Jerusalem’s mayor defends demolition of houses in Arab area

April 24, 2009

Nir Barkat rejects international criticism and says east of city could never be capital of Palestinian state

Israel‘s mayor of Jerusalem defended the demolition of houses in the Arab east of the city today and insisted Jerusalem could not be a future capital of a Palestinian state.

Nir Barkat, a secular businessman elected as mayor five months ago, rejected international criticism of demolitions and planning policy in east Jerusalem as “misinformation” and “Palestinian spin”.

There is growing international concern about Israeli house demolitions and settlement growth in East Jerusalem, an area captured by Israel in 1967 and later annexed in a move not recognised by most of the international community. Critics of Israeli policy point out that planning permits are rarely given to Palestinians in East Jerusalem and that space allowed in the east for building is heavily restricted.

Last month the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, described demolitions as “unhelpful” and an internal EU diplomatic report, obtained last month by the Guardian, described them as “illegal under international law” and said they “fuel bitterness and extremism”.

But Barkat told reporters: “There is no politics. It’s just maintaining law and order in the city.” Since January, he said, there had been 35 demolitions, of which 20 were in the east. Asked about the international concern, he said: “The world is basing their evidence on the wrong facts … The world has to learn and I am sure people will change their minds.”

But others on the council disagree. Meir Margalit, an elected councillor from the leftwing Meretz party, said while the demolitions in the east were of Palestinian apartments and houses, in the west of the city they were nearly all small structures added on to buildings, including shopfronts.

Margalit said fewer than 7% of planning applications submitted by Palestinians in East Jerusalem had been successful so far this year, against 14% from the west, while 41% of Palestinian East Jerusalem planning applications had been rejected, against 20% from the west. He said this followed a pattern established over many years, before Barkat’s election.

“The discrimination here is more than ideological,” Margalit said. “It is part of a cultural structure that is the norm in the municipality.” He also produced research showing the municipality spent less than 12% of its budget in the east, where roads are often potholed and services are poor.

Barkat said he wanted to improve the life of all the city’s residents, Jewish and Arab, but that he was committed to maintaining a Jewish majority. Jews make up around two-thirds of the city’s population.

He said he could not accept East Jerusalem becoming the capital of a future Palestinian state. “Jerusalem, both ideologically and practically, has to be managed as a united city, as the Israeli capital, and must not be divided,” he said.

Barkat said he wanted the Israeli government to build a Jewish settlement in an area of the occupied West Bank east of Jerusalem known as E1, a project the US has opposed. He said E1 was part of the “holy land of Israel” and could serve to allow the city’s Jewish population to expand outwards. “I see no reason in the world why the Israelis must freeze expansion and the Palestinians can build illegally,” he said. Under the US “road map”, which remains the basis of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel is committed to freezing all settlement building. Settlements in occupied land are widely regarded as illegal under international law.

Condi Rice and John Ashcroft reviewed, approved waterboarding in 2002

April 23, 2009

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writers
The Washington Post, Thursday, April 23, 2009

Condoleezza Rice, John D. Ashcroft and at least 10 other top Bush officials reviewed and approved as early as the summer of 2002 the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation methods on detainees at secret prisons, including waterboarding that Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. has described as illegal torture, according to a detailed timeline furnished by Holder to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

At a moment when the Justice Department is deciding whether former officials who set interrogation policy or formulated the legal justifications for it should be investigated for committing crimes, the new timeline lists the members of the Bush administration who were present when the CIA’s director and its general counsel explained exactly which questioning methods were to be used and how those sessions proceeded.

Rice gave a key early approval, when, as Bush’s national security adviser, she met on July 17, 2002, with the CIA’s then-director, George J. Tenet, and “advised that the CIA could proceed with its proposed interrogation of Abu Zubaydah,” subject to approval by the Justice Department, according to the timeline. Rice and four other White House officials had been briefed two months earlier on “alternative interrogation methods, including waterboarding,” it states. Waterboarding is a technique that simulates drowning.

A year later, in July 2003, the CIA briefed Rice, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft, White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and National Security Council legal adviser John Bellinger on the use of waterboarding and other techniques, it states. They “reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy.”

In early 2004, a comprehensive report by the CIA inspector general raised new questions about the program, including the waterboarding of three detainees. It said that the interrogations were not clearly legal under an international treaty the United States had signed, known as the Convention Against Torture, which bars cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that falls short of torture.

A fresh legal review by the Justice Department prompted Ashcroft to inform the CIA in writing on July 22, 2004, that its interrogation methods – except waterboarding – were legal. The following month, the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel added that even waterboarding would be legal if it were carried out with a series of safeguards according to CIA plans. By the following May, the department had completed two more reviews of the program that came to the same conclusion. These were among the memos released by President Obama this week.

After the leak in 2005 of a Justice Department memo that narrowly defined the type of activity that would constitute torture, Rice traveled to Europe in an effort to quell the international uproar. As her trip was getting underway, she said, “The United States government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees. Torture, and conspiracy to commit torture, are crimes under U.S. law, wherever they may occur in the world.”

Rice also said at the time that the administration’s policy “will be consistent” with the international convention prohibiting “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”

British soldiers ‘tortured and murdered 20 Iraqis, then covered it up with firefight claim’

April 23, 2009

By Neil Sears | Mail Online, UK, April 23, 2009

British soldiers tortured and murdered up to 20 Iraqis in cold blood, the High Court was told yesterday.

It happened after a three-hour gun battle at an Army checkpoint near Basra, a lawyer claimed.

Rabinder Singh said a group of local men were taken prisoner and transported to an Army camp where they were beaten with a rusty tent pole, punched, slammed against walls, denied water, blasted with loud music and forced to strip naked in the presence of a woman – a humiliation for Muslim men.

Ann Clwyd

Camp Abu Naji: MP Ann Clwyd at the base where abuse allegedly happened

The next day, he said, only nine were still alive – and 20 corpses were returned to their families. One was teenager Hamid Al-Sweady.

The Army claims the men all died in the initial gun battle, but Hamid’s uncle Khuder Al-Sweady and five survivors of the incident yesterday began a court battle in London to win an independent inquiry.

The clash in May 2004 came after insurgents launched a heavy attack on a checkpoint known as Danny Boy in Al Majar-al-Kabir – the town north of Basra where six military policeman had been murdered the previous year.

According to Army accounts, the soldiers were heavily outnumbered but fought back heroically, mounting a bayonet charge at one point, until the attackers were defeated. The Army says only nine Iraqis were taken away alive for questioning.

But Mr Singh said that when the shooting was over, the British troops took bloody revenge. He said: ‘It is the claimants’ case that at least some of those captured were tortured and killed by British troops between 14 and 15 May 2004, and that there has been no effective investigation into what happened to them in that 24-hour period.

‘This constitutes a substantive and procedural breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.’

He added: ‘There is a lot of evidence from soldiers at the battlefield that there were more than nine that were taken alive.

‘Many of the bodies of the Iraqis returned on 15 May 2004 were severely disfigured and some appeared to show marks of torture and mutilation.’

The Ministry of Defence says a tenmonth Royal Military Police investigation showed the 20 dead were killed in the initial battle. The corpses were taken to be identified before being returned to their families, with no evidence of torture. The hearing continues.

Torturers Should Be Punished

April 23, 2009

By Amy Goodman | Truthdig, April 22, 2009

Spokane, Wash. – George W. Bush insisted that the U.S. did not use torture.

But the four Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel memos released last week by the Obama administration’s Justice Department paint a starkly different picture. The declassified memos provided legal authorization for “harsh interrogation techniques” used by the Bush administration in the years following Sept. 11, 2001. They authorized (as listed in the Aug. 1, 2002, memo by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee) “walling … facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, insects placed in a confinement box, and the waterboard.”

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the OLC under Bush “became a facilitator for illegal government conduct, issuing dozens of memos meant to permit gross violations of domestic and international law.”

The memos authorize what the International Committee of the Red Cross called, in a leaked report, “treatment and interrogation techniques … that amounted to torture.”

These torture techniques were developed by two psychologists based in Spokane, Wash.: James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen. Their company, Mitchell Jessen & Associates, provided specialized training to members of the U.S. military to deal with capture by enemy forces. The training is called SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape. Mitchell and Jessen, both psychologists, were contracted by the U.S. government to train interrogators with techniques they claimed would break prisoners.

They reverse-engineered the SERE training, originally developed to help people withstand and survive torture, to train a new generation of torturers.

The memos provide gruesome details of the torture. Waterboarding was used hundreds of times on a number of prisoners. The Bybee memo includes this Kafkaesque authorization: “You would like to place [Abu] Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects. In particular, you would like to tell Zubaydah that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him.”

After President Barack Obama said there should be no prosecutions, he was received with great fanfare at the CIA this week. Mark Benjamin, the reporter who originally broke the Mitchell and Jessen story, said when I questioned him about Obama’s position: “If you look at the president’s statements and you combine them with the statements of Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff, and Eric Holder, the attorney general … you will see that over the last couple of days the Obama administration has announced that no one, not the people who carried out the torture program or the people who designed the program or the people that authorized the program or the people who said that it was legal-even though they knew that it frankly wasn’t-none of those people will ever face charges. The attorney general has announced that … the government will pay the legal fees for anybody who is brought up on any charges anywhere in the world or has to go before Congress. They will be provided attorneys … they have been given this blanket immunity … in return for nothing.”

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein asked Obama to hold off on ruling out prosecutions until her panel finishes an investigation during the next six months. Though Obama promises to let the torturers go, others are pursuing them. Bybee is now a federal judge. A grass-roots movement, including Common Cause and the Center for Constitutional Rights, is calling on Congress to impeach Bybee. In Spain, Judge Baltasar Garzon, who got Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet indicted for crimes against humanity, has named Bybee and five others as targets of a prosecution.

For years, people have felt they have been hitting their heads against walls (some suffered this literally, as the memos detail). On Election Day, it looked like that wall had become a door. But that door is open only a crack. Whether it is kicked open or slammed shut is not up to the president. Though he may occupy the most powerful office on Earth, there is a force more powerful: committed people demanding change. We need a universal standard of justice. Torturers should be punished.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

© 2009 Amy Goodman

UN urges Tamil Tigers to surrender

April 23, 2009

Al Jazeera,April 23, 2009

Aid groups are demanding a ceasefire to allow civilians to flee the war zone [AFP]

The UN Security Council has demanded that Tamil separatists holding out against the Sri Lankan military surrender and allow civilians trapped in the war zone to leave.

Wednesday’s call by Claude Heller, the council’s rotating president, came as rights groups pressed the UN to do more, warning that tens of thousands of civilians remain stuck in “catastrophic” conditions.

Heller said: “We demand that the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] immediately lay down arms, renounce terrorism, allow a UN-assisted evacuation of the remaining civilians in the conflict area, and join the political process.”

‘Human shields’

Diplomats told reporters after the closed session that the security council “strongly condemned” the Tigers and accused them of using civilians trapped in a small strip of land as human shields.

In video
Sri Lankan civilians ‘escape’ rebel stronghold
Sri Lankan fighting exacts grim civilian toll

The security council also expressed its “deep concern” about the worsening humanitarian situation, but so far has not taken any action.

Rights groups are calling for a two-week ceasefire to let civilians out.

Anna Neistat, of Human Rights Watch, said: “We do have numerous civilian casualties, but we are not yet at the stage where a Tamilloodbath is going on full scale. It is a matter of days if not hours.”

The Sri Lankan military says it has “rescued” 80,000 Tamils over the past three days. The government ordered the Tigers to surrender on Tuesday, saying the military was about to start its final assault.

Catherine Bragg, the UN deputy humanitarian affairs chief, said the UN had not yet received permission to enter the conflict zone or to monitor the screening of civilians who manage to escape the fighting, a claim disputed by the Sri Lankan government.

The Sri Lankan government was also criticised for not providing full assistance to all civilians fleeing the Tiger-held zone.

‘Human sandbags’

David Chater, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in the northeastern Trincomalee, said: “[The government] sfay that it is the Tamil Tigers who are holding the Tamil civilians there, using civilians as human sandbags. I’ve certainly talked to many people and they’ve told me that is correct.

Focus: Sri Lanka

Q&A: Sri Lanka’s civil war

The history of the Tamil Tigers

Timeline: Conflict in Sri Lanka

‘High cost’ of victory over Tigers

Caught in the middle

“I think perhaps the Sri Lankan government could be held responsible for some of the injuries if they are being caused by indirect fire – that is shelling, bombing, mortars,” he said.”But they made it very clear to me that they say they are using minimum force, these are their fellow civilians they do not want to harm them, their target is the Tamil Tigers.”

Chater said that many of the refugees said that they were bitter about the way the LTTE had treated them.

“There seems to have been a sea change in the opinion of the Tamil civilians about the Tamil Tiger leadership.

“[After] seeing the men that were supposed to be protecting them, fighting for their own homeland, exploiting them, shooting at them when they tried to escape, stealing the humanitarian food supplies.

Chater said that this that has had eroded support for the LTTE which could hamper any guerrilla force operating after the conventional military war is over.

Susan Rice, the US ambassador, suggested that both sides might be guilty of violating international law.

“The fact that both sides have been shooting at civilians as they leave the safe zone is one gross manifestation of the apparent violation of international humanitarian law,” she said.

In remarks to the US congress on Wednesday, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, said “the Sri Lankan government knows that the entire world is very disappointed” at the “untold suffering” being brought by its offensive against the Tigers”.

She added that “there seems to be very little openness on the part of the Tamil Tiger leadership to cease their efforts so that we could try to get in and help the people”.

Prominent Tigers ‘surrender’

China and Russia are among some countries which have opposed the idea of a formal security council discussion of the conflict, which has spanned 26 years, saying it is an internal matter for the Sri Lankans.

The UN estimates that more than 4,500 civilians have been killed in the past three months and the International Committee of the Red Cross says up to 50,000 people remain trapped in the less than 20sq km area still held by the Tigers.The Sri Lankan military said on Thursday that the group’s former media spokesman and an interpreter who both played prominent roles in dealing with the media, had surrendered.

The Tigers have been fighting for an autonomous homeland for ethnic Tamils in the north of the country, arguing that they are marginalised by the majority Sinhalese government.

A Norway-brokered ceasefire fell apart during 2007 and the government said it would “wipe out” the Tigers by the end of 2008.

What credibility is there in Geneva’s all-white boycott?

April 23, 2009

The Iranian president’s repugnant rhetoric doesn’t give Israel’s sponsors the right to cry foul when it’s called racist

What do the US, Canada, ­Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Italy and Israel have in common? They are all either European or European-settler states. And they all decided to boycott this week’s UN ­conference against racism in Geneva – even before Monday’s incendiary speech by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which triggered a further white-flight walkout by representatives of another 23 European states.

In international forums, it’s almost unprecedented to have such an ­undiluted racial divide of whites-versus-the-rest. And for that to happen in a global meeting called to combat racial hatred doesn’t exactly augur well for future international understanding at a time when the worst economic crisis since the war is ramping up racism and xenophobia across the world.

Didn’t Canada or Australia have anything to say about the grim condition of their indigenous people, you might wonder, or Italy and the Czech Republic about violent attacks on Roma people? Didn’t any of the boycotters have a contribution to make about the rampant Islamophobia, resurgence of anti-semitism and scapegoating of migrants in their countries over the last decade?

The dispute was mainly about Israel and western fears that the conference would be used, like its torrid predecessor in Durban at the height of the Palestinian intifada in 2001, to denounce the Jewish state and attack the west over colonialism and the slave trade. In fact, although it was the only conflict mentioned in the final Durban declaration, the reference was so mild (recognising the Palestinian right to self-determination alongside Israel’s right to security) that the then Israeli prime minister, ­Shimon Peres, called it “an accomplishment of the first order for Israel”.

In this week’s Geneva statement, Israel isn’t mentioned at all. But the US bizarrely still used its reaffirmation of the anodyne Durban declaration to justify a boycott, to the anger of African American politicians such as Jesse Jackson and Barbara Lee, who chairs the US Congressional Black Caucus. In fact, like the other boycotting governments, the US administration had been intensely lobbied by rightwing pro-Israel groups, who had insisted long in advance that the conference would be a “hatefest”.

Ahmadinejad’s grandstanding played straight into that agenda. The most poisonous phrases in the printed version of his speech circulated by embassy officials referred to the Nazi genocide as “ambiguous and dubious” and claimed Zionist “penetration” of western society was so deep that “nothing can be done against their will”. That a head of state of a country of nearly 70 million people is still toying with Holocaust denial and European antisemitic tropes straight out of the Tsarist antisemitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is not only morally repugnant and factually absurd. It’s also damaging to the Palestinian cause by association, weakens the international support Iran needs to avert the threat of attack over its nuclear programme, and bolsters Israel’s claims that it faces an existential threat.

But, perhaps as a result of an appeal by the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, Ahmadinejad dropped those provocations at the last minute. What in fact triggered the walkout of European Union ambassadors was his reference to Israel as a “totally racist regime”, established by the western powers who had made an “entire nation Israel homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering” and “in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe”.

The rhetoric was certainly crude and inflammatory. Britain’s foreign secretary David Miliband called it “hate-filled”. But the truth is that throughout the Arab, Muslim and wider developing worlds, the idea that Israel is a racist state is largely uncontroversial. The day after Ahmadinejad’s appearance, the Palestinian Authority foreign minister, Riyad al-Maliki, echoed the charge in the conference hall, describing Israeli occupation as “the ugliest face of racism”. It’s really not good enough for Britain’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Peter Gooderham – who led the Ahmadinejad walkout – to say of the charge of Israel’s racism, “we all know it when we see it and it’s not that”.

This is a state, after all, created by European colonists, built on the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, whose founding legal principles guarantee the right of citizenship to any Jewish migrant from anywhere in the world, while denying that same right to Palestinians born there along with their descendants. Of course, Israel is much else besides, and the Jewish cultural and historical link with Palestine is a ­profound one.

But even those Palestinians who are Israeli citizens face what the then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert last year called “deliberate and ­insufferable” discrimination by a state which defines itself by ethnicity. For Palestinians in the occupied territories, ruled by Israel for most of the state’s existence, where ­ethnic segregation and extreme ­inequality is ruthlessly enforced, the situation is far worse – even without the relentless military assaults and killings. And Israel now has a far-right ­government whose foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has said 90% of Israel’s Arab citizens have “no place” in the country, should be forcibly “transferred”, and only be allowed citizenship in exchange for an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Zionist Jewish state.

But if Lieberman had turned up to speak at the Geneva anti-racism conference, who believes that western delegates and ambassadors would have staged a walkout? Of course, there’s a perfectly ­reasonable argument to be had about the nature of Israel’s racism and whether it should be compared to apartheid, for example. But for western governments to hold up their hands in horror when Israel is described as a racist state has no global credibility whatever.

Israel’s supporters often complain that, whatever its faults, it is singled out for attack while the crimes of other states and conflicts are ignored. To the extent that that’s true in forums such as the UN, it’s partly because Israel is seen as the unfinished business of European colonialism, along with the Middle East conflict’s other special mix of multiple toxins. The Geneva boycotters, fresh from standing behind Israel’s carnage in Gaza, are in denial about their own racism – and their continuing role in the tragedy of the Middle East.

Nobel Laureate Accuses Israel of ‘Ethnic Cleansing’

April 22, 2009

Khaleej Times Online, April 23, 2009

AFP

JERUSALEM – Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire on Tuesday accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” policies in annexed east Jerusalem, where the municipality plans to tear down almost 90 Arab homes.

“I believe the Israeli government is carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians here in east Jerusalem,” said Maguire, who won the 1976 Nobel prize for her efforts at reaching a peaceful solution to the violence in Northern Ireland.

“I believe the Israeli government policies are against international law, against human rights, against the dignity of the Palestinian people,” she said at a news conference.

It was held in a protest tent erected by residents of east Jerusalem’s Silwan neighbourhood where 88 Arab homes are under demolition orders.

The Israeli authorities say the houses were built or extended without the necessary construction permits. Palestinians say the planned demolitions aim at forcing them out of east Jerusalem.

If the demolition orders are carried out 1,500 people would be left homeless in one of the largest forced evictions since Israel occupied mostly Arab east Jerusalem in the 1967 war and later annexed it.

Israel considers Jerusalem to be its eternal and undivided capital, while Palestinians want to make east Jerusalem the capital of their future state.

The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem says that since 2004 the Israeli authorities have torn down more than 400 homes in east Jerusalem.

Torturers must not go scot-free

April 22, 2009

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.

Norwegian lawyers to accuse Israeli leaders of war crimes

April 22, 2009

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

Obama open to prosecution, probe of interrogations

April 22, 2009

President Barack Obama gestures during his meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan,
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.”