Archive for July, 2008

Afghan NATO force hits targets inside Pakistan

July 17, 2008

Jonathon Burch, Reuters North American News Service

July 16, 2008 10:41 EST

KABUL, July 16 (Reuters) – NATO forces in Afghanistan hit targets inside Pakistan with artillery and attack helicopters after coming under rocket fire from across the border, the alliance said on Wednesday.

Tension is high along the border with a sharp rise in attacks in eastern Afghanistan coming from inside Pakistan that Afghan and NATO officials blame on de-facto ceasefires between the Pakistani military and militants in its lawless tribal belt.

Troops from NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) “received multiple rocket attacks from militants inside Pakistan, July 15,” the alliance said in a statement.

“The troops identified a (compound) as the point of origin of the attacks and responded in self-defence with a combination of fire from attack helicopters and artillery into Pakistan.”

Nine Afghan soldiers were wounded by the rocket attacks and ISAF responded immediately, an ISAF spokesman said. ISAF and the Pakistani army “coordinated their operation closely from the outset. The Pakistani military agreed to assist and search the area if the border firing continued,” the statement said.

Despite cooperation and open lines of communication between army commanders on both sides of the border, Afghan leaders have blamed Pakistani agents for a string of attacks.

These have included a suicide bomb on the Kabul Indian Embassy last week that killed 58 people and an April assassination bid on President Hamid Karzai.

Pakistan rejects the accusations and says the Afghan government is trying to deflect criticism of its own failure to stem the rising tide of Taliban violence.

NO GROUND INCURSION

The U.S. military, which provides the vast majority of troops in eastern Afghanistan, says attacks are up by 40 percent in the area over the last year, partly because of increased penetration of their soldiers into the mountainous region.

Another factor is the ceasefires in Pakistan which help secure the militants’ rear.

But while cross-border firing has gone up from both sides, NATO denied it had any intention of mounting any incursion onto Pakistani soil.

“There is not, nor is there going to be, an incursion of NATO troops into Pakistan. There is no planning for, no mandate for, an incursion of NATO troops into Pakistan,” NATO spokesman James Appathurai told a news briefing in Brussels.

But, he said, NATO troops “have the right to fire back in self-defence into Pakistan.”

Western forces in Afghanistan are coming under increased pressure as the traditional summer fighting season gets into full swing with security analysts predicting July could be the worst month of violence yet since the Taliban’s fall in 2001.

Already more U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan in May and June than in Iraq and there are less than a quarter the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan.

The Taliban have seized the initiative and the headlines in recent weeks with a series of high profile attacks.

U.S. troops pulled out of a remote outpost in northeastern Afghanistan, three days after Taliban militants briefly breached the defences and killed nine U.S. soldiers, the biggest single loss of life for American forces in Afghanistan since 2005.

Foreign troops have also come under pressure in Afghanistan from a series of charges that their aircraft killed civilians.

Four women, four girls and an eight-year-old boy were killed in airstrikes in the western province of Farah on Tuesday, local officials said. (Writing by Jon Hemming; Editing by Charles Dick)

Support for U.S. war resisters in Canada

July 17, 2008

HUNDREDS OF protesters gathered in front of Canadian consulates in 14 U.S. cities on July 10 to protest planned deportations of conscientious objector Corey Glass and other U.S. war resisters currently seeking refuge in Canada.

Glass, a National Guard sergeant who served in Iraq in 2005, moved to Toronto in 2006 rather than face the prospect of again participating in what he considered “an unjust war.”

“When I joined the national guard,” Glass explained at a May press conference, “they told me the only way I would be in combat is if there were troops occupying the United States…I signed up to defend people and do humanitarian work filling sandbags if there was a hurricane; I should have been in New Orleans, not Iraq.”

{ What you can do:

Contact the offices of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley to demand that U.S. war resisters be given asylum in Canada.

Harper’s office can be reached by calling 613-992-4211 or e-mailing pm@pm.gc.ca; Finley’s office can be reached by calling 613-996-4974 and e-mailing finley.d@parl.gc.ca or finled1@parl.gc.ca.

For more information about U.S. war resisters in Canada, and what you can do to support them, visit Courage to Resist or the War Resisters Support Campaign. }

In June, Glass was given deportation orders, set for July 10, prompting the antiwar organizations Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace and Project Safe Haven to call the emergency protests at consulates across the U.S.

In San Francisco, Courage to Resist was joined by members of the Raging Grannies, Veterans for Peace Chapter 69, American Friends Service Committee, BAY-Peace, the Campus Antiwar Network, Code Pink and the International Socialist Organization. The rally numbered close to 50 participants at its peak.

Shortly after the demonstrations, activists received word that a the Canadian Federal Court had granted Glass a last-minute reprieve, giving him the opportunity to appeal earlier rulings over the next few months, with the hope of remaining in Canada.

Organizer and veteran Adam Seibert explained the role he felt the protests played: “If you don’t have troops, you can’t have a war. The more troops who resist, the easier it is to stop the war–and the more visible public support that exists the easier it is for other troops to resist…Seventy-five percent of Conscientious Objector applications are denied, so for most soldiers resisting is the only option.

Continued . . .

Congressional Panel To Review Kucinich’s Call to Impeach Bush

July 17, 2008

But the House committee won’t actually consider removing the president from office.

by Laurie Kellman

WASHINGTON – Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s single impeachment article will get a committee hearing – but not on removing President Bush from office.0716 01 1 2 3

The House on Tuesday voted 238-180 to send his article of impeachment – for Bush’s reasoning for taking the country to war in Iraq – to the Judiciary Committee, which buried Kucinich’s previous effort.

This time, the panel will open hearings. But House Democratic leaders emphatically said the proceedings will not be about Bush’s impeachment, a first step in the Constitution’s process of a removing a president from office.

Instead, the panel will conduct an election-year review – possibly televised – of anything Democrats consider to be Bush’s abuse of power. Kucinich, D-Ohio, is likely to testify. But so will several scholars and administration critics, Democrats said.

The hearing is a modest gesture by House Democratic leaders to members like Kucinich who insist that Bush’s reasons for going to war meet the standard for impeachment. Kucinich had said that if his impeachment article is tabled he would just propose another one.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has made clear since she ascended to that post that there would be no impeachment proceedings. But that didn’t stop Kucinich from introducing 35 articles of impeachment, spending four hours in June reading them on the House floor and demanding hearings. The House summarily dispatched them for burial to the Judiciary Committee.

Kucinich came back with a single article, which was read into the record Tuesday. As it did with the others, the House referred it to the panel, chaired by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.

But this time, Pelosi said with a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm, that it would see some committee action.

Democratic aides said the hearing could take place as soon as next week.

The impeachment resolution alleges that Bush misled the public into thinking that he had no choice but to wage war on Iraq and implied that Iraq had helped al-Qaida with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Democratic aides have widely suggested those gauging the bill’s prospects look to a precedent: the impeachment articles against Vice President Dick Cheney, which were sent to Conyers’ committee in November. There’s no evidence they will be considered before the Bush administration leaves office in January.

Those were Kucinich’s, too. Republicans, seeing a chance to force Democrats into an embarrassing debate, voted to bring up the resolution. Democrats countered by pushing through a motion to scuttle the bill from the floor.

© 2008 The Associated Press

First al-Bashir, next … Bush?

July 17, 2008

Al-Jazeera, July 16, 2008

By Mark Levine, Middle East historian
Mark Levine says Bush is as responsible for the disaster in Iraq as Bashir is for the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur [GALLO/GETTY]

While there is little chance Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president, will ever be brought to trial following his indictment by the International Criminal Court (ICC), the charges brought against him nevertheless offer hope for anyone concerned about human rights around the world.For Americans, however, the ICC indictment should offer a moment of sombre reflection not merely for our relative inaction with regard to years of mass murder in Sudan.

It is equally disturbing that much of the al-Bashir indictment could just as easily be applied to George Bush, the US president.

Here is part of what the indictment says:

“Bashir was directly responsible [for the activities of the militias]. He is the president. He is the commander-in-chief. Those are not just formal words. He used the whole state apparatus. He used the army; he enrolled the militia/Janjaweed. They all report to him. They all obey him. His control is absolute.”

In such context, Bush is also directly responsible for the horrific disaster in Iraq.

Bush’s imperial presidency, with its “Unitary Executive” and arrogation of the right to declare war from the constitutionally-appointed Congress, has similarly “used the whole state apparatus” to wage the Iraq war. He “enrolled” our soldiers and his military commanders who “all report to him”.

For Bush, like al-Bashir, “they all obey him. His control is absolute”.

Iraq’s chaos

When I was in Iraq in the late winter and early spring of 2004 I saw this clearly, and saw the already huge scale of the war crimes being committed systematically by US forces across the country.

It was clear to most Iraqis that the chaos being reaped by the US in their country was in fact deliberately sown by the US in order to create a situation that would make any US withdrawal almost impossible to pull off.

While the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis – for which Bush, and along with him, the American people who twice elected him, are responsible – is tragic, it should not be understated that the invasion itself was a crime against humanity.

The war and invasion were in clear breach of the UN charter, which prohibits invading other countries except when an attack on one’s sovereign territory is about to occur or has just occurred.

Add to that US torturing of prisoners, illegal secret renditions, and a host of other human rights abuses, and you have a long list of actions that are prohibited and outlawed by US federal law.

Ideal America

In an America that still lived up to its founding ideals Bush and his henchmen and women would not be worrying about an ICC indictment because they would be too busy already defending themselves against a US federal indictment for war crimes and other violations of US law.

At least in this imperfect world, Bush and the architects and executioners of the Iraq war can join al-Bashir in suffering the ignominy of being at-large international criminals.

Mark Levine is a professor of Middle East history at the University of California, Irvine and is the author of the newly released Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam.

Hamas: Zionist pressures cancelled Blair’s visit to Gaza

July 16, 2008

Palestinian Information Center, July 15, 2008

GAZA, (PIC)– The Hamas Movement on Tuesday said that Tony Blair, the international quartet committee’s envoy, cancelled his scheduled visit to the Gaza Strip due to Israeli pressures.

Dr. Sami Abu Zuhri, the Movement’s spokesman, said in a statement that the visit would have proven Hamas’s success in standing by its stands of refusing to recognize occupation or surrender resistance.

He added that the visit would have also proven an opportunity for the international community to have a close look into the humanitarian tragedy the Strip is suffering due to the Israeli siege and aggression.

He refuted the claim made by Blair’s office that the cancellation was due to security threats against him. “This allegation is not true and inappropriate and contravened the big security preparations taken by the Palestinian police to safeguard and facilitate the visit,” he elaborated.

Abu Zuhri noted that the security preparations were witnessed by John Ging, the UNRWA operations manager in Gaza and the one responsible for coordinating the visit, in addition to the reporters at Erez crossing.

The spokesman pointed to the media reports that Israeli war minister Ehud Barak made a telephone contact with Blair shortly before his visit made it clear who was responsible for the cancellation.

Stephen Harper, Bush’s Last Yes Man?

July 16, 2008

Canada, Guantanamo and Yankee Poodles

By ROBERT FANTINA | Counterpunch, Weekend Edition, 12 / 13 July, 2008

During the administration of Tony Blair as Prime Minister of Britain, he was sometimes referred to as the ‘Yankee Poodle,’ due to the constant and humiliating spectacle he made of himself with his obvious adoration of U.S. President George W. Bush.

Now, it seems, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has assumed Mr. Blair’s role. In no way is this more blatant than the shocking, tragic case of Omar Khadr.

Mr. Khadr is one of the inmates in the Cuban-based U.S. torture chamber known as Guantanamo. He arrived there from Afghanistan, where he was captured by U.S. soldiers in a house from which a hand grenade had been flung, killing a U.S. soldier. At the time of his capture and incarceration in that hell-hole, the American government evidently believed him to be an ‘enemy combatant.’ When captured, Mr. Khadr was fifteen years old.

It was apparently of no importance to Mr. Bush that Mr. Khadr was a minor at the time of his arrest, that at least one other ‘enemy’ soldier was alive in the building when Mr. Khadr was captured, thus making it at least ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that Mr. Khadr was guilty of throwing the grenade. Nor did it seem to matter that most nations believe children cannot be guilty of military crimes because they are not sufficiently cognizant to understand what joining the military means. It was enough for Mr. Bush that Toronto-born Mr. Khadr was fighting the U.S. in Afghanistan, and that his father is alleged to have helped finance al-Qaeda.

This week Canada’s Foreign Affairs Department detailed the torture that Mr. Khadr, a Canadian citizen, has received at the hands of the U.S. government. While it is no longer news that the U.S. tortures its prisoners, the Harper government’s response to this horrific victimization of one of its own citizens is news. Mr. Harper, when asked about the situation, demonstrated nothing but loyalty to Mr. Bush.

“The previous government took a whole range, all of the information, into account when they made the decision on how to proceed with the Khadr case several years ago,” said Mr. Harper. Like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to crucify Jesus Christ, Mr. Harper said the decision to allow Mr. Khadr to be tortured was made by someone else. That may be the case, but Mr. Harper is now Prime Minister, and he can make a different decision.

What would it take, one might ask, to get Mr. Khadr released from Guantanamo and returned to Canada? What complex diplomatic channels would have to be navigated, what hoops jumped through, what concessions made by Canada? University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran has the answer: a single telephone call. Said Mr. Attaran:

“Without exception, every other leader of a Western country has got their citizens out of Guantanamo.”

So why does Mr. Harper not make that call? Why, when Mr. Bush ‘Yo Harper’d’ him at the G8 Summit this past week did he not request Mr. Khadr’s release? What is so frightening about a now-21-year-old young man who has experienced six years of unspeakable torture that Mr. Harper is willing to let him continue to suffer beyond comprehension at the hands of U.S. torturers? Why has every other Western nation rescued their citizens from Guantanamo, but Mr. Harper is content to let a citizen of his nation be tortured there?

Continued . . .

MIDEAST: Israel Targets Hamas Orphanages

July 16, 2008

By Peter Hirschberg

JERUSALEM, Jul 15 (IPS) – Shopping malls. Schools. Medical centres. Charities, orphanages. Soup kitchens. These are the latest targets in the campaign the Israeli military is waging against Hamas in the West Bank.

Israeli military officials have identified Hamas’s civilian infrastructure in the West Bank as a major source of the Islamic group’s popularity, and have begun raiding and shutting down these institutions in cities like Hebron, Nablus and Qalqilyah.

Last week, troops focused their efforts in Nablus, raiding the city hall and confiscating computers. They also stormed into a shopping mall and posted closure notices on the shop windows. A girls’ school and a medical centre were shut down in the city, and a charitable association had its computers impounded and documents seized.

This policy, officials say, is meant to deny the Islamic group, which is committed to Israel’s destruction, the ability to use these institutions as a pipeline by which money is channelled to finance attacks on the Jewish state. But the main goal of this campaign is to stem Hamas’s growing popularity in the West Bank, and ensure it does not seize control of the area as it did in Gaza a year ago, when its forces vanquished the more moderate Fatah movement headed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

In Gaza, Hamas was able to capture the hearts and minds of the residents not just because it offered an alternative to the corruption-tainted Fatah leadership, but also because its network of schools, clinics, summer camps, after-school activities and charitable associations provided impoverished Gazans with the type of institutions and welfare alternatives that the Palestinian Authority failed to.

Continued . . .

Christian doctrine offensive to Muslims, says Archbishop of Canterbury

July 16, 2008

Key elements of Christian doctrine are offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said in a letter to Islamic scholars.

Ben Farmer | Telegraph.co.uk, July 16, 2008

Dr Rowan Williams also spoke critically of the violent past of both religions and Christianity’s abandonment of its peaceful origins.

His comments came in a published letter to Islamic leaders, intended to promote closer dialogue and understanding between the two faiths.

However they come just months after Dr Williams was forced to clarify comments in which he said some parts of Islamic law will “unavoidably” be adopted in Britain.

The comments are also made as the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference begins in Canterbury. Up to a quarter of bishops are boycotting the event, as the Anglican Church faces continuing division over the issues of women bishops and homosexual clergy.

The wide-ranging letter, which covers difficult issues including religious freedom and religiously-inspired violence is in response to a document written last year by Muslim scholars from 43 countries.

Discussing differences between the religions, Dr Williams acknowledges that Christian belief in the Trinity is “difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims”.

The Trinity is the Christian doctrine stating God exists as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and conflicts with Islamic teaching that there is one all-powerful God.

Speaking about the history of the two religions, Dr Williams said they had been too often confused with Empire and control.

He said: “Despite Jesus’ words in John’s gospel, Christianity has been promoted at the point of the sword and legally supported by extreme sanctions; despite the Qur’anic axiom, Islam has been supported in the same way, with extreme penalties for abandoning it, and civil disabilities for those outside the faith.

“There is no religious tradition whose history is exempt from such temptation and such failure.”

He goes on: “What we need as a vision for our dialogue is to break the current cycles of violence, to show the world that faith and faith alone can truly ground a commitment to peace which definitively abandons the tempting but lethal cycle of retaliation in which we simply imitate each other’s violence.”

The 17-page letter, called A Common Word for the Common Good, is in response to a letter from Muslim leaders written last September.

That letter, A Common Word Between Us and You, was signed by 138 Muslim scholars to declare the common ground between the two religions.

Dr Williams described the Muslim document as hospitable and friendly and added: “Your letter could hardly be more timely, given the growing awareness that peace throughout the world is deeply entwined with the ability of all people of faith everywhere to live in peace, justice, mutual respect and love.”

His own dense and meticulous letter did not mention sharia Islamic law at all. He received widespread criticism from politicians and other clergy for his comments in February and later told the General Synod he took responsibility for his “unclarity” and “misleading” choice of words.

US soldier who deserted over Iraq is deported

July 16, 2008

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and agencies

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday July 16, 2008

Canada yesterday deported to the US the first American army deserter fleeing the Iraq war across the US-Canadian border.

Robin Long, 25, faces a possible court martial and jail, and even redeployment to Iraq.

He joined the army in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, but became troubled by the war.

In 2005 he fled to Canada and applied for refugee status, because the US army wanted him to participate in what he called an “illegal war of aggression in Iraq.”

On Monday, the Federal court of Canada Justice Anne Mactavish ruled that Long could not provide clear evidence that he would suffer irreparable harm if returned to the US.

The Canada border services agency confirmed Long’s removal, but declined to give other details, citing privacy laws. Long’s refugee claim had already been rejected and he could not appeal this latest court ruling.

Some 200 other US soldiers are in Canada, counting on its history of welcoming 50,000 Americans fleeing the Vietnam draft.

Last month, Canada’s parliament urged the government to allow war resisters to remain.

However, opponents of granting refugee status to deserters argue that, unlike during the Vietnam war, the United States does not now have a military draft and members of its military are volunteers who know the potential risks.

Want to know if waterboarding is torture? Ask Christopher Hitchens

July 15, 2008
By Jon Henley and You Tube Video

Axis of Logic, July 7, 2008, 23:35

Editor’s Note: If this was the “water-boarding” experience of Christopher Hitchens after a minute or two, we can only imagine the torture to which prisoners are subjected to when “water-boarding” is conducted by US military thugs who are trained to hate Muslims and whose handiwork is not being video-taped. – Les Blough, Editor


Late last year, the writer, polemicist and fierce proponent of the US-led invasion of Iraq Christopher Hitchens attempted, in a piece for the online magazine Slate, to draw a distinction between what he called techniques of “extreme interrogation” and “outright torture”.

From this, his foes inferred that since it was Hitchens’ belief that America did not stoop to the latter, the practice of waterboarding – known to be perpetrated by US forces against certain “high-value clients” in Iraq and elsewhere – must fall under the former heading.

Enraged by what they saw as an exercise in elegant but offensive sophistry, some of the writer’s critics suggested that Hitchens give waterboarding (which may sound like some kind of fun aquatic pastime, but is probably best summarised as enforced partial drowning) a whirl, just to see what it was like. Did the experience feel like torture?

And amazingly, he has done just that. In August’s edition of Vanity Fair, you can read all about it, and see more photographs of the “wheezing, paunchy, 59-year-old scribbler”, his head hooded, being subjected to this most terrifying of ordeals by veterans of the US Special Forces.

So what did it feel like? Hitchens recounts how he was lashed tightly to a sloping board, then, “on top of the hood, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose … I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and – as you might expect – inhale in turn.”

That, he says, “brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, flooded more with sheer panic than with water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal” and felt the “unbelievable relief” of being pulled upright.

The “official lie” about waterboarding, Hitchens says, is that it “simulates the feeling of drowning”. In fact, “you are drowning – or rather, being drowned”.

He rehearses the intellectual arguments, both for (“It’s nothing compared to what they do to us”) and against (“It opens a door that can’t be closed”). But the Hitch’s thoroughly empirical conclusion is simple. As Vanity Fair’s title puts it: “Believe me, it’s torture.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/02/humanrights.usa