Peace and Justice Post

By Richard Cowan | Reuters, June 16, 2008,

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrats in the Congress, who came to power last year on a call to end the combat in Iraq, will soon give President George W. Bush the last war-funding bill of his presidency without any of the conditions they sought for withdrawing U.S. troops, congressional aides said on Monday.

Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.

“It’ll be the lump sum of money, veterans (funding) and that’s it,” said one House aide familiar with the negotiations on the legislation.

The aide was referring to the funding for the unpopular Iraq war, now in its sixth year, and a measure being attached to expand education benefits for combat veterans.

A House of Representatives vote on the war-funding bill was expected this week. Anything the House passes would have to be approved by the Senate before the legislation is sent to Bush.

With the Pentagon running out of money to continue fighting the two wars, Congress is trying to approve new funds before its July 4 holiday recess.

With this bill, Congress will have written checks for more than $800 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with most of the money going to Iraq.

Since January, 2007, when Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, they have tried to force Bush to change course in Iraq, mostly through troop withdrawal timetables and requirements that U.S. soldiers be more thoroughly trained, equipped and rested before returning to combat.

Continued . . .

McClatchy Newspapers, June 16, 2008

KABUL, Afghanistan – American soldiers herded the detainees into holding pens of razor-sharp concertina wire, the kind that’s used to corral livestock.

The guards kicked, kneed and punched many of the men until they collapsed in pain. U.S. troops shackled and dragged other detainees to small isolation rooms, then hung them by their wrists from chains dangling from the wire mesh ceiling.

Former guards and detainees whom McClatchy interviewed said Bagram was a center of systematic brutality for at least 20 months, starting in late 2001. Yet the soldiers responsible have escaped serious punishment.

The public outcry in the United States and abroad has focused on detainee abuse at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, but sadistic violence first appeared at Bagram, north of Kabul, and at a similar U.S. internment camp at Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan.

“I was punched and kicked at Bagram. … At Bagram, when they took a man to interrogation at night, the next morning we would see him brought out on a stretcher looking almost dead,” said Aminullah, an Afghan who was held there for a little more than three months. “But at Guantanamo, there were rules, there was law.”

Nazar Chaman Gul, an Afghan who was held at Bagram for more than three months in 2003, said he was beaten about every five days. American soldiers would walk into the pen where he slept on the floor and ram their combat boots into his back and stomach, Gul said. “Two or three of them would come in suddenly, tie my hands and beat me,” he said.

When the kicking started, Gul said, he’d cry out, “I am not a terrorist,” then beg God for mercy. Mercy was slow in coming. He was shipped to Guantanamo around the late summer of 2003 and imprisoned there for more than three years.

Continued . . .

Analysis by Bill Berkowitz*

OAKLAND, California, Jun 16 (IPS) – The battle lines over Pastor John Hagee have been drawn, redrawn, and are no doubt being drawn again as this is being written. The San Antonio, Texas-based mega-preacher with the multi-million-dollar empire has always been controversial, but these days, the pastor is a lightning rod for critics.

And as the days pass leading up to Hagee’s annual Christians United for Israel (CUFI) conference in Washington next month, new revelations of his anti-Semitism have come to light.

At last year’s CUFI conference, Senator Joseph Lieberman called Hagee “an Ish Elochim”, saying he is “a man of God, and, like Moses, he is the leader of a mighty multitude.”

When it was first revealed that Hagee had made a series of anti-Catholic remarks, critics, including Bill Donohue of the conservative Catholic League, went ballistic. Hagee apologised. When Hagee blamed gay people for causing Hurricane Katrina, many were offended. Hagee offered up a half-hearted apology and quickly moved on.

However, when Hagee’s remarks about Hitler being sent by God to force the Jews to pack their bags for Israel became a You Tube sensation — and then garnered the attention of the mainstream media — longtime allies in the Jewish community began to question what Hagee was up to.

To his credit, Arizona Senator John McCain, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, quickly threw Hagee off the bus, despite having spent a year courting the pastor for his endorsement.

However, the condemnation hasn’t been universal. A number of fellow Christian conservatives and Jewish leaders have rushed to defend the beleaguered pastor. While last year Hagee was treated like royalty at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, he prudently chose not to attend this year’s meeting earlier this month. Nevertheless, when his name was brought up by CUFI executive director David Brog, “the crowd broke into a lengthy round of applause, ending in a standing ovation,” the Jewish Daily Forward reported.

Continued . . .

Document – Denmark: Forcible return / torture and other ill-treatment

The killing of 11 Pakistani soldiers by U.S. air and artillery strikes last week shows just how quickly the American-led war in Afghanistan is spreading into neighbouring Pakistan.

Pakistan’s military branded the air attack “unprovoked and cowardly.” There was outrage across Pakistan. However, the unstable government in Islamabad, which depends on large infusions of U.S. aid, later softened its protests.

The U.S., which used a B-1 heavy bomber and F-15 strike aircraft in the attacks, called its action, “self-defence.”

This latest U.S. attack on Pakistan could not come at a worse time. Supreme Court justices ousted by the Pervez Musharraf dictatorship staged national protests this week, underscoring the illegality of Musharraf’s continuing presidency and its unseemly support by the U.S., Britain, Canada and France. Asif Zardari, head of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party, shamefully joined Musharraf in opposing restoration of the justice system out of fear the reinstated judges would reopen long-festering corruption charges against him

Attacks by U.S. aircraft, Predator hunter-killer drones, U.S. Special Forces and CIA teams have been rising steadily inside Pakistan’s autonomous Pashtun tribal area known by the acronym, FATA. The Pashtun, who make up half Afghanistan’s population and 15% of Pakistan’s, straddle the border, which they reject as a leftover of Imperial Britain’s divide and rule policies.

Instead of intimidating the pro-Taliban Pakistani Pashtun, U.S. air and artillery strikes have ignited a firestorm of anti-western fury among FATA’s warlike tribesmen and increased their support for the Taliban.

The U.S. is emulating Britain’s colonial divide and rule tactics by offering up to $500,000 to local Pashtun tribal leaders to get them to fight pro-Taliban elements, causing more chaos in the already turbulent region, and stoking tribal rivalries. The U.S. is using this same tactic in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Continued . . .

With millions displaced, foreign countries take increasingly hardline stance

By Kim Sengupta | The Independent, Sunday, 15 June 2008

The plight of Iraqi refugees is now worse than ever, with millions struggling to survive in desperate conditions and with little hope of finding sanctuary.

While the crisis continues, the world community, especially Western countries, have not only failed to help but are also erecting fresh obstacles to prevent the dispossessed men, women and children from settling on their shores, says a new report by Amnesty International.

Many governments have attempted to justify their hardline stance by citing supposed improvements in the security situation in Iraq. But after a marked decline, the level of violence is rising again. The numbers killed each month fell from 1,800 in August 2007 to 541 in January 2008. However, in March and April alone, more than 2,000 people, mostly civilians, died during clashes between US and Iraqi government forces and the Shia militia Mehdi Army.

The Iraqi diaspora is now one of the largest in modern times, with more than two million people fleeing abroad. But the ferocious strife and the breakdown in law and order have led to another wave of about 2.7 million fleeing their homes but unable to escape the country. Many of these have moved to Baghdad, putting further strain on a shattered infrastructure and adding to the city’s sectarian tensions. The situation in terms of numbers and conditions for the displaced people has deteriorated dramatically in the past two years, Amnesty claims.

Continued . . .

• Duncan Campbell
• The Guardian, Monday June 16 2008

Protesters take part in an Amnesty International demonstration calling for the closure of Guantánamo Bay ahead of George Bush’s visit to Belfast. Photograph: Andrew Winning/Reuters

Inside apparently it was informal and relaxed, as George Bush arrived at Downing Street for a private dinner hosted by Gordon Brown and attended by Rupert Murdoch, a clutch of ministers and a mini-faculty of historians.

But out on the streets of Westminster, it was an edgier affair, as police in riot gear faced down protesters determined once again to voice their anger at the arrival in Britain of the US president.

Crowds often turn out in Britain for the farewell tours of famous American names and yesterday was no exception. Some 2,500 had gathered in Parliament Square hours before the big event was due to start, and there plenty of T-shirts and memorabilia on sale.

But despite non-stop chants of his name, the star of the show made no appearance in front of the crowds. The fact that the chants were “George Bush terrorist” and “Arrest George Bush” may have had something to do with it. Certainly the noise was loud enough to be heard above the polite conversation 200 yards away at 10 Downing Street.

The trouble began after a few cans and placards were lobbed over police lines. Several protesters were injured in the clashes and 25 were arrested. Protesters blamed the authorities for not allowing a letter to be handed in to Downing Street. Police blamed demonstrators for trying to dismantle barriers.

Numbers may have been fewer than those that greeted Bush on his November 2003 visit to London, when anger over the Iraq war was still raw. But every generation was represented yesterday, from babies wearing “Arrest Bush” stickers, to Tony Benn who left behind his parliamentary career to “spend more time in politics”.

Before things turned ugly, the mood was vibrant. Whistles were blown, drums were banged, and some carried handcuffs on the off-chance that Bush might present himself for a citizen’s arrest. “The war in Iraq was a war crime,” said Benn. “Over 1 million Iraqis have died and the Americans are spending $400m a day on it while people are starving in Ethiopia.” But nor was the past forgotten. A loudspeaker played Love is All You Need and one T-shirt read: “I still hate Thatcher.”

Source: Dissident Voice

by Walter C. Uhler / June 14th, 2008

If you want to know what’s wrong with the foreign policy establishment in the United States, look no further than Condoleezza Rice’s article, “The New American Realism,” published in the July/August 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs. Not only has the Council on Foreign Relations spread its pages wide open for an infamous interventionist — a lying and deceitful enabler of the Bush administration’s illegal, immoral unprovoked invasion of Iraq — it also readmitted Ms. Rice without requiring anything resembling a mea culpa for the crimes against humanity that have lowered her, the Bush administration and the United States to the depths of moral disrepute around the world.

Why publish the words of a liar and alleged war criminal? Who takes her seriously? Was her article accepted for publication because of her high position in the thoroughly discredited and morally bankrupt Bush administration? Or was publication a “no brainer,” simply because the foreign policy elite at the Council on Foreign Relations actually shares Ms. Rice’s smug interventionist conceit?

Whatever the excuse, it doesn’t pass the smell test. Why? Because Rice’s unimaginative, evasive and euphemism-riddled whitewash of Bush’s disastrous “Time of Troubles” would barely merit a grade of “C” in any freshman course devoted to U.S. foreign policy.

Ms. Rice’s case is not a matter of affirmative action encountering the Peter Principle. Instead, it’s a matter of compensating for the Peter Principle with poorly disguised moral turpitude. For example, during the propaganda run up to the invasion of Iraq, Ms Rice lied when she said that the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq could “only” be used in nuclear weapons. We know she lied, because her assertion came after she learned of the disagreements within the intelligence community about how such tubes might be used.

Ms Rice also attempted to deceive members of the House of Representatives. She told them that, after 9/11, the U.S. had no choice, but to engage in what the September 2002 National Security Strategy euphemistically called “preemptive” wars. As we now know, the euphemism of preemption was a fig leaf for the “preventive” wars — otherwise known as wars of aggression — which the Bush administration actually intended to launch.

Unabashed by such deception, Ms. Rice was in the process of making her pitch for preemptive war when she was confronted by a Democrat, who asked her whether America should have invaded the Soviet Union in 1948 in order to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Rice responded, “In light of 50 years of bondage of Eastern Europe, that was probably a reasonable thing to do.” Her response not only revealed her moral turpitude, but also cost her the right to be considered a serious Russia scholar. Nobody but a hack or a fraud would have said such a thing.

Thus, it’s no surprise to find her “C” paper in Foreign Affairs riddled with hypocrisy, deceitful evasions and blatant propaganda. Not only does she project America’s worst sins onto others, she also refuses to accept any responsibility for the many ills that the Bush administration has inflicted upon the U.S., Iraq and the rest of the world.

Continued . . .

Children unveiled the four-tonne Guevara statue in Rosario on Saturday

Thousands of people have witnessed the unveiling of a statue of Ernesto “Che” Guevara in his Argentine birthplace on what would have been his 80th birthday.

Events to mark the life and legacy of the man most simply know as El Che were held around the city of Rosario.

While Guevara was Argentine, born and bred, he had more followers and was better known around the world than in his home country.

He flourished in Cuba, fought in Africa and died in Bolivia.

At home, military governments and Cold War politics helped suppress his ideas and image.

But now the man known simply in Argentina as El Che is home.

Iconic brand

The four-tonne bronze statue that has been unveiled in Rosario joins the numerous Che museums dotted around the country.

It’s a brand that encapsulates a whole store of values, a whole load of ideas that people hold Michael Casey Guevara expert

Che the revolutionary, Che the icon, Che the seller of everything from vodka to T-shirts is everywhere.

Michael Casey, who has studied the phenomenon and has a book coming out on the subject, said the icon had become a brand but not just in a capitalist way.

“It’s a brand that encapsulates a whole store of values, a whole load of ideas that people hold,” he said.

“And they therefore sell those ideas, whether it’s leftists in Argentina or manufacturers of snowboards wanting to sell snowboards under a revolutionary label.”

Che Guevara’s children travelled from Cuba to join thousands of followers from Argentina and beyond in Rosario for the birthday celebrations.

But events had to be curtailed because of widespread protests by truck drivers and farmers blocking Argentina’s roads.

Che would probably have approved of that kind of radical action far more than his new statue and certainly more than today’s ubiquitous Che merchandising.

Archive footage of revolutionary Che Guevara