US Drone Strike Kills Eight Civilians in South Waziristan

April 20, 2009
Women, Children Killed in Series of Explosions Set Off by Air Strike

by Jason Ditz | Antiwar.com,  April 19, 2009

This morning, a US drone attacked an apparent militant hideout in Pakistan’s South Waziristan Agency, triggering a massive series of explosions which local residents eight civilians, including women and children, and injuring at least two others.

Reports on the attack are still not totally clear, with local police insisting first that no one was killed at all in the attack, which evidently started a fire which spread to two explosive-laden vehicles.  Militants cordoned off the area, but it does not appear that any of them were present at the time of the attack.

The attack came just one day after the local Ahmedzai Wazir tribe managed to negotiate a ceasefire across the troubled agency. The Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the government forces in the agency agreed to stop attacks, and certain demands of the TTP, including the removal of checkpoints, were reportedly being considered. It is unclear what impact the US attack will have on this deal.

Related Stories

Franklin Rosemont, artist, historian and rebel

April 20, 2009

Alan Maass honors a revolutionary who helped keep the history of our movement alive.

Franklin Rosemont (center) with Penelope Rosemont and Paul Buhle (Thomas Good | Next Left Notes)

Franklin Rosemont (center) with Penelope Rosemont and Paul Buhle (Thomas Good | Next Left Notes)

FRANKLIN ROSEMONT, a historian, poet, artist and lifelong revolutionary, died suddenly April 12 at the age of 65. He was a part of movements for justice that spanned half a century, and as a writer and artist, he helped keep alive the traditions and history of the struggle for a better world.

Franklin was born in Chicago in 1943. His father Henry was a union printer who played a leading role in the nearly two-year-long Chicago newspaper strike of 1947-1949, editing the strike newspaper and writing scripts for a daily radio show, “Meet the Union Printers,” broadcast on the Chicago Federation of Labor’s station WCFL. His mother Sally was a jazz musician who became president of a union local for women musicians.

Not surprisingly, Franklin was drawn to the left early on–he joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) at age 7. Tiring of high school, he dropped out to hitchhike across the U.S. and Mexico, logging more than 20,000 miles by his count.

One regular stop was San Francisco’s North Beach, the heart of beat culture, where he met Lawrence Ferlinghetti and the other poets at City Lights bookstore. Franklin was also drawn toward surrealist literature and art–first encountered, he said, in a high school anthology, where he came across the surrealist proverb “Elephants are contagious.”

With U.S. society still in the grips of Cold War conservatism, the appeal of the beats and the surrealists was as a cry of defiance against the conformity of American culture. But Franklin always connected cultural rebellion to a political one, viewing surrealism not only as a form of artistic expression, but as a political philosophy.

By the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was shaking U.S. politics, and a new left was emerging. Back in Chicago, Franklin went to Roosevelt University, then a center of radical activity, and one of the few schools committed to hiring African American faculty–it was known as the “little red schoolhouse.”

In the mid-1960s, he and his wife Penelope, a fellow artist, visited Paris, where they met Andre Breton, the main figure of European surrealism. Breton’s Surrealist Manifesto, written in the 1920s, insisted on the connection of politics and art. Breton later visited Mexico to meet Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky–together, they wrote the manifesto Toward a Free Revolutionary Art.

Breton found kindred spirits in the Rosemonts. Franklin and Penelope came back to the U.S. and formed the Chicago Surrealist Group. Its members could be found at Solidarity Bookstore or Gallery Bugs Bunny–both places served as meeting space during organizing around the demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

For the Rosemonts, exhibitions of their art went hand in hand with producing leaflets and posters for the struggle. Franklin worked with the IWW and Students for a Democratic Society. He also spearheaded the newspaper Surrealist Insurrection, which was singled out as an inspiration by radical students during the Prague Spring rebellion in Czechoslovakia in 1968.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

FRANKLIN WAS a tireless writer. After Breton’s death in 1966, he edited an English language collection of Breton’s writings, among many other works by surrealists. He published numerous books of his own poetry.

He also used his encyclopedic knowledge of American labor and the left to become a prolific historian–all without, as one tribute to him put it, “ever holding a university post.” Recently, he published his biography Joe Hill, the IWW and the Making of a Working-Class Counterculture. He also edited and wrote introductions for numerous books collecting the writings of a virtual Who’s Who of American radicals.

Many of these books were connected to what became a central project of Franklin’s life–the Charles H. Kerr Company, the oldest socialist publisher in the country.

Founded in 1886, the Kerr Company was a stronghold of the Socialist Party left and IWW during the first decades of the 20th century–known for a vast list of radical books, its series of short pamphlets wrapped in red cellophane called “The Pocket Library of Socialism,” and its monthly magazine, the widely read International Socialist Review.

By the time Franklin connected with the Kerr Company in the late 1970s, it had fallen on hard times. A small number of older socialists who remembered the Kerr Company in its heyday had recently joined the board of directors, thinking that the company deserved “a proper burial,” and that at least its stock of old books could be saved from the dumpster.

But one thing led to another, and the Kerr Company was reborn, with a steady trickle–and then a healthy stream–of reprints and new titles. Franklin threw himself into the work with all his infectious energy, giving new life to Kerr classics by the likes of Upton Sinclair, Clarence Darrow, Eugene Debs, Mother Jones and many more.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I MET Franklin when I was first coming around left-wing politics in the early 1980s. With the right-wing Reagan era taking hold, Franklin’s knowledge and experience were a treasured resource. He was a bridge to the struggles of the past that we knew about mainly through reading–not only those he was a part of in the 1960s and ’70s, but ones that came before him.

Through Franklin, I met the Kerr Company’s movement veterans–like Fred Thompson, whose days as an agitator dated back to the pre-Depression Wobblies. Or Joe Giganti, formerly head of the Sacco-Vanzetti Defense Committee, not to mention opera critic for the Communist Party’s Italian-language paper Il Lavoratore.

I knew about the 1930s Chicago union activist Vicki Starr (who went by the name Stella Nowicki) from the wonderful documentary Union Maids. But of course, Franklin and his Kerr Company co-conspirator David Roediger knew where she lived, and got her to an International Women’s Day event where she could be questioned in person.

I should also say that I was never prouder to call Chicago my hometown than when I was talking to Franklin. He was an inexhaustible storehouse of information about the other Chicago they don’t make tourism commercials about–or mention in their bids to host the Olympics.

It was enough to say you’d moved to a new place in such and such neighborhood, and you’d soon learn that you were down the block from a factory once owned by the German émigré who financed the English-language translation of Marx’s Capital, or that there was a forgotten monument to Haymarket martyr Albert Parsons’ widow Lucy Parsons in a park nearby, or that the 1968 convention protesters had taken refuge on that street over there where they’re building the fancy townhouses.

The book of Franklin’s that I always thought was perfectly suited to him was the Haymarket Scrapbook, which he edited with David Roediger–and if you see a copy for sale anywhere, don’t hesitate, grab it fast.

The Scrapbook is what a coffee-table book should be–hugely oversized, and stuffed with essays, excerpts, quotes, poems, drawings, photos, reproductions of leaflets and anything else remotely pertaining to the 1886 demonstration in Chicago’s Haymarket Square and the execution of the Haymarket Martyrs after that.

The book tells the story of the Martyrs and the movement for the eight-hour day that they led. But it also sets out the backdrop and associated political developments, and it traces Haymarket’s reverberations through the years in shaping all kinds of people and all kinds of struggles.

This is the history of our movement that’s kept hidden from us. Franklin was devoted to keeping that history alive so that it could be a part of shaping the struggles of the future. And for that, we owe him many thanks–and our commitment to keep up the fight.

Four CIA chiefs said ‘don’t reveal torture memos’

April 20, 2009

Agency’s ex-directors objected to interrogation techniques being revealed. But Barack Obama went ahead anyway.

By Pamela Hess | The Independent, UK, April 19, 2009

Former CIA directors General Michael Hayden (above), Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch fought the White House over release of embarrassing documents

afp

Former CIA directors General Michael Hayden (above), Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch fought the White House over release of embarrassing documents

Four former CIA directors opposed the release of classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed disclosure of the records. Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called “torture memos” would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say.

President Barack Obama ultimately overruled the objections after internal discussions that intensified in the weeks that followed the former directors’ intervention. The memos were released on Thursday.

Mr Obama’s involvement grew as the decision neared, and he even led a National Security Council session on the matter, four senior administration officials said. White House adviser David Axelrod, who said he also talked to Mr Obama about the pending release of the memos in recent weeks, said the ex-directors’ opposition was considered seriously but did not impede the decision-making process. “The CIA directors weighed in and it slowed things down,” Mr Axelrod said on Friday.

The memos detailed the legal rationales that senior Bush administration lawyers drew up authorising the CIA to use simulated drowning and other harsh techniques on terror suspects. They described how prisoners were naked, shackled and hooded at the start of interrogation sessions. When the CIA interrogator removed the hood, the questioning began. When a prisoner resisted, the documents outlined techniques the CIA could use to bring him back in line:

* Nudity, sleep deprivation and dietary restrictions kept prisoners compliant and reminded them they had no control over their basic needs. Clothes and food could be used as rewards for co-operation.

* Slapping prisoners on the face or abdomen was allowed. So was grabbing them forcefully by the collar or slamming them into a false wall, a technique called “walling” intended to induce fear rather than pain.

* Water hoses were used to douse the prisoners for minutes at a time. The hoses were turned on and off as the interrogation continued.

* Prisoners were put into one of three “stress positions”, such as sitting on the floor with legs out straight and arms raised in the air.

* At night, the detainees were shackled, standing naked or wearing a nappy. The length of sleep deprivation varied but was authorised for up to 180 hours, or seven and a half days. Interrogation sessions ranged from 30 minutes to several hours and could be repeated as necessary, and as approved by psychological and medical teams.

The Bush administration approved the use of waterboarding, a technique in which a suspect was strapped to a board, his feet raised above his head, and his face covered with a wet cloth as interrogators poured water over it. The body responds as if it is drowning, over and over as the process is repeated. “We find that the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death,” Justice Department attorneys wrote. “From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at the very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing.”

But attorneys decided that waterboarding caused “no pain or actual harm whatsoever” and so did not meet the “severe pain and suffering” standard to be considered torture.

President Obama has ended the CIA’s interrogation programme. CIA interrogators are now required to follow army guidelines, under which waterboarding and many of the techniques listed above are prohibited.

The President gave the question of these documents’ release “the appropriate reflection”, Mr Axelrod said. He said Mr Obama’s deliberations revolved around “the issue of national security versus the rule of law”, and amounted to “one of the most profound issues the President of the United States has to deal with”.

On 18 March, the Justice Department told the Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, as he was leaving for a foreign trip, that it would be recommending that the White House release the memos almost completely uncensored, officials said. Mr Panetta told the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, and officials in the White House that the administration needed to discuss the possibility that the memos’ release might expose CIA officers to lawsuits on allegations of torture and abuse. Mr Panetta also pushed for more censorship of the memos, officials said. The Justice Department informed other senior CIA leaders of the decision to release the memos and, as a courtesy, told former agency directors.

Senior CIA officials objected, arguing that the release would damage the agency’s ability to interrogate prisoners. They also said the move would tarnish CIA officers who had acted on the Bush officials’ legal guidance. And they warned that the action would erode foreign intelligence services’ trust in the CIA’s ability to protect national security secrets. The four former directors immediately protested to the White House, officials said. The enhanced interrogation procedures outlined in the memos had been approved on Mr Tenet’s watch during the Bush administration.

On 19 March, the Justice Department requested a two-week delay in responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that asked for release of the memos. Justice officials told the court dealing with that lawsuit that it was considering releasing the memos voluntarily. Two weeks later, Justice Department lawyers told the court the memos would come out on or before 16 April.

Inside the White House, according to aides, Mr Obama expressed concerns that releasing the memos could threaten current intelligence operations as well as US officials. He also echoed the CIA chiefs’ worries about US relationships with always-skittish foreign intelligence services. The Justice Department argued that the ACLU lawsuit would in the end force the administration to release the documents anyway, officials said.

Mr Obama eventually agreed. The administration decided it would be better to make the release voluntarily, so as not to be seen as being forced to do so, the officials said. The only items blacked out included names of US employees or foreign services or items related to techniques still in use. Still, CIA officials needed reassurance about the decision, the officials said.

Mr Obama took the unusual step of accompanying his decision with a personal letter to CIA employees. He also devoted a big share of his public statement to saying and repeating that he believed strongly in keeping intelligence operations secret, and operations about them classified. He said he would not apologise for doing so in the future

What the memos reveal

The Bush administration memos describe the interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects, the fullest government account of the techniques to date. They range from waterboarding – or simulated drowning – to using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls. The treatment of two suspects in particular are described:

Abu Zubaydah In 2002, the Justice Department authorised CIA interrogators to step up the pressure even further on the suspected terrorist. Justice Department lawyers said the CIA could place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box. Because Zubaydah appeared afraid of insects, they also authorised interrogators to place him in a box filled with caterpillars (though the tactic was not in fact used). Finally, the Justice Department authorised interrogators to take a step into what the United States now considers torture: waterboarding. Zubaydah was strapped to a board, his feet raised above his head. His face was covered with a wet cloth as interrogators poured water over it.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed A memo dated 30 May 2005 says that before the harsher methods were used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a top al-Qa’ida detainee, he refused to answer questions about pending plots against the US. “Soon, you will know,” he said, according to the memo. It says the interrogations later extracted details of a plot called the “second wave”, using East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner in Los Angeles. Plots that were disrupted, the memos say, include the alleged effort by Jose Padilla to detonate a “dirty bomb”, spreading radioactive materials by means of explosives.

American Jewish groups must speak up over Gaza

April 20, 2009

It is a sensitive subject, but the movement for Gaza accountability needs full Jewish participation

Richard Silverstein

guardian.co.uk, Monday 20 April 2009 09.00 BS

    When Israeli forces left Gaza in January, they left behind 1,400 Palestinian dead, 4,000 homes destroyed, universities and government buildings flattened, and tens of thousands homeless. The Israeli and world press documented IDF atrocities including the indiscriminate use of white phosphorus in densely populated urban areas, the assault on United Nations humanitarian facilities, the shelling of civilian homes, and the shooting in cold blood of unarmed civilians.

    Israeli human rights groups have called for war crimes investigations of IDF actions. In the last few weeks, on-the-ground reports supported by eyewitness testimony have become available. They paint an even more damning picture. The attacks on UN facilities spurred the Palestinian Authority to call for a security council investigation. Officials announced they are investigating whether the international body has jurisdiction, but it seems likely that US opposition will doom such an avenue of redress.

    The UN human rights council has just appointed a distinguished jurist, Richard Goldstone, to head an investigation of both IDF and Palestinian actions in Gaza. The council made a wise choice in Goldstone, who served as chief prosecutor of the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda: he has an impeccable record in his field and can be expected to issue a fair, balanced and thorough report.

    Last week, Judge Balthazar Garzon announced the investigation of six Bush-era officials for devising a scheme that justified torture of terror suspects. With this development, it became clear there was a new method to hold violators accountable for their alleged crimes, and I am certain activists are already preparing dossiers for submission. Earlier this month, an international assemblage of individuals announced the formation of the Russell tribunal on Palestine. Modelled on the Russell tribunal on war crimes in Vietnam, and named after philosopher and peace campaigner Bertrand Russell, it aims to bring to bear international law as a force for adjudicating and resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The tribunal will hear a legal case prepared by volunteer experts from around the world. A jury of respected individuals will hear evidence from both sides and announce its finding of guilt or innocence to the world.

    There is one important consideration that should encourage Israel to participate. If it truly believes Palestinian rocket attacks constitute war crimes, then it should vigorously make this point. The tribunal has already taken pains to point out that this is a part of its mandate: “Do the means of resistance used by the Palestinians violate international law?” However, I would imagine that Israel will not participate.

    While Israel’s savage assault against Hezbollah in Lebanon during the 2006 war generated an uproar, one wonders whether the massacres that occurred in Gaza crossed a moral threshhold. Can an effort to end Israeli impunity have real impact, both in terms of influencing world opinion and of impacting on Israeli behaviour? Israel has become an expert at wearing down its opponents, honing such skills during 40 years of occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The question is: what, if anything, can the peace community do differently this time?

    Each time the world witnesses another humanitarian tragedy resulting from Israeli military action, the outcry is louder. For example, the UN has never before entertained the possibility of investigating Israeli war crimes. The EU has informally made known that it intends to freeze a planned upgrade in relations with Israel and cancel of visit of Israel’s prime minister as an indirect result. American universities such as Hampshire College and church denominations such as the Presbyterians contemplate ever more seriously the issue of divestment. Gaza crossed a red line. Now, new methods of protest and new means of ensuring accountability must be devised.

    Horrors such as the Gaza war also breathe new life into movements like the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions initiative. Recently, Naomi Klein and Rabbi Arthur Waskow engaged in a provocative debate at In These Times about BDS. The Gaza war made Klein a believer. Recently, Rabbi Brant Rosen wrote words that many in the American Jewish community might find heretical, that BDS could be a legitimate expression “of a weaker, dispossessed, disempowered people”.

    There can be no doubt that horrors such as Gaza serve as moral ice-breakers in the psyche of diaspora Jews. Ideas that hitherto might have been taboo or “anti-Israel” become suddenly legitimate. As Israel drifts farther to the right, American Jews are challenged to respond morally. In this context, the forbidden becomes acceptable. Boycotts, divestment, sactions and war crimes investigations now appear tools through which to try to draw Israel back from the brink.

    No major American-Jewish peace group has called for a Gaza war crimes investigation. It is a sensitive subject among diaspora Jews. But if Israeli human rights organisations can make such a call, there is no reason why Americans should be afraid to do so. The movement for Gaza accountability needs full Jewish participation.

    My motivation in writing this is not to avenge the deaths of innocent Palestinians. Nor is it for pure justice. It is rather to bring Israel back from the brink. Like one of the slogans of the Israeli military during the Gaza war – “baal habayit hishtageya” (“the boss has lost it”) – Israel’s policy has verged on madness. Nor has it achieved its objective of pacifying Gaza or toppling Hamas. And isn’t one of the definitions of madness to repeat a behaviour even after it has failed, with the conviction that it will succeed the next time? When you see a loved one or family member descending into self-destruction, you reach out and help. My goal is to turn Israel away from the path of madness.

    Obama reprieve for CIA illegal-UN rapporteur

    April 19, 2009

    Antiwar.com

    REUTERS

    Reuters North American News Service, Apr 18, 2009 13:50 EST

    VIENNA, April 18 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s decision not to prosecute CIA interrogators who used waterboarding on terrorism suspects amounts to a breach of international law, the U.N. rapporteur on torture said.

    “The United States, like all other states that are part of the U.N. convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court,” U.N. special rapporteur Manfred Nowak told the Austrian daily Der Standard.

    Nowak did not think Obama would go as far as to seek an amnesty law for affected CIA personnel and therefore U.S. courts could still try torture suspects, he said on Saturday.

    Obama has affirmed his unwillingness to prosecute under anti-torture laws CIA personnel who relied in good faith on Bush administration legal opinions issued after the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Obama said he had ended harrowing techniques used against detainees by Bush-era CIA personnel, but that U.S. intelligence agents still operated in a dangerous world and had to be confident they could perform their jobs.

    Nowak, an Austrian, suggested an investigation by an independent commission before suspects were tried and said it would be important for all victims to receive compensation.

    Human rights advocates have attacked Obama’s decision, saying charges were necessary to prevent future abuses and hold people accountable. Some U.S. lawmakers have called for public investigations.

    The four memos Obama released approved techniques including waterboarding, week-long sleep deprivation, forced nudity and putting insects in with a tightly confined prisoner.

    His administration also said it would try to shield CIA employees from “any international or foreign tribunal” — an immediate challenge to Spain where a judge has threatened to investigate Bush administration officials. (Reporting by Mark Heinrich; Editing by Robert Woodward)

    Source: Reuters North American News Service

    Mr. President, War Crimes Must Be Investigated

    April 19, 2009

    by Ruth Rosen | CommonDreams.org, April 18, 2009

    The memos about torture released by the Obama administration are horrifying to read. Nothing new, here, but they are like a punch in the stomach all over again. This is my country? This is the nation that stands for freedom and decency?

    I understand why President Obama doesn’t want to prosecute those who believed they were acting under laws written by the Justice Department. But that is not the only policy he and other Democrats can pursue.

    First, the men who wrote those memos should be investigated for disbarment. They acted in ways that are unconscionable and unprofessional, to put it mildly.

    Second, neither the President nor Congress should investigate these crimes. They must be pursued by a special independent investigator who has no political ax to grind. Now you may well ask, who approves of torture? Well, hardly anyone, except those in the Bush administration who justified or directed these war crimes.

    Third, how can we allow a sitting federal judge to remain on the bench–for life– when he provided legal justification for torture? I speak here, of course, of Stephen L. Bybee, who should resign or be impeached.

    Why do I feel so strongly about this? Because the country I care so much about has breached some of the most important international conventions in modern history and yet no major leaders have been held accountable. If the investigation goes straight to Vice-President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush, then so be it.

    Remember the date over whether President Ford should have pardoned President Nixon for his violations of the constitution? The best argument for that pardon was that Nixon HAD been held accountable and had to resign his office. He had, in short, received a serious punishment.

    President Obama’s instincts are right to avoid a drawn-out partisan conflict over the past. But if we are truly a nation of laws, committed to the decency and morality we embrace, we cannot let people who justify or commit torture and other war crimes to escape prosecution. Those who agree should make their voices loud, joining Amnesty International, the ACLU and many thousands of other Americans who will allow war crimes to be committee in their name.

    Ruth Rosen, a journalist and historian, is professor emerita of history at the University of California, Davis and a visiting professor of public policy and history at UC Berkeley. For 11 years, she wrote op-ed columns for the Los Angeles Times, and from 2000-2004 she worked full-time as a political columnist and editorial page writer at the San Francisco Chronicle.

    Israel stands ready to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites

    April 19, 2009

    April 18, 2009

    Time for the US to ditch the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive war

    April 19, 2009

    By Paul J. Balles | Redress, April 19, 2009


    Paul J. Balles calls on US President Barack Obama strongly to repudiate the Israeli-inspired “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive war and to urge Congress to pass legislation that permits war only as a legitimate act of defence”.

    Suppose you and I are walking along the street in opposite directions. Now, suppose I don’t like your looks. You look threatening.

    I can do several things: look away, go on about my walk and try to forget your threatening look, or I can return your threatening look and perhaps provoke you to challenge me.

    On the other hand, I can assume, rightly or wrongly, that you are actually a threat to me. Assuming I’m strong enough, I might then hit you in order to disable the threat.

    This, in short, is the theory and act of pre-emption, a theory and action that has been the basis of much foreign policy of both America and Israel.

    In America, the application of the theory became the “Bush Doctrine”. However, it didn’t originate with George W. Bush but with Zionists like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and others in the Bush administration.

    The act of striking pre-emptively is not new. The Soviet Union attacked Finland in 1941 after the Germans attacked Russia. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour to pre-empt America from controlling the South Pacific.

    When the US invaded Iraq, the historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that Bush’s grand strategy was “alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at the time of Pearl Harbour”.

    By definition, a pre-emptive strike commonly refers to an attack made upon an enemy as a precautionary response to an anticipated or impending war, such as in a pre-emptive war.

    The so-called “Israel Defence Forces” launched a pre-emptive attack on Arab forces in the 1967 Six Day War. They also pre-emptively bombed a suspected nuclear plant in Iraq in 1981 and another in Syria last year. They have pre-emptively struck Lebanon and Gaza.

    Israel goaded America into a pre-emptive war in Iraq, and they have urged another pre-emptive war with Iran. The entire philosophy of dealing with unfriendly nations is “strike first and destroy any potential enemy or threat”.

    Regardless of the arguments made for invading Iraq, Article 51 of the UN Charter makes it clear that self-defence is restricted to a response to an armed attack”. Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter bars the threat or use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat”.

    Iraq, which had been under sanctions for 10 years, certainly could not have been considered an acute and imminent threat. Nor could Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Israelis. Iran, not having attacked anyone for 200 years, certainly does not qualify as an acute and imminent threat.

    Noam Chomsky made a distinction between pre-emptive war and preventive war, though both are excuses for unwarranted aggression.

    Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term “preventive” is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg.

    The “potential enemy” may not be any more threat than I saw in your threatening look as we walked along the same street. However, that doesn’t matter if I am searching for threatening looks.

    In another article, I referred to this Israeli sickness as paranoia. George W. Bush was infected with the same disease, which resulted in unnecessary and unjustified wars.

    It’s time to admit that the Bush Doctrine was a grave, inhuman wrong. Barack Obama should strongly repudiate it and urge the US Congress to pass legislation that permits war only as a legitimate act of defence.


    Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.

    Iraq in Fragments

    April 18, 2009

    By Dahr Jamail | ZNet, April 18, 2009

    Source: Foreign Policy In Focus

    “[W]hat lengths men will go in order to carry out, to their extreme limit, the rites of a collective self-worship which fills them with a sense of righteousness and complacent satisfaction in the midst of the most shocking injustices and crimes.”
    -Love and Living, by Thomas Merton

    On Wednesday, March 25, Major General David Perkins of the U.S. military, referring to how often the U.S. military was being attacked in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad, “Attacks are at their lowest since August 2003.” Perkins added, “There were 1,250 attacks a week at the height of the violence; now sometimes there are less than 100 a week.”

    While his rhetoric made headlines in some U.S. mainstream media outlets, it was little consolation for the families of 28 Iraqis killed in attacks across Iraq the following day. Nor did it bring solace to the relatives of the 27 Iraqis slain in a March 23 suicide attack, or those who survived a bomb attack at a bus terminal in Baghdad on the same day that killed nine Iraqis.

    Having recently returned from Iraq, I experienced living in Baghdad where people were dying violent deaths on a daily basis. Nearly every day of the month I spent there saw a car bomb attack somewhere in the capital city. Nearly every day the so-called Green Zone was mortared. Every day there were kidnappings. On good days there were four hours of electricity on the national grid, in a country now into its seventh year of being occupied by the U.S. military, and where there are now over 200,000 private contractors.

    Upon returning home, I experienced the disconnect between that reality, lived by roughly 25 million Iraqis, and the surreal experience of living in the United States – where most media pretend the occupation of Iraq is either not happening, or uses the yardstick of decreased U.S. military personnel deaths in Iraq as a measure of success. In the words of Major General Perkins, “If you take a look at military deaths, which is an indicator of violence and lethality out there, U.S. combat deaths are at their lowest levels since the war began six years ago.” But it’s a less useful metric when one looks at the broader picture inside of Iraq: the ongoing daily slaughter of Iraqis, the near total lack of functional infrastructure, the fact that one in six Iraqis remains displaced from their homes, or that at least 1.2 million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of their country.

    Seventy-two months of occupation, with over $607 billion spent on the war (by conservative estimates), has resulted in 2.2 million internally displaced Iraqis, 2.7 million refugees, 2,615 professors, scientists, and doctors killed in cold blood, and 338 dead journalists. Over $13 billion was misplaced by the current Iraqi government, and another $400 billion is required to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. Unemployment vacillates between 25-70%, depending on the month. There are 24 car bombs per month, 10,000 cases of cholera per year, 4,261 dead U.S. soldiers, and over 70,000 physically or psychologically wounded soldiers.

    There ‘s no normal life in Baghdad. While it’s accurate and technically correct to say there is less violence compared to 2006, when between 100 and 300 Iraqis were slaughtered on a daily basis, Iraq resembles a police state more than ever. U.S. patrols consisting of huge, lumbering mine-resistant vehicles rumble down streets congested with traffic. It’s impossible to travel longer than five minutes without encountering an Iraqi military or police patrol – usually comprised of pickup trucks full of armed men, horns and/or sirens blaring. Begging women and children wander between cars at every intersection. U.S. military helicopters often rumble overhead, and the roar of fighter jets or transport planes is common. There’s no talk of reparations for Iraqis for the death, destruction and chaos caused by the occupation.

    Neighborhoods, segregated between Sunni and Shia largely as a result of the so-called “surge” strategy, provide a blatant view of the balkanization of Iraq. Neighborhoods of 300,000 people are completely surrounded by 10-foot high concrete blast walls, rendering normal life impossible. The fear of a resurgence of violence weighs heavy on Iraqis, as the current so-called lull in violence feels tenuous, unstable, and possibly fleeting. Nobody there can predict the future, and to hope for a sustained improvement in any aspect of life feels naive, even dangerous.

    The title of the film “Iraq in Fragments” by James Longley, which was nominated for Best Documentary Oscar at the 2007 Academy Awards, best describes Iraq today. The country has been destroyed by decades of U.S. policy that has plagued Iraqis. Looking back only to 1980, we see the U.S. government supporting both Iraq and Iran during their horrible eight-year war. In 1991 we see George H. W. Bush’s war against Iraq, and his, Bill Clinton’s, and George W. Bush’s oversight of 12-and-a-half years of genocidal economic sanctions that killed half a million Iraqi children. Today, under President Barack Obama, what is left of Iraq smolders in ruins, with no real end of the occupation in sight.

    All of the recent talk of withdrawal from Iraq is empty rhetoric indeed to most Iraqis, who see the giant “enduring” U.S. military bases spread across their country, or the U.S. “embassy,” the size of the Vatican City, in Baghdad. The gulf between the rhetoric of withdrawal and the reality on the ground spans the distance between Iraq and the United States, while the reality is pressed in the face of the Iraqi people each day the occupation continues.

    MIDEAST: Gaza Changed Everything, But Its People Still Suffer

    April 18, 2009

    Analysis by Helena Cobban* | Inter Press Service News

    WASHINGTON, Apr 17 (IPS) – Three months after the end of
    Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, and nearly four months after former prime minister Ehud Olmert started it, the standoff between Israel and Hamas is as unresolved as ever.

    Gaza’s 1.5 million residents, nearly all of them civilians, are still in a very tough situation, since Israel still prohibits the shipment into Gaza of many requirements for a decent life – including the building materials needed to repair or rebuild the thousands of homes and other structures the Israeli military destroyed during the war.

    But it is already clear that the war has changed many aspects of the complex political dynamics both between and inside the Israeli and Palestinian communities.

    Hamas, simply by surviving, has become stronger both within Palestinian politics and throughout the broader Middle East.

    In the Israeli elections of early February Olmert’s party was defeated – by representatives of an even more militarist trend in Israel whose rise was fueled, in good part, by the war-fever unleashed among Jewish Israelis by Olmert’s own war.

    Meanwhile, the ferocity with which Israel fought the war caused significant damage to the country’s image around the world. In the U.S., unprecedented numbers of civil society groups – including Jewish groups – expressed open criticism of Olmert’s decision to launch the war, even from the war’s very earliest days.

    All these developments have been evident during Sen. George Mitchell’s latest visit to the region, which started Wednesday. This was Mitchell’s third visit since he was named U.S. special envoy on Jan. 21. Some of the post-Gaza developments seem to make Mitchell’s peacemaking effort harder. But others, especially the new estrangement between the government of Israel and some of its former strong supporters around the world, open up new possibilities for his mission.

    Indeed, in some of Mitchell’s early appearances on his latest trip, he has shown himself more ready than any U.S. official has been for many years to publicly adopt a position – in this case, support of an independent Palestinian state – that is very different from that espoused by the government in power in Israel.

    When Olmert launched the war on Gaza on Dec. 27, he was aiming either to destroy Hamas or to inflict so much harm on it that its leaders would bow to Israel’s political demands. Despite the large amount of damage the Israeli military inflicted on the people of Gaza, it did not achieve either of those objectives. Hamas’s long battle-hardened command structure in Gaza remained intact and in place.

    (Hamas’s broader, ‘nationwide’ leadership has anyway been located for many years now outside the occupied territories. Thus, the idea of breaking or ‘taming’ the whole organisation by delivering a knockout blow to its units in Gaza was always poorly thought through.)

    Instead of being broken, Hamas found that during the war its popularity rose throughout the occupied West Bank and among the five million Palestinians living in exile outside their homeland. It dipped somewhat in Gaza, doubtless because of the punishment the IDF was inflicting on the Strip’s people. But Gaza is roughly half the size of the West Bank. The overall effect was that Hamas became stronger.

    Fatah, a movement that in recent years has aligned itself ever more closely to U.S. policies, meanwhile saw its popularity decline.

    Indeed, the collapse of Fatah’s internal decision-making structures is now so severe there is a real possibility it might disintegrate altogether. Though the collapse has been underway for some time now, the Gaza war certainly hastened it along.

    Fateh has also, ever since 1969, been overwhelmingly the strongest component of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), the secularist body that has authorised all Palestinian peace efforts with Israel to date. Fatah’s decline thus also threatens the survival of the PLO – unless the on-again-off-again ‘unity talks’ that Fatah and Hamas have been pursuing in Cairo can find a formula to bring Hamas into the PLO for the first time ever.

    Amid all these political developments, Gaza’s 1.5 million people are still trying to deal with life-situations and livelihoods that were shattered by the recent war. During the war more than 1,300 Palestinians were killed, most of them civilians. Ten Israeli soldiers and three Israeli civilians lost their lives.

    For three years prior to the war, there had been intermittent exchanges of fire between Israel and Palestinian militants – mainly Hamas people – operating from Gaza. In addition, Israel maintained a tight siege around Gaza, in clear contravention of its responsibility as “occupying power” to safeguard the welfare of the Strip’s indigenous residents.

    At the end of the war both Israel and Hamas announced parallel (and un-negotiated) ceasefires. That was on Jan. 18. In the absence of any more formal, negotiated ceasefire agreement, the existing ceasefires have remained fragile, and several exchanges of fire have occurred.

    But in addition, Israel has considerably tightened the physical siege of Gaza – and this, at a time when the Strip’s residents have extraordinary needs to gain access to the materials they urgently need to rebuild the 5,000 homes and other structures that were destroyed during the war. Those structures included vital water and sanitation facilities, factories, warehouses – and even the parliament.

    John Prideaux-Brune, Oxfam’s country director for the West Bank and Gaza, has described Israel’s policy toward Gaza as being one of “intentionally inflicted de-development.”

    He told IPS recently, “Israel went on a rampage in Gaza during the war. You can see whole villages flattened, the cows and other livestock killed. They seem to have gone in and removed anything that could have been used for economic development – farms, factories, you name it.” (Israeli sources have said that during the war, the military trucked in 100 heavy-duty bulldozers, especially to undertake this destruction.)

    “It seems a mind-numbingly stupid thing for Israel to do,” Prideaux-Brune said. “Where states have succeeded in suppressing terrorism, they have done so through negotiations and fostering economic development.”

    He said he hoped western governments would act quickly to persuade Israel to lift the siege. That, he said, would allow Gaza’s people to move back onto a path of economic development rather than continuing to live on handouts.

    Many of the humanitarian aid organisations that have been providing ‘emergency’ aid to Gaza (and the West Bank) for many years are now, like Oxfam, becoming more vocal in arguing that the only thing that can really stabilise the very vulnerable situation of the Palestinians of these occupied areas is to find a speedy end to the Israel’s military occupation of their home territories.

    Prideaux-Brune said that the Gaza Palestinians are currently suffering from a deliberately inflicted “dignity crisis.”

    “So long as Israel controls everything in these people’s lives, they will remain vulnerable,” he said. “Emergency relief aid is no substitute for successful peacemaking, and that is the only way to get to real economic development.”

    *Helena Cobban is a veteran Middle East analyst and author. She blogs at http://www.JustWorldNews.org.