

High value suspected terrorists could be moved across borders and kept in various locations in a vast US interrogation network. This secret gulag or network of prisons was linked largely by CIA operated Gulf Stream and other executive jets. There is evidence that a number of shell corporations were used in these rendition operations. Rendition involved seizing a person in a foreign land and flying him to a secret CIA prison , also abroad, or to a foreign prison where he would be questioned by foreign jailers who were not bound by any rules of conduct. One was Aero Contractors, which operated out of the Johnston County Airport in Smithfield, NC. Prisoners were also turned over to other regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Pakistan for torture and interrogation. One Canadian citizen was held in Syria for three months, a matter that caused great consternation in Canada. Some were sent to other countries known for the use of brutal torture techniques Australian citizen Mamdouh Habid was held for forty-eight months in Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Guantanimo. The experiences he claimed were consistent with reports from other former detainees. He may have been considered a fairly high value prisoner because U.S. authorities knew he had trained in two Al Qaeda camps and had reason to suspect he might have trained people for the attack on 9/11.

At several of these sites, electric shock techniques were employed. Sometimes a wired helmet was used, which interrogators said was truth detector. American female interrogators touched his private parts, and one reached under her skirt and threw what she claimed were blood at him. `Egyptians snubbed out cigarettes on his skin and a Pakistani interrogator dropkicked him in the skull. Americans also beat him, and his head was hit against the floor at Guantanimo. By 2007, it was known that at least 300 people had been subjected to rendition by the George W. Bush administration.

These abuses have their origins in the Clinton administration, but they were vastly magnified in the subsequent administration. In the mid- 1990s, the Clinton administration laid the foundations for this program when it began to sanction the transportation of terrorist detainees to foreign countries for questioning. This policy of “rendition” was limited to people who had already been found guilty in our courts. The Bush administration broadened this policy to include mere suspects, and about one hundred and fifty have been subjected to rendition since 2001. The new policy was part of what Alberto Gonzales called the New Paradigm, the administration’s new approach to detention and interrogation. Rendition also changed in that it often meant more than just sending detainees to foreign countries, they were often held and questioned by Americans in safe houses in those countries.
Some theorize that much of the torture would have occurred even without the involvement of civilian and military authorities because soldiers were led to believe that the people they were fighting were terrorists, closely connected to those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.Eventually, Pentagon officials admitted that 90% of its detainees were innocent. The Geneva Conventions states: “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” So far, the preferred opinion of the government and most Americans is that these abuses were very limited and entirely the actions of a few low-ranking individuals.

. In 2005, Dana Priest of the Washington Post revealed that the US maintained a network of secret prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. The paper was persuaded not to mention two of the locations. A Swiss paper published intelligence information that showed that there were black holes in Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and the Ukraine. The highest-ranking Al Qaeda operatives are sent to “Bright Light,” a prison, it is said, from which there is no return. ABC News soon discovered secret prisons were in Poland and Romania. It also reported some of the black sites were being evacuated with prisoners being removed to somewhere in North Africa. The White House persuaded the network not to mention sites in Poland and Romania for four days, probably allowing time to complete the removals. The ABC television network agreed to this, not realizing the whole story had been broadcast on ABC Radio and placed on the website. All this fancy footwork was necessary so that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could deny the existence of the black holes and torture during a hastily arranged trip to Europe. Of course, all of this had been widely reported in Europe, but these “secrets” were withheld from American news consumers. The Republican Congress promptly launched an investigation of how this information was leaked.

Ms. Priest and her paper did their jobs, but most of the American media avoided using the word “torture” and followed the administration line of blaming a few, low-ranking bad apples. Moreover, the Democrats did not raise the question in the 2004 presidential campaign. When Bush was reelected, Yoo said the election had been a referendum on torture and that the public had decisively upheld the administration’s position. Although Secretary Rice denied the existence of secret prisons and seemed to deny rendition, Europeans did not drop the matter. On June 6, 2006, the Council of Europe released a 67-page report on CIA renditions across Europe. It even provided flight logs. At about that time, Italian investigative judge Armando Spataro in Milan activated a case against 22 agents who kidnapped Hussan Nsar. In November 2006, investigators finally found a memorandum in which President George W. Bush authorized policies for the handling of foreign detainees.

To appease public opinion, the Pentagon ordered Major General Antonio M. Taguba to undertake an investigation of the situation at Abu Ghraib. His orders were very narrow. He was to investigate the military police there but no one above them, including the military intelligence teams. One can assume that a report was expected that would result in the punishment of untrained prison guards and few else. It would develop later that it would be almost impossible to investigate many of the military intelligence people who were involved because they used fake names. Taguba’s report was thorough and it took little reading between the lines to understand the extent of the abuse and that this was just the work of young kids in the military police.

The report was leaked, and this, along with its contents, would destroy Taguba’s career. Old friends in uniform now avoided him, and Secretary Rumsfeld did not conceal his displeasure. The Secretary was mainly concerned with finding the leak and creating the false impression that he knew very little about all this and had only seen the pictures of abuse briefly before testifying before Congress. In fact, he had access to all that for months. General John Abizaid told him, “You and your report will be investigated.” Taguba thought, “I’d been in the Army thirty-two years by then, and it was the first time T thought I was in the Mafia.” He eventually concluded that it was impossible that the President had not been aware of the torture program all along. A member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee offered the prevailing view of the scandal: “Abu Ghraib was the price of defending democracy.” In January 2006, Taguba was ordered to resign.

Subsequently, the Pentagon decided that water-boarding should be discontinued, and the revised manual on interrogation specifically forbids it. However, the CIA is permitted to water-board prisoners, and both the Pentagon and Justice Department have ruled that testimony from detainees gathered through torture was admissible in court. Detainees do not have the right of habeas corpus to determine if their detainment is appropriate.

A FBI report released in 2008 revealed that agents knew of the torture almost at its inception. They were instructed not to participate. Agents watched prisoners being tortured hundreds of times but nothing was done to expose or stop these deplorable practices. This internal report praised the agents for their integrity and professionalism.



Sherman has written African American Baseball: A Brief History, which can be acquired from LuLu Publishing on line.http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?search_forum

Enron and the California Energy Crisis

Gaming the California Market
Enron’s power-selling subsidiary, Enron Energy Services, expected to make substantial profits in California in the year 2000. General Thomas White was its CEO and pursued a policy of encouraging traders to give substantial up-front discounts to acquire contracts and customers. The discounts often involved losses for the firm, but White was certain that they would easily be covered by profits generated in the California spot market in 2000. The Golden State did face an energy crisis in that year which followed into 2002, but it is unclear how much Enron netted during the crisis. The four-star general, who seemed to have been more a front man than an actual manager, tired of job by 2001. Enron CEO Kenneth Lay, who was briefly under consideration for Secretary of Energy, persuaded his friend George W. Bush as Secretary of the Army. ( )
The deregulation of wholesale electricity exposed California to a severe energy crisis in 2000-2001. Enron CEO Jeff Skilling had predicted that energy deregulation in California would save customers there $9 billion a year. Instead deregulation resulted in hiked costs from $7 billion to $27 in a year. California energy prices began to soar in 2001 and continued to do so until mid-2002. During the California energy crisis, the federal government did very little to protect California from price gauging or to look into charges that Enron and other large providers were creating artificial power shortages to drive up prices. On December 20, 2000, Bill Clinton, who had believed in deregulation, imposed price caps on energy going into the state and ended the crisis for the moment. Three days after George W. Bush occupied the white House, the price caps were removed and the Golden State again faced an energy crisis. Enron’s Ken Lay told Cheney, “The administration should reject any attempt to regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps or returning to archaic methods of determining the cost-basis of wholesale power.” Enron controlled 30% of the energy in California and three other western states, but it traded ten times as much energy as the other firms during the crisis. It did this by trading with itself and the others, thus putting itself in a position keep forcing prices to rise It was also able to charge from 63 to 185% more for energy than its competitors.

In the last days of the administration of George H.W. Bush, Congress passed legislation in 1993 permitting the states to deregulate energy. The same bill repealed the prohibition on energy companies donating to political campaigns, and the power companies thereafter donated $16 million to the Republican Party. In 1996, Governor Pete Wilson pushed through the California legislature a measure drafted Southern California Edison that partly deregulated electricity and permitting the utilities to collect a $ 28 billion bailout from ratepayers as a compensation for supporting deregulation. A portion of this money was used to cover stranded assets. This was the same ploy used to win approval in Texas under Governor George W. Bush. In 1998, the electric utilities invested $39 million to defeat Ralph Nader’s referendum to end deregulation.

Some California utilities sold off their generating plants to Duke Energy of North Carolina, Enron of Texas, and other out-of-state providers. During the crisis, PG&E and Edison paid heavily for this blunder facing bankruptcy because they had to pay ten times more for energy than when regulations were in force. Edison had assets that could have been sold off, and PG &E’s energy producing subsidiary was raking in record profits while its retailing arm was demanding relief. Credit Suisse First Boston told its customers that the California blackouts were created by the utilities in order to persuade the legislature to vote for rate increases. The utilities demanded and received another rate hike. A state investigation later revealed that key California generators withheld 30 to 50% of their energy to create shortages and at the worst times as much as 55 to 76% was withheld. Federal regulators obtained Williams energy power control room audiotapes of people receiving orders to drastically cut back on power output. Then federal regulators sealed the tapes and refused to loan them to California authorities. Williams had given $500,000 to the Republican Party and had participated in the Cheney energy task force.

By May 2001, California energy bills had increased 1,000% since the beginning of the crisis. At one point A megawatt hour cost $250, in comparison to about $12 in 1998. President Bill Clinton tried to address the problem on December 14, 2000 by ordering an end to uncontrolled speculation in energy going to California. That order was rescinded three days after George W. Bush was inaugurated. The Republican-controlled FERC did not do anything about California energy prices until late June, when caps were again applied. Perhaps, the new appointees, who owed their jobs partly to Ken Lay, thought there were legitimate questions about whether legislation passed in 1993 gave the agency power to act. ( )

Enron was also given a major voice in selecting Patrick Wood as the head of the agency that regulates interstate energy prices. Curtis Hebert, Jr., former head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, was appointed to a Republican seat on the FERC by President Bill Clinton. His friend Senate Majority Leader Majority Leader Trent Lott had sponsored him. When George W. Bush became president, Hebert became chairman of the commission. However, Hebert would soon have to be reappointed to the commission by President Bush. Kenneth L. Lay, president of ENRON, was made a member of Bush’s transition force and entrusted with the task of interviewing candidates for the FERC chairmanship. Lay had been considered for a slot on the first Bush’s cabinet. According to Herbert, Lay interviewed him and later telephoned to outline conditions for his support. The New York Times reported that Lay wrote to Hebert promising support if the chairman accepted Enron’s view of deregulation. Chairman Hebert said he refused to accept Lay’s conditions, but it is also clear that FERA did nothing to interfere in the California energy crisis at this time.

Hebert was blocking implementation of Lay’s plan to divide the nation into four regional energy transmission organizations (RTOs) and had begun an investigation of the derivative financing instruments that Enron and others used for energy trades. Ken Lay was not only permitted to interview candidates for the FERC and allowed to submit a list of recommended candidates. When it became clear that he would not retain the chairmanship, Hebert resigned in august even though he had two more years to serve as a commissioner. Two of those he recommended were appointed, including the chairman Pat Wood. According to Republican columnist Robert D. Novak, Enron wanted Pat Wood to become FERA chairman because its expected to profit by learning how to use FERA restrictions of the free flow of energy for its benefit. For six months, Chairman Wood did nothing to limit energy prices in California, while Enron revenues for that period increased by billion dollars.

The White House ridiculed the idea that a price cap would bring relief to California customers, and Vice President Cheney joined the chorus one-day after meeting with Ken Lay. On November 20, 2001, Wood’s FERC divided the country into transmission zones but did not take a firm position against letting firms like Enron manipulate prices of energy flowing through all the zones. Though the agency reluctantly imposed a price cap, it left the door open to Enron’s suggestion that there be no barrier to trading energy that flows through zones. The possibility of creating an energy crisis for the entire nation remained.Wood also assured listeners that Enron’s collapse “doesn’t seem to be tied too much to deregulated energy markets,” making it clear he had no intention of fixing the damaged structure that permitted the spiking of energy prices in California and Utah.

Senator Diane Feinstein requested a meeting with President Bush to discuss the crisis in her state but was refused an audience in a perfunctory note that even misspelled her name. In opposing any price caps during the crisis, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney employed arguments supplied by Kenneth Lay in a letter warning of the dire consequences that would follow any effort to regulate prices. A price cap was not imposed until June, after California Republicans had warned the white House that opposition to regulation was endangering their situation in the Golden State.( )

Five big energy companies, TXU, Reliant of Houston, Dynergy, el Paso, and Enron, had donated $4.1 million to the Republican party. Governor Gray Davis was to call Reliant Corporation a bunch of “pirates.” The out-of-state providers of wholesale energy were doubling and tripling their profits, and there was evidence that they created artificial shortages in order to spike prices. California Edison notified the FERC that it believed that Enron and other providers were manipulating the power system to create interruptions of supplies and false shortages. Enron and other providers reaped $30 billion in profits from sales in that state. Enron’s share proved very difficult to trace, but $1.5 billion turned up in a reserve account. The money was hidden there because it was feared that Congress and the California legislature would investigate the activities and profits of energy providers during the crisis.

A portion of Vice President Dick Cheney’s National Energy Policy suggests that deregulation had made possible the gaming of the California market: “The risk that the California experience will repeat itself is low, since other states have not modeled their retail competition plans on California’s plan.” The FERC report on the crisis referred to “market manipulations” made possible by California’s legislation. David Fabian, a former Enron computer programmer, disclosed in a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer that Enron traders bragged to him about how they could electronically manipulate information on the California wholesale electricity market to create spikes in energy prices.

The FERC released documents it had received from Enron in early May 2002. They revealed that the energy giant had strategies called “Fat Boy,” “Get Shorty,” “”Shift.” “Ricochet,” and “Load Shift” to maximize prices, create congestion on transmission, lines, and generally maximize profits. A strategy known as “Death Star” resulted in receiving payment for moving energy that had never been provided. There was also evidence that Enron gave false information to state energy regulators. Though the evidence suggested that Enron could have manipulated prices in the California crisis, the FERC spokesmen claimed there was no conclusive evidence. These documents also included memos from Enron lawyers indicating they thought other energy firms were using fake trades to bid up energy prices. Several days after this material was released Reliant Resources, a large energy trader, admitted that it had engaged in wash trades with four other firms to boost energy prices. Investigators for the California legislature in June, 2002 turned up documents that proved that Perot Systems Corp. demonstrated for Reliant Energy and other providers software that would create the impression of congestion on transmission lines as a way of driving up prices. Transmission lines would appear to be massively overbooked, which would create blackouts and higher wholesale prices. The strategy was identical to one used by Enron. There were many Congressional investigations Enron, but none of them seemed interested in seriously probing this matter. In October 2002, Timothy Norris Belden, a key Enron energy trader, pleaded guilty to manipulating energy supplies to create a crisis and to moving energy out of state so as to avoid state regulations. That energy was then sold to California at sky-high rates. Belden also demonstrated how Enron created the impression that its transmission lines were congested so that other providers using them paid higher prices.

The California legislature and state justice department was most successful in discovering what had happened during the energy crisis. The congressional investigations accomplished nothing more than giving politicians opportunities to denounce corporate corruption, and the US Justice Department’s record was mixed at best--nailing a few executives for securities fraud but taking steps that actually impeded the California investigation of how electricity prices had been manipulated during the crisis.


After the “Fat Boy” memos were released, a aid to Representative Billy Tauzin ( R. La.) was asked if the House would look into the phony trades. Re replied, "What are you going to accomplish? Enron for all practical purposes is dead. Unfortunately, for political reasons, some people want to drag the bodies through the streets." Tauzin, a major recipient of Enron funds, had earlier conducted hearings of Enron’s bankruptcy, which revealed little but provided himself and others with opportunities to denounce Enron practices. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California was still unsuccessfully demanding a thorough probe of the matter. More than a year after the California energy crisis, some senators tried to amend the law so it would be more difficult to hide wholesale electricity prices. Senator Philip Gramm, who had been Enron’s succeeded in killing the measure. The fact that senators from both parties helped Gramm speaks volumes about the power of money in politics. Phil Gramm and his wife were called by Barron’s Financial Weekly “Mr. And Mrs. Enron” ( ) Feinstein’s efforts to restore some regulations on energy trading were also unsuccessful. ( )

The federal government did little to explore how the energy industries gamed electricity prices in California, and the state’s Democratic Governor Gray Davis was to eventually bear the blame. The FERC investigated the crisis, levied small fines, but did not conclude that energy traders created the crisis. It released almost two-dozen Enron e-mail that proved that Enron officials advised the FERC on what its findings should be. By its own rules, the FERC is not permitted to discuss such issues with people outside the commission.”( )

To cope with the crisis, the state incurred heavy debt which became much greater as a result of the recession of the first George W. Bush administration. California’s government was hamstrung in how it raised and spent money by a series of popular initiatives that marked its recent history. In the summer of 2003, well-financed conservative activists acquired enough signatures to force a recall election on October 7, which was likely to force Davis from office and replace him with actor Arnold Schwarzenegger. ( )




Sherman has written African American Baseball: A brief History, which can be acquired from LuLu Publishing on line.

The US Government and Victor Bout

The Clinton Administration finally got around to blacklisting illegal arms dealer Victor Bout in 2000, but it took three years of investigating because most of his crimes were committed outside the United States. The George W. Bush government has officially put itself on record as wanting end Bout’s career as an arms trader, but it has unofficially used its influence to keep him in business and has even retained his services. Finally, in November, 2004, President Bush signed an executive order forbidding Americans from dealing with people like Bout. The Treasury missed at least three new US-based airlines he owned, and little progress was very slow in processing the paper work to coordinate Treasury’s work with the UN’s international sanctions. In 2006 the UN again put Bout on its embargo list and ordered the assets of the companies the US had named frozen. The UN report listed many of the weapons he moved, but particularly troubling were thousands of landmines. He was soon called the world’s largest arms dealer and Peter Hain, the current leader of the British House of Commons, called him a “merchant of death.” A Treasury document lists thirty of his companies and claims he has the largest private fleet f soviet aircraft in the world. It is said that he has several hundred shell companies to move assets to and out of. one another in an endless shell game.

After September 11, 2001, the State Department told law enforcement they could look at him but not touch. National Security Advisor Condoleessa Rice implored Sharjah (UAE) authorities not to arrest Bout. . Bout was soon flying troops in Afghanistan, and his planes also removed Taliban and Pakistani fighters to Pakistan. His aircraft have also been observed flying patterns consistent with working for the CIA’s rendition program. At one point the State Department asked other agencies not to use his services in Iraq, but it was clear that at least three of his front companies were being employed. At least one was subcontracted by Kellogg, Brown, and Root. Which paid him to refuel US military aircraft. L. Paul “Jerry” Bremer seemed to shower Bout with good contracts. In 2004, his companies made between 140 and 200 flights into Iraq and they were working for various Pentagon agencies as well as Kellogg, Brown, root. The extent of his employment by Great Britain is not known, but two of his planes took off from an RAF base in Oxfordshire between March 6 and 9, 2005. At the same time, two other planes left RAF Base Norton for Kosovo.

While the US continued to denounce him, it quietly persuaded Great Britain and others to lift sanctions on him in 2004., and the US resisted strong French efforts to put Bout out of business. On November 23 of that year, he met with Rice, Richard Armitage, and Porter Goss ostensibly to consider how Gambia’s image in the US could be improved. Through the right-wing ambassador to Gambia, Victor Bout has met many influential Americans. A good source speculates that he had ties to Jack Abramoff and the Italian mafia who killed Abramoff’s disgruntled partner in south Florida, Gus Boulis.

Bout’s brother. Serguei runs Air Bas, which is very active in Iraq. It could be a front company. His businesses seem to be operated out of Texas under the guidance of Richard Chichakli , a nephew of the late president of Syria. Chickakli is a US citizen, had a distinguished army record, and claimed that he was in intelligence work for 18 years. He also claims that the FBI recruited him to help the bin Laden family get out of the country after 9/11. He claims to only be Bout’s accountant. The FBI seized his records and shut down his practice. The UN has placed an embargo on doing business with him. He has moved to Moscow where he dwells in a five story house. The Russians claim he is not there, but he is seen on the streets and sometimes submits to radio interviews. Bout often flies to the UAE, where most of his companies are located. His brother dwells in Islamabad. Though Chickakli was obliged to flee, Le Monde reported in 2004 that his employer enjoys some sort of amnesty due to his services in Iraq and spreading around favors.