Bush Regime Declares Itself Above the Law

December 8, 2008

Paul Craig Roberts | RINF.COM, Dec 8, 2008

The US government does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy, but no other government can match the hypocrisy of the US government.

It is now well documented and known all over the world that the US government tortured detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and that the US government has had people kidnaped and “rendentioned,” that is, transported to third world countries, such as Egypt, to be tortured.

Also documented and well known is the fact that the US Department of Justice provided written memos justifying the torture of detainees. One torture advocate who wrote the DOJ memos that gave the green light to the Bush regime’s use of torture is John Yoo, a Vietnamese immigrant who somehow secured a US Justice Department appointment and a tenured professorship at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law. John Yoo is the best case against immigration that I know.

Members of Berkeley’s city council believe that Yoo should be charged with war crimes. The US government has charged lesser offenders than Yoo with war crimes. Yoo helped the DOJ achieve the Bush regime’s goal of finding a way around the torture prohibitions of both US statutory law and the Geneva Conventions.

The way around the law that Yoo provided for the sadistic Bush regime was closed down by the US Supreme Court, which voided Yoo’s arguments, and Yoo’s torture memo was rescinded by the Department of Justice. Nevertheless, Yoo’s obvious constitutional incompetence, which in Yoo’s case is total, has not affected his position as professor of constitutional law at Berkeley. Can you imagine the harm Yoo is doing by teaching future cadres of lawyers and government officials that torture is consistent with the Constitution and the law of the land? How many of us will suffer from this ignorant man’s teachings?

But I digress. Even as the US government was torturing people, the US government was prosecuting the son of Charles Taylor, the former ruler of Liberia, for torturing political opponents of his father’s government. The US government did not employ the Yoo torture memo to justify Liberia’s use of torture against those who wished to overthrow the Liberian government or commit terror against it. The US government’s position is that Liberia’s government had no right to use torture to defend itself. Only an “indispensable nation” such as the US has the right to torture people who are imagined to threaten it.

I use the word “imagined” because approximately 99 percent of the detainees tortured by America were totally innocent people picked up at random or sold to the stupid Americans by warlords as “terrorists.” (The US government offered rewards for terrorists, like the bounty offered for outlaws in the “wild west.” The result was that warlords in Afghanistan and Pakistan grabbed whoever was not one of them and sold their captives to Americans as “terrorists.”)

According to Carrie Johnson, a Washington Post staff writer, on October 30, 2008, a federal jury in Miami convicted Charles Taylor’s son, Chuckie, of torture. Chuckie will be sentenced by the indispensable Americans in January for torture, conspiracy and firearms violations. He may spend the rest of his life in an American prison.

While Chuckie’s trial was underway, the Bush regime was torturing people.

The Washington Post writes that Chuckie’s conviction is “the first test of an American law that gives prosecutors the power to bring charges for acts of torture committed in foreign lands.” In other words, US law against torture applies to the entire world, to every other country except the United States. The hubris is unimaginable–no country can torture except the US.

Anyone else who tortures gets life, or in the case of Saddam Hussein gets hung by the neck until dead.

Isn’t it great to be an American. Our laws don’t apply to us, only to every other nation. This is what it means to be the moral light of the world, the unipower, the salt of the earth.

Neither poor Carrie Johnson nor her editors at the Washington post see the irony or the paradox. Johnson writes in the Washington Post that the US prosecutors “accused Taylor of taking part in atrocities and directing subordinates to torture victims using . . . electrical devices from 1999 to 2002.” That charge practically overlaps in time with Bush’s, or Cheney’s, or Yoo’s, or the DOJ’s, or Rumfeld’s, or whoever’s direction to subordinates to torture people detained by Americans at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and in various CIA rendition sites. By now everyone in the world has seen the photograph of the hooded Iraqi with electrical wires attached standing on that box in Abu Ghraib.

If only American laws applied to the American government. Then the criminals who have been in charge for 8 years could be prosecuted for their extreme violation of United States laws. But, of course, the great moral American government is far above the law. American law only applies to dispensable nations. America is not answerable to law, not to its own law and not to international law. US attorney general Michael Mukasey affirmed that the US government is above all law when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that there would be no investigation or prosecution of those Bush regime officials who authorized torture and those who carried out the sadistic acts.

The American government, the government of the great indispensable nation, has a free pass. The strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must.

Illegal Detention and the Declaration of Human Rights

December 8, 2008

Aswad’s Story

By JOHNNY BARBER | Counterpunch, Dec 5 / 7, 2008

Today, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, is a day to share a story I was able to document in Syria this past month. It is a difficult story, one many Americans would like to deny, and unable to do that, many will simply chose to turn their backs. There is ample opportunity for this. One could point at the outgoing administration, brand them as criminals, say their actions are a thing of the past, and leave it at that. Others could point to the new administration only weeks away, thinking our problems are solved, that change is on the way. But this also would be a mistake. Our complicity in these matters runs deeper then these simplistic deflections of responsibility. If we are to address the fundamental, systemic issues facing our nation and the world, reflection followed by action is necessary. As you read the story of Aswad and his family, recognize his story is one of thousands and his perception of America as purveyors of terrorism is based solely on his personal experience.

Aswad was fast asleep in the early morning hours of November 6th, 2003 when a commotion in the house woke him up. He looked up to see a room full of American soldiers pointing automatic weapons at his head.

He had arrived in the village of Al-Yarmouk on the outskirts of Mosul just the evening before, breaking the Ramadan fast with his friends and going to bed early. He had been following the same routine since early 2000, every couple of months purchasing about $300 worth of galibayas and other articles of clothing to sell on the streets of Mosul. This was to supplement his meager income as a farmer. Farming was backbreaking work and at 48 years old, he was hoping to find another way to support his wife and 9 children.

Now, people were shouting at him in a language he didn’t understand, binding his hands behind his back and blindfolding his eyes. Someone speaking Arabic asked him his name, and demanded, “From where?” He told them he was from Syria. They emptied his pockets, taking his passport and $400 in cash. Then they dragged him to his feet and took him out into the night. He knew that at least two of his friends were taken with him; he could feel one in front and one behind him as they were dragged across the courtyard.

The prisoners were taken by helicopter to an unknown destination and isolated. When he arrived he was placed between an idling steamroller and a barrier. As the ground shook from the heavy equipment he was certain he was going to die. He was told he would never see his family again. He recalls, “I thought they were just going to make me a part of the road.” At times over the next 8 days, Aswad thought that would have been a preferable outcome. His clothes were taken and he was forced to stand naked, except for the blindfold covering his eyes. His arms were shackled behind his back and legs shackled at the ankles. He was beaten with a club. He was hit so hard across the abdomen that he fell unconscious 3 times. Each time he was doused with freezing water until he regained consciousness, he was stood up, and beaten again. They shackled his wrists in front of him and made him hold two heavy cartons. Each time he dropped a carton, the beatings resumed. He was not permitted to sleep. Aswad recalled the only warmth he felt was the hot blood flowing from his forehead and broken nose down over his face and chest.

Near the end of his beatings he was confronted by a man dressed in civilian clothes who claimed to be Egyptian officer, but Aswad is certain he was not who he pretended to be. His Arabic accent was not Egyptian, nor was he American. Aswad thinks he may have been an Israeli, but he is not certain. He was questioned at length about attacks on Americans, each time he denied any knowledge about the attacks. Prior to his arrest he had been sleeping. He didn’t hear any shooting. No weapons were kept in his friend’s house. After each denial he was tasered. His body had been so severely battered by the beatings he endured that he didn’t feel the pain as he fell to the floor.

Throughout his ordeal, Aswad thought about death and hoped it would come quickly. He recognized his captors were merciless. When he asked for water, his tormentors poured it over his head while they laughed. At one point, he felt two naked bodies pressed up against him. His captors shouted at him, but he didn’t understand their taunts as they were shouting in English.  He tells me that he was blindfolded and couldn’t see anything. Looking away, embarrassed and ashamed, Aswad repeats this to me four times.

On the eighth day of his detention, Aswad was transferred to Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Once the site of some of Saddam’s most heinous interrogations, it was now run by the Americans and they followed suit with their own brand of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses of detainees. It was November 14th, 2003, months before any hint of wrongdoing would seep from under the cages of Abu Ghraib. Aswad arrived at the prison disfigured from his beatings. Doctors examined him, asking him where he felt pain, but never questioning what had happened to him. As he was recuperating from his beatings he was a witness to some of the abuses that would later be reported by mainstream news media in the United States. In the hallway outside his cell he saw a naked prisoner terrorized by an attack dog. He witnessed the “naked pyramid” later to become an infamous photograph with American guards gloating in the background. And he witnessed 4 soldiers strip an Iraqi woman in the cellblock, but he turned his back to her because he felt ashamed for her. Eventually, the commotion died down. He does not know what became of her.

Continued >>

On the side of the road in Iraq

December 8, 2008

Duane Linton, a former U.S. Army medic and member of the central Illinois chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW), described his experiences in Iraq as part of a Winter Soldier event organized by the IVAW and other groups at the University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana campus on November 13.

About 150 attended the evening Winter Soldier panel, which was part of a day of antiwar activism. Since March, the IVAW has held Winter Soldier events across the U.S.–they take their inspiration from the 1971 hearing organized by Vietnam Veterans Against the War that featured soldiers and other veterans giving testimony about their experiences to expose the criminal war policies of the U.S. government.

Duane Linton speaks at a Winter Soldier event in Champaign, Ill. (Eric Ruder | SW)

Duane Linton speaks at a Winter Soldier event in Champaign, Ill. (Eric Ruder | SW)

IT’S 3 a.m., and in our Humvee, Sgt. 1st Class Smith is shouting to the gunner to fire: “Get his ass, gunner! Get his ass!” Hot steel linkages and spent brass cartridges from the belt-fed weapon are cascading down into the truck. Many of them fall on me. For some reason, I find myself oddly preoccupied, in the middle of a firefight, with sweeping them into a neat little pile as angry bullets bounce off the Humvee’s armor.

We’ve stopped a convoy of pickup trucks, farmers moving their food to market, and they have fired on us because they think we’re stealing their food. Naturally, we do what Americans do best–shoot back with superior firepower.

The noise is deafening. All four of our Humvees are opening fire on the pickup trucks, targeting the tires and engines. Sgt. 1st Class Smith is the platoon sergeant, known among his men as “Gunny,” second-in-charge of this convoy, and when he says to move, there is no question about it. He and I dismount, along with Pfc. Devon Listerman, and together, we creep up on one of the damaged vehicles, under cover of the Humvee, and I tell Sgt. 1st Class Smith that the driver is no longer in the vehicle.

There’s a strange smell, something sour and metallic that sits on the nose and the tongue. We come around the other side and realize the driver is lying bleeding on the ground. I get Sgt. Joseph Bautista to cover me, and I head in. I am the only medic within 20 miles. The smell I noticed before is now overpowering, and I realize it’s blood. For the rest of my life, I will never forget that smell.

What else to read

The Iraq Veterans Against the War Web site has video and other features from the national Winter Soldier event in March.

You can also get news and updates about war resisters and other initiatives by antiwar veterans and active-duty troops at the IVAW site.

Winter Soldier, Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the Occupations by the Iraq Veterans Against the War and Aaron Glantz, provides the powerful words, images and documents of the IVAW’s historic Winter Soldier gathering in 2008.

I do a quick visual assessment as I get ready. This man has been hit by three U.S. 7.62-mm machine gun rounds, one of which went through his driver-side window, and two of which hit the chassis of the truck and expanded to football-sized clouds of murderous shrapnel.

His right leg is opened up at the femur, and the space between his hip and his knee is just so much hamburger. From the size of the pool of blood he’s lying in, he’s already well on his way to stage-three shock. I drop a knee into his high femoral, cutting off blood flow to his leg while I get out my gloves and a tourniquet.

The gloves don’t work, and after a few moments of struggling, they rip and fall apart. I work on him anyway.

I throw a tourniquet on his leg and clamp it down, and then move up to his head. He’s talking, a vague guttural utterance of Arabic that I can tell is hard for him. I try to converse with him, asking him where he’s from, and who he thinks will make the playoffs this year, if for no other reason than to assess his level of consciousness and to keep my head in the game, but he doesn’t understand me at all.

All he’ll tell me is that he is tired, and that he thinks he’s dying. I notice he’s holding a hand over his chest, which is covered with blood. I try to move it, but he won’t let me until I tell him I’m a doctor, having no better word for “medic.”

Underneath, his hand is a fist-sized hole, leaking bright red blood and making a loud gurgling noise. A sucking chest wound. I log roll him and check for an exit wound, but don’t find one. I apply pressure with my hand, clean off the surrounding area and seal the wound.

I send Spc. Nathan Maston to tell the platoon leader that this patient will die without immediate medical evacuation, and to call for a helicopter and advise me of any further casualties. Word comes back to me that there are two dead and one that ran away wounded.

I recheck his pulses, and I don’t get a radial one. That means his systolic blood pressure has dropped to a level so low, his body can no longer circulate blood. With Sgt. Bautista assisting me, I prepare to give him a Hextend IV, which will spike his blood pressure and allow his blood to circulate to his limbs at the risk of blowing any clots that have formed.

Continued >>

Nato supplies torched in Pakistan

December 8, 2008
Al Jazeera, Dec 8, 2008

About 100 lorries and shipping containers were torched in an earlier attack [AFP]

A terminal for lorries used to supply Nato and US forces in Afghanistan has been attacked in northwest Pakistan, the second such incident in as many days.

Witnesses said scores of containers full of supplies were burned in Monday’s attack at a site in the city of Peshawar.

Altaf Hussain, a labourer at the terminal, said there was a loud explosion and several fighters stormed the facility.

“The militants came just past midnight, firing in the air, sprinkled petrol on containers and then set them on fire,” Mohammad Zaman, a security guard at the terminal on the Peshawar ring road, said.

“They told us they would not harm us, but they asked us not to work for the Americans.”

Rockets were also fired at two vehicles carrying goods intended for delivery to Nato forces as they travelled along the ring road overnight.

The route from Peshawar through the Khyber Pass to the border town of Torkham is the most important supply line for US and Nato forces battling Taliban fighters.

Supplies destroyed

On Sunday, a guard was killed in a separate terminal near Peshawar and about 100 lorries and shipping containers were set on fire, police said.

Kifayatullah Khan, the terminal’s manager, said 62 of the destroyed containers carried Humvees and other military vehicles for Western forces in Afghanistan.

He said his terminal only handled lorries carrying military supplies for Afghanistan.

The Taliban has carried out a series of such attacks in recent weeks, aimed at disrupting the supply route for US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.

Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Islamabad, said security analysts had suggested that the attacks were at least partly due to the fact that Pakistani troops were concentrating more heavily on the eastern border with India.

“One has to remember the Pakistani forces are themselves under attack [in Pakistan’s northwestern region] and the military are saying they are not in a position to defend two borders.”

Continued attacks

A Taliban spokesman told Al Jazeera two weeks ago that such attacks would continue “until the [Afghan] government and the Americans are smashed”.

“We want to show them they are not all-powerful and the mujahidin of Afghanistan can carry out attacks on our enemies in any part of the country,” Zabiullah Mujahid, the spokesman, said.

The supply routes are likely to come under further pressure after Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s oldest religious party, announced it would block routes used to supply troops in Afghanistan from December 18.

International forces have reportedly discussed opening new supply routes into the country through Russia, and even Iran.

Obama bør tiltale Bush representanter, som designet tortur politikk

December 7, 2008

Av Michael Ratner | Progressive, 3. desember 2008

En av Barack Obama første fungerer som president bør være å instruere sin Riksadvokat å oppnevne en uavhengig aktor til å starte en kriminell etterforskning av tidligere Bush-administrasjonens representanter, som ga grønt lys for tortur.

På Obama pressekonferanse på 1. des han snakket om å opprettholde Amerikas høyeste verdiene som han introduserte Eric Innehaver som hans valg for justisministeren. Innehaver insisterte det var ingen spenning mellom å beskytte folk i USA og overholder våre Grunnloven.

For noen måneder siden, Innehaver ble enda mer eksplisitte. “Vår regjering godkjent bruk av tortur, godkjent av hemmelig elektronisk overvåking mot amerikanske borgere, i all hemmelighet detained amerikanske borgere uten grunn prosessen med loven, benektet skrevet av habeas korpus til hundrevis av tiltalte fiendtlige stridende og autorisert bruk av prosedyrer som bryter med både internasjonale lov og USAs grunnlov, sier han. “Vi skylder det amerikanske folk til regnskap.”

Dagen av regnskap er raskt over oss.

Hvis Obama og holderen vil overholde våre Grunnloven og opprettholde vår høyeste verdiene, de må arbeide for dem i Bush-administrasjonen som brøt med at Grunnloven, brøt våre lover, og tarnished våre verdier.

Les ord Viseguvernøren Gen Antonio M. Taguba, som gransket Abu Ghraib-skandalen for Pentagon. “Det finnes ikke lenger noen tvil om hvorvidt den nåværende administrasjonen har begått krigsforbrytelser,” avsluttet han. “Det eneste spørsmålet som gjenstår å bli besvart, er om de som pålegges bruk av tortur vil bli holdt til regnskap.”

Til tross Taguba ord og reams av dokumentasjon til støtte for sin uttalelse, har det vært lite diskusjon om å holde representantene ansvarlige for deres design og gjennomføring av tortur programmet.

Vi må gjøre det klart, akkurat som vi gjør i tilfeller med de fleste mindre offenses, at handlinger har konsekvenser. Å bare la de tillitsvalgte gå av scenen sender en melding til impunity som bare vil oppfordre fremtidige lov å bryte. Meldingen om at vi trenger å sende, er at de vil bli holdt ansvarlige.

En populær refrenget i Washington i disse dager er at kriminelle tiltaler ville være en unødvendig se bakover. Noen hevder at for at den nye administrasjonen til å gå videre, Presidentvalget pardons skal tildeles og en Truth Commission samles for å undersøke omstendigheter som ga opphav til den brutale avhør og dødsfall av fanger i Afghanistan, Irak, Guantanamo Bay og CIA svarte områder rundt verden.

Men pardons vil være den siste tilflukt for en administrasjon som har egregious brudd på menneskerettigheter har, for alt for lenge, gått ustraffet. Og en Truth Kommisjonen er ikke aktuelt.

Dette er ikke Latin-Amerika, og dette er ikke Sør-Afrika. Vi er ikke forsøk på å avslutte en borgerkrig, helbrede en skadeskutt land og forene krigførende parter. Vi er et demokrati prøver å holde ansvarlige embetsmenn som ledet landet vårt nedover veien til tortur. Og i et demokrati, det er jobben som en aktor og ikke pundits å avgjøre om kriminelle handlinger ble begått.

Criminal tiltaler er ikke om å se på fortiden, de er i ferd med å skape en fremtidig verden uten tortur. De vil være merket av det nye dawn of America’s ledelse og våre nye epoken av ansvarlighet.

Rettsforfølge disse representantene vil hjelpe USA gjenvinne sin moralsk omdømme i verden og for å bevise vår forpliktelse til å opprettholde internasjonale menneskerettighets-standarder.

I sin første nasjonalt TV-intervju, president-utvalgte Barack Obama gjort dette løftet: “Jeg har sagt gjentatte ganger at Amerika ikke tortur. Og jeg går for å være sikker på at vi ikke tortur. ”

Den beste måten å gjøre det på er å tiltale de som utformet den tortur politikk.

Michael Ratner er president for Senter for Konstitusjonell Rettigheter og forfatter av “The Trial av Donald Rumsfeld: En anmeldelse av boken.”


Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) Muligens relatert innlegg: (automatisk generert)

Systematisk tortur av palestinere dokumentert i 80-siders rapport

December 7, 2008

PNN

Uruknet.info, December 1, 2008 Uruknet.info, 1. desember 2008

Nablus / PNN – Bruken av tortur og dårlig behandling av den israelske myndigheter mot palestinerne er ikke noe annet enn en systematisk og omfattende prosess, sier en menneskerettigheter rapporten utstedt i dag.

Koalisjonen mot Tortur sier at Israel enten er uvillig eller ute av stand til å oppfylle sine forpliktelser under konvensjonen mot Tortur.

Gruppen av 14 palestinske og israelske menneskerettigheter organisasjoner skriver i sin årsmelding for 2008 at den har registrert bevis for en handling, medvirkning eller unnlatelse av faktum eller toll på en del av staten tjenestemenn på alle nivåer. Den skyldige parter omfatter medlemmer av hæren, etterretning, politi, rettsvesen og andre offentlige greiner. Koalisjonen sa at situasjonen er neppe bedre i det kulturelle av impunity og immunforsvar som hersker i Israel.

I sin årsrapport for 2008, det Koalisjon mot Tortur – en koalisjon av 14 palestinske og israelske organisasjoner for menneskerettigheter – utarbeidet en intensiv studie som omfattet et kritisk analysen av Israel etterlevelse av konvensjonen mot Tortur og annen grusom, umenneskelig eller nedverdigende Behandling eller straff (konvensjon mot Tortur). Rapporten undersøker videreføring av Israels bruk av systematisk tortur, enten det er på okkupert palestinsk territorium eller i israelske grenser.

Ifølge mandatet av koalisjonen mot tortur, årsrapporten er basert på materiale som tilbys av koalisjonen til FNs komité mot tortur i september 2008. Dette tiltaket kommer før begynnelsen sine jevnlige gjennomgang av Israel etterlevelse av konvensjonen mot Tortur planlagt for mai 2009. Kroppen i rapporten, som er en oversikt utarbeidet av medlemmene av koalisjonen, inkluderer mer enn 80 sider av vitnemål og utdrag av vitnesbyrd.

Mens du klargjør rapporten Koalisjonen studert bruk av tortur og dårlig behandling av den israelske myndigheter mot palestinerne fra det øyeblikket av arrest gjennom perioden med etterforskning og forvaring, samt bruk av tilståelser i militære domstoler som ble oppnådd under duress . The report also talks about the following issues: Rapporten taler også om følgende problemstillinger:

– Bruken av tortur og dårlig behandling i ikke-tradisjonelle betingelser, inkludert riving av hus og beleiring av Gaza og den israelske sikkerhetstjenestene ikke slik at pasienter fra å forlate Gaza for å søke medisinsk behandling.

– De fortsatte adopsjon av enslig confinement politikk og forebygging av Palestinian detainees fra mottak haster juridisk bistand.

– Den diskriminerende politikk i lov og anvendt praksis på palestinske fanger, sammenlignet med israelske borgere.

– Den immunitet nytes av Shin Bet etterforskere, politifolk og medlemmer av den israelske hæren som tortur og dårlig behandling av den palestinske detainees, inkludert barn fra fylte tolv.

– En lovgivende unntak som tillater at medlemmer av Shin Bet for å ikke følge lover og forskrifter som gir for bruk av audio og video-opptak under granskingen av palestinske fanger som er tilfellet i andre undersøkelser.

– Svikt i Israel for å utestenge bruk av tortur og dårlig behandling i nasjonal lovgivning som anbefalt av FNs komité mot Tortur som er tillagt å enforcel statens forpliktelser under konvensjonen mot Tortur.


:: Article nr. :: Artikkel-nr. 49235 sent on 01-dec-2008 19:34 ECT 49235 sendes på 01-des-2008 19:34 ect
www.uruknet.info?p=49235 www.uruknet.info?p=49235

Link: english.pnn.ps/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4119&Itemid=28 Link: english.pnn.ps / index.php? Alternativet = com_content & oppgaven = vis & id = 4119 & Itemid = 28


Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) Muligens relatert innlegg: (automatisk generert)

Systematic torture of Palestinians documented in 80-page report

December 7, 2008

PNN

prisonisraelpalestinien-1-3.jpg

Uruknet.info, December 1, 2008

Nablus / PNN – The use of torture and ill-treatment by the Israeli authorities against Palestinians is nothing but a systematic and comprehensive process, states a human rights report issued today.

The Coalition against Torture says that Israel is either unwilling or unable to fulfill its obligations under the Convention against Torture.

The group of 14 Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations writes in its annual report for 2008 that it has recorded evidence of an act, complicity or omission of fact or duty on the part of state officials at all levels. The guilty parties include members of the army, intelligence, police, judiciary and other government branches. The coalition said that the situation is unlikely to improve in the cultural of impunity and immunity that prevails in Israel.

In its annual report for 2008, the Coalition against Torture – a coalition of 14 Palestinian and Israeli organizations for human rights – prepared an intensive study which included a critical analysis of Israel’s compliance to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture). The report examines the continuation of Israel’s use of systematic torture, whether in the occupied Palestinian territory or within Israeli boundaries.

According to the mandate of the Coalition against Torture, the annual report is based on material provided by the coalition to the United Nations Committee against Torture in September 2008. This step comes before beginning its periodic review of Israel’s compliance with the Convention against Torture planned for May 2009. The body of the report, which is a summary compiled by the members of the coalition, includes more than 80 pages of testimony and excerpts of testimony.

While preparing the report the Coalition studied the use of torture and ill-treatment by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinians from the moment of arrest through the period of investigation and detention, as well as the use of confessions in military courts that were obtained under duress. The report also talks about the following issues:

– The use of torture and ill-treatment in non-traditional conditions, including the demolition of houses and the siege on Gaza and the Israeli security services not allowing patients from leaving Gaza to seek medical treatment.

– The continued adoption of the solitary confinement policy and prevention of Palestinian detainees from receiving urgent legal assistance.

– The discriminatory policy in law and the applied practice on the Palestinian prisoners, compared with Israeli citizens.

– The immunity enjoyed by the Shin Bet investigators, police officers and members of the Israeli army who torture and ill-treat the Palestinian detainees, including children from the age of twelve.

– A legislative exception that allows members of the Shin Bet to not follow the laws and regulations that provide for the use of audio and video recordings during the investigation of Palestinian prisoners as is the case in other investigations.

– Failure of Israel to ban the use of torture and ill-treatment in its domestic legislation as recommended by the United Nations Committee against Torture which is conferred to enforcel the state’s obligations under the Convention against Torture.


:: Article nr. 49235 sent on 01-dec-2008 19:34 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=49235

Link: english.pnn.ps/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4119&Itemid=28

Shambles in Afghanistan: Why Are They Dying?

December 7, 2008

Brian Cloughley | The Smirking Chimp,  December 6, 2008

There can be few things more shameful or degrading for a head of state to have to admit than “I wish I could intercept the [US] planes that are going to bomb Afghan villages, but that’s not in my hands.” But Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai was forced to say this last week. In 2008, so far, at least 190 Afghan civilians have been killed by air strikes; about the same number as died in the atrocious slaughter in Mumbai. But there haven’t been any protests about the killing of civilians in Afghanistan, except by Afghans, of course. But who listens to Afghans?

No, it’s not in Karzai’s hands to rule his country, as he was elected to do. It is in the hands — or fists — of the occupying powers, who, through a pathetic combination of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence, are, in Karzai’s words, “still…not able to defeat the Taliban”.

The Taliban (or whatever one might call them — crazy criminal barbarians, many of them) thrive and kill because there was no viable political plan to administer Afghanistan after the invasion, and the country was thus doomed to chaos. First to arrive at the end of 2001 were American B-52 bombers, laying waste the land until their Strangelove-like controllers ran out of targets.

Then the brutal northern warlords surfaced, bought with millions of US dollars, and wreaked unspeakable atrocities upon their tribal and personal enemies whom they dubbed ‘Taliban’ while laughing at their paymasters’ ingenuousness at believing their vicious deceptions.

Last came a combination of international agencies, bless their well-meaning hearts, and American troops who have caused so much disruption, alienation and hatred. In the middle are the Brits, the Canadians, the Dutch, the Australians and a few other nations whose soldiers are being killed.

For what, exactly?

As I write this, there is news that two British Marines and an Australian officer have been killed in Afghanistan. They were in 42 Royal Marine Commando and 4th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, with both of which I was an artillery forward observer in Borneo when we were defending Malaysia against the Indonesian army in the mid-1960s. As anyone who has worn uniform knows, every soldier has lasting loyalty to his regiment and to other units with which he has had served. And I grieve for those who died almost as much as do their immediate comrades.

But I ask: Why did they die? For what reason do their comrades and families mourn their loss? For what cause did they give up their lives?

Did they die for democracy? Hardly. Because Afghanistan will never — ever — be a democracy in Western terms. This is an unattainable and therefore stupid objective.

Did they die for honesty in government? Hardly. Because the British and Australian governments joined the illegal invasion of Iraq, and lied at the time and forever after about the reasons they did so. (The real reason they helped invade Iraq was that they didn’t want to offend Bush and his cabal of demented warniks.)

It goes deeper than this in military terms. The British defence minister, a clever political animal called David Miliband (I met him once, when he was a junior education minister, and never have I witnessed such an unintentionally side-splitting parody of the main character in the BBC’s wonderful “Yes, Minister”), last week announced that “If there are requests [by the US for more British troops in Afghanistan], we’ll look at them hard… We have never been in blanket refusal.”

No, you poor fellow, you’ve been wrapped in a blanket of ignorance. Because numbers of troops in a campaign do not — must not — depend on political machinations. What happens (or should happen) is this:

A government decides that there should be military action of some sort. The defence minister then calls for his military chief and tells him the precise objective of the proposed campaign. The chief goes away and has his staff do the calculations. He goes back to the minister and says we need X thousand troops to do this, and we must have such-and-such equipment.

And if the politicians won’t give him that number of troops and the equipment he asks for, he resigns. Well, no, he doesn’t, of course, because he’s looking forward to retirement directorships and so forth. What he does is defer to the ignorant politicians, whereupon he commits his soldiers to a war for which they are ill equipped and appallingly under-strength.

Soldiers die in wars. That’s taken for granted. We all took our chances. But soldiers are dying in Afghanistan because politicians were silly enough to get their countries involved without proper planning, and because of the spinelessness of their military leaders. This is no way to fight a war. Not only is it being fought with too few troops, but every national contingent has different rules of engagement. Some can’t fight at night; some aren’t permitted to fight at all; some are reluctant to cooperate with other foreign forces. The two US contingents operate entirely separately, and US Special Forces are tasked from their HQ in the States. There is no unified joint and combined command that has a single clear military mission. It’s a martial shambles.

As I’ve written before: If a young officer at any staff college in the world was presented with the Afghanistan problem and came up with a military solution such as in now in place, he would be sent packing.

Either foreign forces in Afghanistan are given proper military direction and provided with the troop numbers and equipment they need, or the whole dismal campaign should be abandoned. It is extremely stupid — indeed it is monstrously wicked — to place soldiers in danger without the basic necessities to carry out their duties. There should be very many guilty consciences among western politicians and senior officers. But if they had consciences, they wouldn’t have got into this mess in the first place.

Brian Cloughley’s book about the Pakistan army, War, Coups and Terror, has just been published by Pen & Sword Books (UK). His email is beecluff@gmail.com.

Afghanistan: A rise in civilian deaths and foreign troop fatalities

December 7, 2008
By Harvey Thompson | World Socialist Web Site, Dec 6, 2008

During the month of November, a further seven British soldiers—including two Ghurkhas—were killed in fighting resulting from the US-led military occupation of Afghanistan.

On November 27, Tony Evans aged 20 and Georgie Sparks aged 19, both of J Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines, were on foot patrol north-west of Lashkar Gah, in Helmand province, when they came under attack from insurgent fighters armed with rocket-propelled grenades. Both marines died later from their injuries.

Their deaths brought the number of UK fatalities in Afghanistan to 128 since the British military joined the US-led invasion of the country in November 2001. Of these, 43 have been killed during 2008.

Over 1,000 service personnel in the occupation forces have now been killed in Afghanistan (the majority of these being US soldiers), according to the icasualties.org website. Significantly, more foreign troops have died in Afghanistan since May than in Iraq.

November also saw a continued rise in the numbers of Afghan civilians killed and injured as a result of US airstrikes. This year has seen the biggest rise in civilian casualties since the occupation began. Conservative estimates put the numbers of Afghans killed in violence related to the occupation in 2008 at around 4,000. At least one-third of these were civilians.

The deaths of civilians and the high-profile presence of occupying troops are bringing social and political resentments to a boiling point.

On November 28, protesters in the Afghan capital of Kabul pelted police with stones after British troops shot dead a local civilian and injured three others. An eyewitness told Reuters that British soldiers opened fire on a minibus. Kabul’s police chief, Mohammad Ayoub Salangi, stated blithely that “A convoy of British Isaf troops were passing here and they had a misunderstanding with a civilian vehicle.”

The body was wrapped in white cloth and put into the back of a taxi and driven away from the scene as the crowd chanted, “Death to Bush, death to America.”

People then threw stones at local police before being dispersed.

In a separate protest the day before, a crowd of Afghans gathered outside the United Nations headquarters in Kabul to demonstrate against civilian deaths in air strikes.

Such is the anger over the mounting civilian causalities from the air-strikes that Afghan President Hamid Karzai felt compelled to denounce the actions of the occupation forces. On November 26, he told a news conference that he would bring down US planes bombing villages if it were in his power.

“We have no other choice, we have no power to stop the planes, if we could, if I could … we would stop them and bring them down,” he said. “We have no radar to stop them in the sky, we have no planes… I wish I could intercept the planes that are going to bomb Afghan villages, but that’s not in my hands.”

Continued >>

Afghanistan: Another Untold Story

December 7, 2008

By Michael Parenti | Information Clearing House, Dec 5, 2008

Barack Obama is on record as advocating a military escalation in Afghanistan. Before sinking any deeper into that quagmire, we might do well to learn something about recent Afghan history and the role played by the United States.

Less than a month after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US leaders began an all-out aerial assault upon Afghanistan, the country purportedly harboring Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist organization. More than twenty years earlier, in 1980, the United States intervened to stop a Soviet “invasion” of that country. Even some leading progressive writers, who normally take a more critical view of US policy abroad, treated the US intervention against the Soviet-supported government as “a good thing.” The actual story is not such a good thing.

Some Real History

Since feudal times the landholding system in Afghanistan had remained unchanged, with more than 75 percent of the land owned by big landlords who comprised only 3 percent of the rural population. In the mid-1960s, democratic revolutionary elements coalesced to form the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). In 1973, the king was deposed, but the government that replaced him proved to be autocratic, corrupt, and unpopular. It in turn was forced out in 1978 after a massive demonstration in front of the presidential palace, and after the army intervened on the side of the demonstrators.

The military officers who took charge invited the PDP to form a new government under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki, a poet and novelist. This is how a Marxist-led coalition of national democratic forces came into office. “It was a totally indigenous happening. Not even the CIA blamed the USSR for it,” writes John Ryan, a retired professor at the University of Winnipeg, who was conducting an agricultural research project in Afghanistan at about that time.
The Taraki government proceeded to legalize labor unions, and set up a minimum wage, a progressive income tax, a literacy campaign, and programs that gave ordinary people greater access to health care, housing, and public sanitation. Fledgling peasant cooperatives were started and price reductions on some key foods were imposed.

The government also continued a campaign begun by the king to emancipate women from their age-old tribal bondage. It provided public education for girls and for the children of various tribes.

A report in the San Francisco Chronicle (17 November 2001) noted that under the Taraki regime Kabul had been “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government jobs—-in the 1980s, there were seven female members of parliament. Women drove cars, traveled and went on dates. Fifty percent of university students were women.”

The Taraki government moved to eradicate the cultivation of opium poppy. Until then Afghanistan had been producing more than 70 percent of the opium needed for the world’s heroin supply. The government also abolished all debts owed by farmers, and began developing a major land reform program. Ryan believes that it was a “genuinely popular government and people looked forward to the future with great hope.”

But serious opposition arose from several quarters. The feudal landlords opposed the land reform program that infringed on their holdings. And tribesmen and fundamentalist mullahs vehemently opposed the government’s dedication to gender equality and the education of women and children.

Because of its egalitarian and collectivist economic policies the Taraki government also incurred the opposition of the US national security state. Almost immediately after the PDP coalition came to power, the CIA, assisted by Saudi and Pakistani military, launched a large scale intervention into Afghanistan on the side of the ousted feudal lords, reactionary tribal chieftains, mullahs, and opium traffickers.

A top official within the Taraki government was Hafizulla Amin, believed by many to have been recruited by the CIA during the several years he spent in the United States as a student. In September 1979, Amin seized state power in an armed coup. He executed Taraki, halted the reforms, and murdered, jailed, or exiled thousands of Taraki supporters as he moved toward establishing a fundamentalist Islamic state. But within two months, he was overthrown by PDP remnants including elements within the military.

It should be noted that all this happened before the Soviet military intervention. National security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski publicly admitted–months before Soviet troops entered the country–that the Carter administration was providing huge sums to Muslim extremists to subvert the reformist government. Part of that effort involved brutal attacks by the CIA-backed mujahideen against schools and teachers in rural areas.

In late 1979, the seriously besieged PDP government asked Moscow to send a contingent of troops to help ward off the mujahideen (Islamic guerrilla fighters) and foreign mercenaries, all recruited, financed, and well-armed by the CIA. The Soviets already had been sending aid for projects in mining, education, agriculture, and public health. Deploying troops represented a commitment of a more serious and politically dangerous sort. It took repeated requests from Kabul before Moscow agreed to intervene militarily.

Jihad and Taliban, CIA Style

The Soviet intervention was a golden opportunity for the CIA to transform the tribal resistance into a holy war, an Islamic jihad to expel the godless communists from Afghanistan. Over the years the United States and Saudi Arabia expended about $40 billion on the war in Afghanistan. The CIA and its allies recruited, supplied, and trained almost 100,000 radical mujahideen from forty Muslim countries including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Algeria, and Afghanistan itself. Among those who answered the call was Saudi-born millionaire right-winger Osama bin Laden and his cohorts.

After a long and unsuccessful war, the Soviets evacuated the country in February 1989. It is generally thought that the PDP Marxist government collapsed immediately after the Soviet departure. Actually, it retained enough popular support to fight on for another three years, outlasting the Soviet Union itself by a year.

Upon taking over Afghanistan, the mujahideen fell to fighting among themselves. They ravaged the cities, terrorized civilian populations, looted, staged mass executions, closed schools, raped thousands of women and girls, and reduced half of Kabul to rubble. In 2001 Amnesty International reported that the mujahideen used sexual assault as “a method of intimidating vanquished populations and rewarding soldiers.’”

Ruling the country gangster-style and looking for lucrative sources of income, the tribes ordered farmers to plant opium poppy. The Pakistani ISI, a close junior partner to the CIA, set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA’s arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland became the biggest producer of heroin in the world.

Largely created and funded by the CIA, the mujahideen mercenaries now took on a life of their own. Hundreds of them returned home to Algeria, Chechnya, Kosovo, and Kashmir to carry on terrorist attacks in Allah’s name against the purveyors of secular “corruption.”

In Afghanistan itself, by 1995 an extremist strain of Sunni Islam called the Taliban—heavily funded and advised by the ISI and the CIA and with the support of Islamic political parties in Pakistan—fought its way to power, taking over most of the country, luring many tribal chiefs into its fold with threats and bribes.

The Taliban promised to end the factional fighting and banditry that was the mujahideen trademark. Suspected murderers and spies were executed monthly in the sports stadium, and those accused of thievery had the offending hand sliced off. The Taliban condemned forms of “immorality” that included premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality. They also outlawed all music, theater, libraries, literature, secular education, and much scientific research.

The Taliban unleashed a religious reign of terror, imposing an even stricter interpretation of Muslim law than used by most of the Kabul clergy. All men were required to wear untrimmed beards and women had to wear the burqa which covered them from head to toe, including their faces. Persons who were slow to comply were dealt swift and severe punishment by the Ministry of Virtue. A woman who fled an abusive home or charged spousal abuse would herself be severely whipped by the theocratic authorities. Women were outlawed from social life, deprived of most forms of medical care, barred from all levels of education, and any opportunity to work outside the home. Women who were deemed “immoral” were stoned to death or buried alive.

None of this was of much concern to leaders in Washington who got along famously with the Taliban. As recently as 1999, the US government was paying the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official. Not until October 2001, when President George W. Bush had to rally public opinion behind his bombing campaign in Afghanistan did he denounce the Taliban’s oppression of women. His wife, Laura Bush, emerged overnight as a full-blown feminist to deliver a public address detailing some of the abuses committed against Afghan women.

If anything positive can be said about the Taliban, it is that they did put a stop to much of the looting, raping, and random killings that the mujahideen had practiced on a regular basis. In 2000 Taliban authorities also eradicated the cultivation of opium poppy throughout the areas under their control, an effort judged by the United Nations International Drug Control Program to have been nearly totally successful. With the Taliban overthrown and a Western-selected mujahideen government reinstalled in Kabul by December 2001, opium poppy production in Afghanistan increased dramatically.

The years of war that have followed have taken tens of thousands of Afghani lives. Along with those killed by Cruise missiles, Stealth bombers, Tomahawks, daisy cutters, and land mines are those who continue to die of hunger, cold, lack of shelter, and lack of water.

Continued >>