Peace and Justice Post

By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer | Online Journal, Apr 22, 2009

Imagine this! One day, you find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. You are kidnapped by a foreign intelligence agency, strip-searched, hooded, blindfolded, handcuffed and shackled before being flown to an incarceration centre. Once there, you are interrogated about subjects and individuals you know nothing about. You loudly proclaim your innocence but your interrogators become angry.

Before long, you suffer the indignity of enforced nudity, which may painfully violate your religious or cultural beliefs. Perhaps you are stuffed into a tiny dark space in which you cannot stand. All you want to do is sleep but every time you close your eyes you are dowsed with cold water. This goes on for up to 120 hours.

If you are still unable to tell them what they want to know, you are deprived of food, slapped, made to hold painful stress positions for hours on end, such as kneeling while leaning back at a 45-degree angle, and if you have a phobia concerning insects you will be placed into a box with one. You might be prevented from visiting the bathroom and made to wear nappies.

Lastly, you will be subjected to a process that simulates drowning, whereby you feel your very life is ebbing away — waterboarding. Imagine that you endure this suffering for seven years and all the while you are being told that you will never ever be free or free of it.

All the above was authorised by the Bush administration’s Justice Department. In reality, detainees endured far worse under George W. Bush’s watch with the White House’s full knowledge.

In many cases, the lives of their wives and children were threatened.

There are even reports that children were imprisoned, interrogated and tortured with insects to force them to disclose the whereabouts of their fathers. Remember, too, that the vast majority of prisoners were — and are being — locked up without a shred of evidence against them.

Let me ask you something. If, God forbid, you were in their place and were lucky enough to be eventually released, do you think your life would ever return to normal? Or do you anticipate that your mental, emotional, perhaps even physical existence would be scarred forever?

Having read through the so-called ‘torture memos,’ it seems that Justice Department officials did not consider any of the above-mentioned practices ‘torture’ because, according to them, any harm derived from their use was transient rather than prolonged. Who are they trying to kid?

Kudos to US President Barack Obama for authorising the release of the memos, which was his way of admitting what most people around the world already knew: during the preceding eight years, the superpower has made severe mistakes.

Acknowledgment is the first step to recovery but is this enough? Obama is against prosecuting those responsible for breaching the spirit of the United Nations Convention against Torture or other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as the United States Code and the US Constitution. “Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past,” he says.

Obama simply wants to close this ugly chapter and move on. But he’s wrong.

Anyone who commits a crime whether he or she be a shoplifter, a rapist, a paedophile, a murderer, a war criminal or a torturer should be made to face repercussions. Nobody should be exempt in the name of ‘moving on.’ Based on that principle, what is the Simon Wiesenthal Centre doing chasing after an 89-year-old former Nazi camp guard, as well as attempting to locate the body of Aribert Heim, dubbed ‘Dr Death,’ so as to dig it up?

In this case, not only have innocents and their families been irreparably harmed and America’s standing in the world along with them, it sets a precedent for future administrations. At the very least, those responsible should be made to make a public apology so that this kind of thing can never happen again.

Obama wants to ensure that CIA operatives who followed orders are immune from prosecution and while I can sympathise with their plight, the same did not apply to those SS officers who followed orders during the Second World War, and rightly so.

It’s not that I am comparing the severity of Nazi atrocities to the actions of Western intelligence services or contractors but, if you think about it, you’ll find that the principle is the same.

There is no excuse for the torturing and degradation of human beings, which harms not only the victim but also the soul of the torturer. It also opens the door for our enemies to torture us. Besides, it doesn’t work because anyone who is tortured will say just about anything to stop the pain. Moreover, evidence gleaned from torture is not accepted by most courts of law.

President Obama, thanks for the truth but where’s the accountability? For without that, there’s little hope of forgiveness or reconciliation.

Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.

Google News

AFP

OSLO — Israel’s former prime minister Ehud Olmert and other top officials could face legal action in Norway over the Gaza offensive after six Norwegian lawyers said Tuesday they would accuse them of war crimes.

The lawyers, who plan to file their complaint with Norway’s chief prosecutor on Wednesday, said they will call for the arrest and extradition of Olmert as well as former foreign affairs minister Tzipi Livni, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and seven senior Israeli army officers.

Under the Norwegian penal code, courts may hear cases involving war crimes and other major violations of human rights.

The lawyers released a statement accusing Israel of “massive terrorist attacks” in the Gaza Strip from December 27 last year to January 25, killing civilians, illegally using weapons against civilian targets and deliberately attacking hospitals and medical staff.

“There can be no doubt that these subjects knew about, ordered or approved the actions in Gaza and that they had considered the consequences of these actions,” the lawyers’ statement said.

It also said the lawyers were representing a number of people living in Norway.

“It involves three people of Palestinian origin living in Norway and 20 families who lost loved ones or property during the attack,” one of the lawyers, Kjell Brygfjeld, told AFP.

When questioned on the chances of the case reaching court, fellow lawyer Harald Stabell said: “If we do nothing, it is more likely that a similar attack will happen again in the future.”

“In our eyes, the political aspect is less important than the preventive aspect,” he added when asked if the move could hinder Norwegian diplomacy in the region.

Israel’s embassy in Oslo said they were unaware of the lawyers’ attempt to bring the war crimes charges and could not immediately comment.

Israel said the aim of the Gaza offensive was to stop Islamist militants there from firing rockets into their territory.

Gaza medics said 1,300 Palestinians died during the attacks.

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved

AP – President Barack Obama gestures during his meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan, not shown, Tuesday, …

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost “our moral bearings” with use of the tactics.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods “is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that,” Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Obama also said he could support a congressional investigation into the Bush-era terrorist detainee program, but only under certain conditions, such as if it were done on a bipartisan basis. He said he worries about the impact that high-intensity, politicized hearings in Congress could have on the government’s efforts to cope with terrorism.

The president had said earlier that he didn’t want to see prosecutions of the CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, so long as they acted within parameters spelled out by government superiors who held that such practices were legal at the time.

But the administration’s stance on Bush administration lawyers who actually wrote the memos approving these tactics has been less clear and Obama declined to make it so. “There are a host of very complicated issues involved,” Obama said.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview over the weekend that the administration does not support prosecutions for “those who devised policy.” Later, White House aides said that he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.

The president took a question on the volatile subject for the first time since he ordered the Justice Department to release top-secret Bush-era memos that gave the government’s first full accounting of the CIA’s use of waterboarding — a form of simulated drowning — and other harsh methods criticized as torture. The previously classified memos were released Thursday, over the objections of many in the intelligence community. CIA Director Leon Panetta had pressed for heavier censorship when they were released, but the memos were put out with only light redactions.

Far from putting the matter in the past, the move has resulted in Obama being buffeted by increased pressure from both sides.

Republican lawmakers and former CIA chiefs have criticized Obama’s decision, contending that revealing the limits of interrogation techniques will hamper the effectiveness of interrogators and critical U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services.

The release also has appeared to intensify calls for further investigations of the Bush-era terrorist treatment program and for prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture.

Obama banned all such techniques days after taking office. But members of Congress have continued to seek the release of information about the early stages of the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror under former President George W. Bush. Lawsuits have been brought, seeking the same information.

Obama said an investigation might be acceptable “outside of the typical hearing process” and with the participation of “independent participants who are above reproach.” This, he said, could help ensure that any investigation would be a tool to learn, not to provide partisan advantage to one side or another.

“That would probably be a more sensible approach to take,” Obama said. “I’m not saying that it should be done, I’m saying that if you’ve got a choice.”

The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.

“As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back,” Obama said. “I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.”

By George McGovern | Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2009

President Obama holds my admiration with high hopes for his message of change in Washington. It is puzzling, however, that he has adopted most of the previous administration’s formula for dragging out the withdrawal of our troops from the mistaken war in Iraq for nearly three more years. Very little “change” here.

Three years ago, public opinion polls indicated that a majority of Americans believed our policymakers were wrong in ordering troops into Iraq. It is widely accepted that this sentiment more than any other factor in the 2006 congressional elections resulted in Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.

Are we now going to ignore for another three years the public mandate of 2006 against this costly, preemptive war based on deceit? And how can we justify putting thousands more U.S. troops into Afghanistan? We have already exhausted our treasury. We are also close to exhausting our soldiers.

Can there be any doubt that the enormous war cost has contributed to the financial crisis here at home? The expense of waging two Middle East wars, plus the loss of revenue caused by the previous administration’s tax cuts, have skyrocketed the national debt to a record high. Do we ever consider what the interest alone is on our $10-trillion national debt — much of it paid to China?

Frankly, we cannot afford a two-war commitment year after year if we want to balance the federal budget and restore our economy. The huge bonuses that directors of failing corporations have awarded themselves and their chief executives have rightfully angered people, but those figures are peanuts compared with the $12 billion a month we have poured into Iraq and Afghanistan over the last six years.

Has either the great God above or his creatures here below designated us to run the Middle East? What do we say to the Iraqi people who have indicated overwhelmingly in several polls that they want U.S. troops out of their country now? Why would we not understand this sentiment considering that our military equipment has smashed Iraqi homes, public buildings and infrastructure, including electricity and running water?

Of course, the most painful cost of these wars is the deaths of more than 4,200 brave American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. This is to say nothing of the decline of our political judgment and moral standing in the world.

The Obama administration recommends we leave 50,000 troops in Iraq to “police” that troubled country through 2011. There may well be flare-ups that will keep them there indefinitely, struggling to police the war-induced chaos.

In June 1950, President Truman ordered our troops into Korea, stating it would only be a brief police action that did not require a declaration of war. Three years later and after 38,000 American soldiers had been killed, the new American president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the commander of Allied forces in World War II, promptly ended our involvement in the Korean War, to the relief of our combat soldiers and the American public.

Unfortunately, Washington left 40,000 American soldiers behind to police the 38th Parallel — for a brief time. Yet, more than 50 years later, nearly 30,000 American troops are still in South Korea. So much for brief police actions.

Our policymakers in Washington contend that we must maintain U.S. troops in the Middle East to curb terrorism. I strongly believe that it is our military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East that is driving terrorism against the United States. No country that longs for national sovereignty wants a foreign army in its midst. We taught that lesson to the British Empire in 1776 when George Washington and his ragtag guerrilla army drove the British military from our shores.

My generation has lived through half a dozen wars, beginning with World War II and then Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and several smaller conflicts. The only one of those wars I really believed in and still do was the U.S. participation in World War II, in which I served as a combat bomber pilot against Hitler’s Nazi Germany.

I believe we aging veterans have an obligation to share what we have learned with the American people and with our young president, who seems open to well-meant suggestions.

In that spirit, I urge President Obama to bring our troops home from the Middle East this year. A good target date for completing an orderly withdrawal from two ill-conceived and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be Thanksgiving 2009.

For our sake and God’s sake, let’s get out of there and begin healing our own bankrupted land.

George McGovern is a former presidential candidate and senator from South Dakota.

By Liaquat Ali Khan | Counterpunch, April 20, 2009

In a case filed with the Pakistan Supreme Court, the petitioner states: “The Americans, like in Musharraf’s time, have also been given a free hand by President Zardari and fundamental rights of the (indigenous) people are being violated daily in tribal areas and (in northern areas of) Dir, Swat and Chitral. A large number of (indigenous) people have migrated from these areas and suffered tremendous losses with no hope of returning to their homes because of US drone attacks, but the government is sitting as a silent spectator.”

Since August 2008, nearly 60 drone strikes in tribal and other northern areas have massacred over 500 individuals belonging to a population that qualifies as indigenous people under international law. The majority of victims are poor and frightened men, women, and children. They have little to do with militants who are fighting the NATO occupation forces in Afghanistan. To escape future drone massacres of their families, thousands of residents living in target areas, have left their homes and businesses to seek asylum in other parts of Pakistan. Wretched stories of these internally displaced persons (IDPs) and their trail of tears have made little news in the international media.

After extending a hand of friendship to the Muslim world in his inaugural speech, President Barack Hussein Obama has personally authorized the continuance of drone attacks. In hopes of destroying the nesting places of Muslim militancy, the Obama administration is poised to expanding the drone warfare to other parts of Pakistan. Presuming that Pakistan is secretly supporting drone strikes, the vengeful militants have begun to attack the citadel cities of Lahore and Islamabad. As drone attacks continue to kill and generate the IDPs among the indigenous population and as militants undertake retaliatory measures in major cities, the nuclear-armed Pakistan is predicted to plunge into uncontrollable chaos and carnage threatening international peace and security.

Before Pakistan turns into another Iraq, the Obama administration should reconsider the wisdom and legality of drone strikes as a means of fighting the militants in Pakistan.

Self-Righteous Militarism

For the indigenous people of tribal areas, the drone aircraft has turned into a despised symbol of American militarism, even though the United States armed forces and the CIA have not even once assumed responsibility for drone attacks. Ironically, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Central Asian Muslim states, the drone has previously been known as a note or chord which is continuously repeated in musical pieces, Sufi songs, most notably in qawwalis. Torn from its musical connotations, the drone is now associated with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) engaged in repeated massacres. UAVs perform a host of military functions, including intelligence gathering, surveillance, and launching missiles on electronically-nominated targets. For the indigenous people of Pakistan, however, the drone is a white American jahaz (aircraft) that, all too often around the time of morning prayer, sneaks into the tribal airspace,  strikes fragile houses and compounds, and murders scores of people in each sortie.

In deploying military might, American policymakers consistently fail to comprehend a simple point: No nation looks forward to foreign military attacks. Be it in the Philippines, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan, the American military is rarely seen as a force of liberation or virtue. The American armed forces did serve the cause of liberation in the Second World War. Even during the Cold War, the American military retained some of its moral underpinnings. No longer, however, is the American military welcome in developing nations. Ignoring this plain truth, American policymakers, driven by unexamined self-righteousness, continue to impose deadly military solutions over complex geopolitical problems.

The drone attacks in Pakistan, which has been a submissive American ally for more than sixty years, complicate problems and not simplify them. They invite retaliation from militants and sow resentment in the Muslim world. Killing the indigenous people in Pakistan under the Obama flag will be as unsuccessful as has been killing Iraqi people under the Bush flag.

Unlawful Collateral Damage

Drone attacks are not only unwise, they are also unlawful. Even when perpetrated with Pakistan’s permission, drone attacks are violations of international law because they produce unacceptably high collateral damage. Collateral damage is a military term to describe damage caused to civilians, facilities, equipment, and property while attacking a lawful military target. The damage can occur to friendly, neutral, or enemy forces. “Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack.” As a rule, therefore, the military benefit must be much higher than the cost of collateral damage. A military strike is unlawful if the collateral damage exceeds lawful military advantage. In tribal areas, the collateral damage has been egregiously high since drone strikes kill hundreds of civilians in order to neutralize a few militants. On the basis of casualty count alone, the drone attacks are contrary to international law.

These attacks turn blatantly illegal when the collateral damage is fully assessed and aggregated. In addition to causing death and injury to non-combatants, drone attacks degrade the social and economic life of indigenous tribes. As noted above, hundreds of families have fled targeted areas to seek refuge elsewhere. Small businesses that sustain communities have been disrupted. Facing the uncertainty of drone attacks, parents decline to send children to schools. When American officials threaten to broaden the drone warfare, panic and the consequent social and economic disruptions are further increased. The physical, social, and economic cost inflicted on the tribal areas cannot be justified under the limited military advantage that drone attacks yield to the United States.

If the Obama administration is serious in turning the page in the Muslim world and if the American war on terror, which is shifting from the Middle East to South Asia, is to be conducted under the rule of law, the drone attacks against indigenous populations of Pakistan’s tribal areas must immediately be called off.

Liaquat Ali Khan is professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in Topeka, Kansas, and the author of the book, A Theory of International Terrorism (2006).

By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondent | Haaretz, Apr 20, 2009

The water-supply regime used by Israel and the Palestinians must be changed, according to a World Bank report that is to be published today.

The report notes that an average Israeli gets four times as much water as the average Palestinian, and warns that the Palestinian Authority water system is “nearing catastrophe.”

It concludes by recommending that the current water-distribution arrangement, mandated as part of the Oslo II accords, be changed to improve the Palestinian system.

The report, requested by the PA, is likely to be particularly problematic for Israel due to the regional water crisis. The agreement between the two sides is asymmetrical and exacerbates the crisis greatly as far as the Palestinians are concerned.

This is the first such document presented by the World Bank on the subject of Israeli and Palestinian water use.

According to the report, the understandings reached at Oslo fall far short of fulfilling the needs of Palestinian civilians.

The unequal division of the resources, as well as constraints on information regarding the area’s water supply, have impeded the Palestinians’ ability to develop water sources – a problem that is intensified by the weakness of Palestinian government institutions.

The report says this has lead to an emergency situation with grave ramifications vis-a-vis the economy, the society and the ecology of the PA. Water-related humanitarian crises are frequent in parts of the West Bank and Gaza.

The report states that Palestinians have access to only one-fifth of the mountain aquifer supply, while Israel pumps out the rest, reaching its allocated quota without due authorization from the joint water committee set up in the Oslo accords.

Over-pumping from the aquifer creates a danger of salinity, the report maintains.

It also notes that Palestinians dig comparatively shallow wells and cannot reach water sources, because of Israel’s much deeper drilling.

According to the World Bank, Israel has a satisfactory water distribution and management system, while the PA is struggling to maintain a minimal infrastructure with minimal financial means. In Gaza, the meager investment in water and sanitation has lead to a lack of water-quality control, posing great risk to public health.

Related articles:
• Officials: Kinneret to suffer irrevocably if water not conserved
• Palestinian water authority: 40% of Gazans lack running water
• Officials: Hamas seizes control of Gaza water agency working with Blair