Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Spanish Torture Investigation into Gitmo to Continue


Spanish Torture Investigation into Gitmo to Continue
by Andy Worthington, February 28, 2011

On Friday, the Spanish National Court gave hope to those seeking to hold accountable the Bush administration officials and lawyers who authorized torture by agreeing to continue investigating allegations made by a Moroccan-born Spanish resident, Lahcen Ikassrien, that he was tortured at Guantánamo, where he was held from 2002 to 2005.

Spanish courts are empowered to hear certain types of international cases, but following a limitation placed on the country's universal jurisdiction laws in 2009 (very possibly with pressure from the United States), the cases in question must have a "relevant connection" to Spain. The National Court concluded that it was competent to take the case because Ikassrien had been a Spanish resident for 13 years prior to his capture, and it will be overseen by Judge Pablo Ruz, who, in June 2010, replaced the colorful and controversial Judge Baltasar Garzón, who initiated the proceedings, after Garzón fell foul of political opponents in Spain.

This is exceptionally good news, as the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been involved in this case (and in another ongoing case, aimed at the six senior Bush administration lawyers who authorized the U.S. torture program), explained in a press release:

This is a monumental decision that will enable a Spanish judge to continue a case on the "authorized and systematic plan of torture and ill treatment" by U.S. officials at Guantánamo. Geoffrey Miller, the former commanding officer at Guantánamo, has already been implicated, and the case will surely move up the chain of command. Since the U.S. government has not only failed to investigate the illegal actions of its own officials and, according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, also sought to interfere in the Spanish judicial process and stop the case from proceeding, this will be the first real investigation of the U.S. torture program. This is a victory for accountability and a blow against impunity. The Center for Constitutional Rights applauds the Spanish courts for not bowing to political pressure and for undertaking what may be the most important investigation in decades.

CCR's reference to WikiLeaks is important, as it was revealed in a U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks on December 1 last year that, in April 2009 Obama administration officials, with the help of a seemingly unlikely ally ­ Sen. Mel Martinez (R–Fla.), who had recently been chairman of the Republican Party ­ met with their Spanish counterparts in an attempt to persuade them to call off the investigation into "the Bush Six," because "the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship" between Spain and the United States.

The day after the meeting, as I explained in an article in December:

Attorney General Conde-Pumpido "publicly stated that prosecutors will 'undoubtedly' not support [the] criminal complaint," adding that he would "not support the criminal complaint because it is 'fraudulent,' and has been filed as a political statement to attack past [U.S. government] policies." He added that, "if there is evidence of criminal activity by [U.S. government] officials, then a case should be filed in the United States." In the cable, officials at the U.S. embassy in Madrid congratulated themselves for their successful involvement in the case, noting that "Conde Pumpido's public announcement follows outreach to [Spanish government] officials to raise [the U.S. government's] deep concerns on the implications of this case."

This was not the end of the story, as Judge Garzón pressed ahead with the investigation in September 2009, and in April 2010 CCR became involved, seeking "to assist the court by providing analysis of various U.S. government reports, memoranda and investigations, providing factual information regarding the treatment of specific persons detained at Guantánamo and other locations, as appropriate, and other aspects of the detention and interrogation program. CCR further intends to assist in gathering and analyzing information about specific persons believed to have ordered, directed, conspired, aided and abetted, or otherwise participated directly, indirectly or through command responsibility in the torture and other serious mistreatment of persons detained at U.S.-run detention facilities."

As noted above, Judge Ruz then took over the case in June, and on January 7 this year CCR and the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), submitted a dossier to the court ( PDF), detailing the involvement in torture of Maj. Gen. Geofffrey Miller, the commander of Guantánamo during part of the time that Lahcen Ikassrien was held, "which collects and analyzes the evidence demonstrating his role in the torture of detainees at Guantánamo and in Iraq," where he was subsequently sent to "Gitmo-ize" operations at Abu Ghraib, leading to the worldwide scandal that erupted in April 2004, when photos of the abuse of prisoners first brought the horrors of the Bush administration's widespread use of torture in the "war on terror" into the open.

Based on the information in the dossier, CCR and ECCHR believe that there is sufficient information for the court to request that a subpoena be issued for Miller to testify before Judge Ruz, and it is this that led CCR to express the hope, in its press release, that as a result "the case will surely move up the chain of command."

I recommend those interested in this case to read the dossier about Miller, but to provide some background to the kind of information that can be expected to emerge in connection with Ikassrien's detention, I'm posting highlights of his story, as told to El Pais in December 2006, and translated into English for Cageprisoners in 2007, plus additional information that I included in an article in November 2007.

Lahcen Ikassrien: Torture in Kandahar and Guantánamo

When Lahcen Ikassrien was flown from Guantánamo to Spain on July 18, 2005, after three years and eight months in U.S. custody, he was not a free man, but had been extradited at the request of anti-terror judge Baltasar Garzón, who claimed that he was linked to the Syrian-born Spaniard Imad Yarkas, serving 12 years in prison for belonging to al-Qaeda.

In June 2006, however, the Spanish Supreme Court threw out Yarkas' conviction for conspiracy to commit murder in the 9/11 attacks, and, with the case against Ikassrien demolished, he was finally freed on October 11, 2006. The Associated Press reported that the court concluded, "It has not been proved that the accused, Lahcen Ikassrien, was part of a terrorist organization of Islamic-fundamentalist nature, and more specifically, the al-Qaeda network created by Bin Laden," adding that wire-tapped conversations between Ikassrien and another suspected al-Qaeda member in Spain had also been considered invalid.

A former gardener, cook, and construction worker, who had spent three years in prison for dealing hashish, Ikassrien's journey to Guantánamo began when he traveled to Afghanistan after separating from his Moroccan wife. According to the El Pais reporter he spoke to after he was finally cleared of all terrorism charges, he "seemed fascinated by the Taliban government," and explained, "I wanted to know how it was to live there, if what was said about the Taliban was the truth. For me, Taliban was synonymous with Muslim, good Muslim."

Struggling to reach Afghanistan, Ikassrien was expelled from Istanbul and spent two months in Turkey before managing to catch a bus through Iran to the western Afghan city of Herat. There, he said, the Taliban "interrogated me in a police station for six hours. They wanted to know everything. Where I went and what I wanted to do. These people did not trust anyone. I told them that I came from Europe to live like the true Muslims. They sent me to Kunduz, near Mazar-e-Sharif, and there I bought a taxi and a butcher shop that was run for me by two Afghans. I could not run it because I understood neither Pashto nor Arabic."

Denying allegations that he trained in an al-Qaeda camp and fought alongside the Taliban, he explained that he was captured by men serving under the Northern Alliance warlord General Rashid Dostum, after fleeing Kunduz in a convoy of trucks, and taken to Qala-i-Janghi, an ancient fort, with hundreds of other captured men. Most of these men died after some staged an uprising, which was put down with savage force, and the survivors, like Ikassrien, huddled underground in a basement, as the Northern Alliance and their U.S. allies bombed them, attempted to set them on fire, and finally flooded the basement. Ikassrien, who was wounded in the arm and hand by shrapnel from a U.S. bomb, said, "My group was in an underground trench and they were throwing gasoline at us. Many died burnt. Then Dostum's men flooded us with water and it went up to my neck. It was horrible. I left alive by a miracle."

From Qala-i-Janghi he was taken, via Dostum's vile and overcrowded prison at Sheberghan, where, he said, he was questioned at gunpoint, told that he had been sold for $75,000 and described as an "important terrorist," to the U.S. prison at Kandahar airport, where an American soldier fastened a plastic bracelet on his wrist, which stated, simply, that he was "Animal Number 64." Treated with a brutality that is familiar from other prisoners' reports ­ "They burned my legs with cigarettes, they hit me over the head with gun butts, and repeated time and time again that a person like me did not have the right to live." He was then transferred to Guantánamo.

Recalling his arrival at Guantánamo, he noted that he was weighed, and that "the scale marked 55 kilos, 23 less than when I was seized in Afghanistan." He added, "My arm had gangrene, and they gave me a paper to sign to authorize an amputation. A volunteer of the Red Cross advised me not to do it, as he thought that it was possible to save my arm, and thanks to him I kept it."

The hospital in Guantánamo was "a tent," and he remained there for about three months, seated in a folding chair and tied at his feet and hands, in the company of 20 other prisoners, most of them Arabs, Afghans, and Pakistanis. "The soldiers entered the infirmary with dogs that barked wildly at us," he said, adding, "We went on a hunger strike so that they would not enter anymore."

In May 2002, Ikassrien received his first visit from a Spanish delegation, which included a diplomat from the Spanish embassy in Washington, D.C., and Spanish police officers. He explained that, after the visit, the Americans began to treat him worse, and torture and threats followed one another. "They said that, according to the information provided by the Spaniards, I was an international drug trafficker and I financed jihad inside and outside Spain."

He explained that the interrogations in Camp Delta, which opened in May 2002 to replace the animal cages of Camp X-Ray, were held in a special room, which reminded him of his experience in Kandahar. There, he said, interrogators showed him hundreds of photographs of alleged jihadists and spoke of tens of groups close to al-Qaeda. As he also explained, referring, in all probability, to the regime introduced by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller later in 2002:

They came to the cell, they used a spray that made you cry, you turned around, went down on your knees with your hands intertwined over your head, and they tied your hands and feet with chains. They led you to a room with plastic walls, and there they left you alone for hours. Hours of anguish waiting for them to arrive. They put ventilators so that you were freezing cold.

The Spanish police officers visited again in early 2003. Again, there were several agents led by the same commissioner and a representative from the embassy. Ikassrien was played tapes of a conversation about jihad in which he was supposedly one of the speakers, but he denied that the voice was his. "They offered to make me a protected witness," he explained. "They said that they would give me money, work and a house if I collaborated. They offered to let me speak to my mother the following morning. I said yes to this, as I had no news from her for three years."

The next day a U.S. captain and an interpreter prepared to let him call his mother in Alhucemas in front of Spanish police officers. "You can speak for two minutes," they said to him. "Tell her that you are alive and well, but do not say where you are." Ikassrien said, "I told them that if I could not tell my mother where I was, I would not accept the call, and they went away angry. Soon the Americans returned and gave me a beating. They undressed me and threw me into a container where there were rats. I remained alone for three days, naked, without food or water. Like an animal. People from the Red Cross came to visit to me and asked me why I was there."

Although the Spanish police stated in a report presented at Ikassrien's trial that they did not return to see him in Guantánamo, he was adamant that they visited him again in June or July 2003. "They came with more photos," he said. "I told them that I was Moroccan and that they did not have the right to interrogate me. They replied that they wanted to help me." Ikassrien added that he also told them, "Every time you come, the Americans torture me." He also explained that he had been interrogated by Moroccan agents.

After this third Spanish visit, as Ikassrien anticipated, the Americans again subjected him to torture, in an attempt to persuade him to identify alleged terrorists in photographs. "Again I was naked for several days and without food," he said. "An interrogator who called herself Ana came and began to show me more photos. I refused to answer. They brought black dogs with muzzles, they hooded me and the animals barked and they struck me with their legs. I only felt the shoves, I did not know if they were loose. My companions heard everything and struck with their fists on the cell walls."

The last visit of the Spanish police took place in March 2004, and in July Ikassrien was moved to the solid-walled isolation cells of Camp Five, where a psychiatrist who looked oriental subjected him to sustained psychological mind games, and told him, "If you do not collaborate you will be here all your life." Ikassrien added, "To eat, I got a piece of bread and a little bit of onion. It was hell. You could not hear any noise, you did not know if it was day or night."

A year after he was moved to Camp Five, Ikassrien was taken to the infirmary, where he was given a check-up and read a document in Arabic, which stated that the U.S. government "did not have anything against him, but if they found he was linked to al-Qaeda they had the right to take him to Guantánamo again." He added, "They wanted me to sign it, but I refused." He was then hooded and taken to a plane that returned him to Spain on July 18, 2005, where he was imprisoned in Soto del Real and Palencia prisons for another 15 months, until he was finally freed in October 2006.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1102n.asp

Libyan Opposition Spurns Calls for Foreign ‘Help’


Libyan Opposition Spurns Calls for Foreign 'Help'
Top Figures Say Protesters Will Oust Gadhafi on Their Own
by Jason Ditz, February 27, 2011

Though it seems clear that the international community in general and the United States in particular are bound and determined to do "something" about the massive uprising in Libya, the protesters' leadership is openly spurning those calls and insists it doesn't need their sort of help.

Hafiz Ghoga, a spokesman for the protesters' new National Libyan Council, insisted that calls for foreign intervention were entirely unwelcome, adding that the protesters have taken most of the nation and "the rest of Libya will be liberated by the people."

Indeed, despite people raising the prospect of international intervention against the Gadhafi regime, the newly formed pro-protester military say that they haven't even deployed in Gadhafi's last city of Tripoli because the protesters there insist they don't need help.

Gadhafi only really holds the central part of Tripoli at this point, and that is only on the basis of his mercenary forces. It seems the people are preparing for their last push in this last bastion of regime power, and one hopes that by the time the Obama Administration et al have decided to move against Gadhafi he'll already be gone.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/27/libyan-opposition-spurns-calls-for-foreign-help/

Gates Agrees, Bush's Wars Were Nuts


Gates Agrees, Bush's Wars Were Nuts
By Robert Parry
February 27, 2011

When Defense Secretary Robert Gates told West Point cadets that you'd have to be crazy to commit U.S. troops to wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, media commentators quickly detected a slap at his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, who oversaw those conflicts.

But what about everyone else in the U.S. power structure who went along with those insane and bloody wars? Shouldn't such people -- whether they acted out of ideology or opportunism -- be kept away from levers of authority that might get others killed?

For instance, what about the top editors at the Washington Post, the New York Times and a host of other establishment publications and TV outlets who hopped on the pro-war bandwagon and mocked anyone who suggested that negotiations or some less violent means might be preferable?

If even a long-time war hawk like Gates recognizes the obvious -- that committing U.S. land forces to such conflicts is nuts -- then what's to be said about the Post's editorial-page editor Fred Hiatt or the Times' executive editor Bill Keller or a host of other senior media executives and pundits who endorsed the wars and have suffered no dents in their shiny careers?

These hot-shots got the biggest stories of their lives dead wrong -- and countless thousands have paid with their lives, not to mention the $1 trillion-plus drain on the U.S. Treasury -- yet they float along as if nothing happened. Amazingly, Keller even got a promotion to the top editorial job at the Times after he was bamboozled by President George W. Bush's bogus case for invading Iraq.

In 2001, Keller had lost out in a corporate battle with Howell Raines for the job of executive editor and retreated to a post as a senior writer focusing on New York Times Magazine articles. There, he reinvented himself as a liberal second-thoughter regarding the use of American military might.

When the dogs of war were straining at their leashes in February 2003, Keller wrote an influential article in the Times magazine describing his proud new status as a member of what he called " The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club."

He boasted about the club's distinguished membership, including "op-ed regulars at this newspaper [the New York Times] and The Washington Post, the editors of The New Yorker, The New Republic and Slate, columnists in Time and Newsweek."


The 'Irrefutable' Powell

Keller was right about where many of the "smart" media types stood. For instance, after Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his dishonest United Nations speech justifying war with Iraq on Feb. 5, 2003, the next day's Washington Post editorial and op-ed pages presented a solid phalanx of pro-invasion consensus.

Speaking for that conventional wisdom, the lead Post editorial judged Powell's presentation as "irrefutable," adding: "it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Keller also was wowed by Powell's speech, which he hailed as a "skillful parsing of the evidence" on Iraq's WMD. (Powell would later admit his speech was replete with falsehoods and was a "blot" on his record.)

Keller got pretty much every pre-invasion prediction wrong, too. He bet that President Bush would seek and win a second U.N. resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq. Just weeks later, however, Bush realized the Security Council was prepared to reject that resolution so he pulled it and pressed forward with his "coalition of the willing."

In his February 2003 magazine article, Keller also envisioned Al Jazeera being forced to broadcast scenes of unalloyed joy among Iraqis welcoming the U.S. invaders "as liberators." Keller imagined, too, that "the illicit toxins are unearthed and destroyed" and that the Kurds and Shiites "suppress the urge for clan vengeance."

History will record that events didn't exactly play out that way.

Keller recognized, too, that he and his war-hawk colleagues were advocating violations of international law, even though they were uncomfortable with the full imperial scope of the muscular "Bush Doctrine."

"Almost all of the hesitant hawks go out of their way to disavow Mr. Bush's larger agenda for American power even as they salute his plan to use it in Iraq," Keller wrote. "What his admirers call the Bush Doctrine is so far a crude edifice built of phrases from speeches and strategy documents, reinforced by a pattern of discarded treaties and military deployment.

"It consists of a determination to keep America an unchallenged superpower, a willingness to forcibly disarm any country that poses a gathering threat and an unwillingness to be constrained by treaties or international institutions that don't suit us perfectly."

What Keller acknowledges here is that he knows the Bush Doctrine involves "discarded treaties" and rejection of international standards "that don't suit us perfectly," but he gets in line anyway.

You might think that "opinion leaders" who were so completely gulled by the sophistry of the neoconservatives – or who perhaps simply went opportunistically along with a war that was an international crime – might suffer some negative consequences, like a demotion or a firing.

But that's not the world we live in.


No Consequences

At the Washington Post, for instance, editorial-page editor Hiatt did grudgingly acknowledge that he'd gotten the key issue of Iraq's WMD completely wrong.

Hiatt blithely told the Columbia Journalism Review that "if you look at the editorials we write running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction. If that's not true, it would have been better not to say it." [CJR, March/April 2004]

Yes, it is a rule of thumb in journalism that if something is false, it's best not to state it as "flat fact."

But now eight years later, who is still the editorial-page editor of the Washington Post? Fred Hiatt. He still presides over an editorial section which publishes many of the same misguided columnists who fawned over Colin Powell's speech and backed Bush's invasion of Iraq.

If anything, Keller's case is even more telling.

Remember that when he announced his membership in the war-hawks club, he had been passed over for the top job as executive editor. But the guy who beat him out, Howell Raines, stumbled into a journalism scandal in spring 2003 when a Times reporter, Jason Blair, was caught lying in some news articles.

Raines became the fall-guy and resigned. To replace Raines, Times management turned to Keller, giving him the newspaper's top editorial job, a position he holds to this day.

In other words, the consequences for getting hoodwinked by a reporter – career termination – but the result of buying into lies that get hundreds of thousands of people killed and help bankrupt the U.S. government – promotion to your dream job.

With such a screwed-up system of rewards and punishments is there any doubt why the U.S. news media (and political process) are so out of whack.


Double Standards

It also may strike some Americans as a touch disingenuous when these same news outlets lecture governments in the Middle East about not using violence against political enemies.

While we can all agree that Khadafy and other Arab tyrants should restrain their police forces, it is odd to see such moral pronouncements coming from U.S. editors and political leaders who saw no problem in unleashing hell on the heads of Iraqis and Afghans.

And those double standards continue to this day. Even as the U.S. government urged non-violent responses to political disorders sweeping the Middle East, the U.S. military continued to slaughter Afghans suspected of being pro-Taliban militants.

In one case on Feb. 20, Gen. David Petraeus reportedly shocked Afghan officials when he suggested that Afghans caught up in these air strikes were burning their own children to put the blame on the United States. Meanwhile, in Iraq on Friday, some 20 Iraqis were killed when U.S.-backed Iraqi forces fired into political protests.

Which brings us back to Gates's address to the West Point cadets also on Friday, when he offered his belated recognition that the United States should have found another way to deal with its concerns about Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

Gates said: "In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it."

And one must assume that if such an adventure is crazy today, Gates is suggesting that it was crazy back in 2001 and 2003. Indeed, he clearly was reflecting on those bitter experiences in reminding the cadets of Gen. MacArthur's foresight.

But the worrisome fact remains that many of America's opinion leaders and politicians, who needed to have their heads examined last decade, have never been forced to sit down with a psychiatrist.



[For more on these topics, see Robert Parry's Lost History and Secrecy & Privilege, which are now available with Neck Deep, in a three-book set for the discount price of only $29. For details, click here.]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there.

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/022711.html

Fwd: FFF Economic Liberty Lecture Series: Tom G. Palmer




NOTICE: There will be a live webcast of Tom Palmer's speech. See below for details.


FFF

ECONOMIC LIBERTY LECTURE SERIES
 
Dinner, Lecture, and Social Hour
 
 
 
 
DATE:  March 7, 2011 – Monday
 
PLACE:  George Mason University -
Johnson Center Cinema
 TIME:  5:30 pm – Pizza
6:00 pm – Talk with Q&A
8:00 pm – Social hour at Brion's Grille 
  
ADMISSION:  FREE
           
 SPEAKER:  Tom G. Palmer
"Democratic Liberalism, Limited Government, Free Markets: Necessary Partners?" 

David E. Bernstein
 
 
Tom G. Palmer is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and director of Cato University, the Institute's educational arm. Palmer is also the vice president for international programs at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, and is responsible for establishing operating programs in 14 languages and managing programs for a worldwide network of think tanks. Before joining Cato he was an H. B. Earhart Fellow at Hertford College, Oxford University, and a vice president of the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University. He frequently lectures in North America, Europe, Eurasia, Africa, Latin America, China, and the Middle East on political science, public choice, civil society, and the moral, legal, and historical foundations of individual rights. He has published reviews and articles on politics and morality in scholarly journals such as the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Ethics, Critical Review, and Constitutional Political Economy, as well as in publications such as Slate, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Die Welt, the Washington Post, and The Spectator of London. He received his B.A. in liberal arts from St. Johns College in Annapolis, Maryland, his M.A. in philosophy from The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., and his doctorate in politics from Oxford University. He is the author of Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice, published in 2009.
 

Live Webcast:

Tom Palmer's speech will be broadcast live on Ustream.com. If you're outside the DC area, you can watch and submit questions online in real-time via FFF's UStream station: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/the-future-of-freedom-foundation 

Social Hour: 
 
Come join us after the event for a social hour at Brion's Grille in Fairfax, Virginia, right next to George Mason University - 10621 Braddock Road, Fairfax, VA 22030  (703) 352-7272
 
 
Future Speakers:
 Monday, April 4 , 2011 Lawrence H. White

Presented by:
 

&
 
(703) 934-6101
 
 
Directions:
George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA.
Visitors should park in the Mason Pond Parking Deck. The Johnson Center is next to the the parking deck and the cinema in on the bottom floor. Cost is $2 per hour; $8 max per day. All Parking Inquiries: (703) 993-2710.
 
Address postal inquiries to:
The Future of Freedom Foundation
11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 800
Fairfax, VA 22030
Powered By
eTapestry

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

"What We Saw at the Students For Liberty Conference 2011"




YouTube help center | e-mail options | report spam

BruceMajors has shared a video with you on YouTube:

Reason.tv attended the Students For Liberty International Conference 2011 at the George Washington University in Washington, February 18th to the 20th.

Students For Liberty is a nonprofit organization geared toward aiding libertarian student groups on campus and abroad. Formed in 2008, SFL has grown from thirty students to over 500 and begun to gain the media attention of Fox Business Network and Stossel. Reason.tv sat down with Co-founders Alexander McCobin and Sloane Frost, Executive Board Member Ankur Chawla, Communication Manager Blayne Bennett and SFL Student of the Year 2011 Michelle Fields to talk about the organization's exceptional growth and if it is connected to a increased interest in libertarianism in the general public. Reason.tv also interviewed the students attending about why they are libertarian and what they hoped to take away from the conference.

Approximately 3 minutes long. Shot and edited by Josh Swain. Interviews by Swain with assistance fro... more

© 2011 YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.