$5000 reward offered for Rice’s citizen’s arrest

July 24, 2008

stuff.com.nz, July 24, 2008

A $5000 dollar reward is being offered to any Auckland University student who can make a successful citizen’s arrest of United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to the country this weekend.

Auckland University Student Association (AUSA) president David Do said the arrest would be for her role in “overseeing the illegal invasion and continued occupation” of Iraq.

“It is hard enough living as a student in Auckland these days without having a war criminal coming to town, so we thought we’d give our students a chance to make a dent in their student loans and work for global justice at the same time.”

Dr Rice will be in Auckland on July 26, where she will meet with Prime Minister Helen Clark, Foreign Minister Winston Peters and Opposition leader John Key.

She will make her first trip to New Zealand after attending a meeting of the Asean Regional Forum this week in Singapore.

– NZPA

SOME MATTER MORE – WHEN 47 VICTIMS ARE WORTH 43 WORDS

July 24, 2008
Media Lense, July 22, 2008

Bad Form

In his classic work, Obedience to Authority, psychologist Stanley Milgram observed:

“There is always some element of bad form in objecting to the destructive course of events, or indeed, in making it a topic of conversation. Thus, in Nazi Germany, even among those most closely identified with the ‘final solution’, it was considered an act of discourtesy to talk about the killings.” (Milgram, Obedience to Authority, Pinter & Martin, 1974, p.204)

The same “bad form” is very much discouraged in our own society. One would hardly guess from media reporting that Britain and America are responsible for killing anyone in Iraq and Afghanistan, where violence is typically blamed on “insurgents” and “sectarian conflict”. International “coalition” forces are depicted as peacekeepers using minimum violence as a last resort.

In reporting the November 2005 Haditha massacre, in which 24 Iraqi civilians were murdered by US troops, Newsweek suggested that the scale of the tragedy “should not be exaggerated”. Why?

“America still fields what is arguably the most disciplined, humane military force in history, a model of restraint compared with ancient armies that wallowed in the spoils of war or even more-modern armies that heedlessly killed civilians and prisoners.” (Evan Thomas and Scott Johnson, ‘Probing Bloodbath,’ Newsweek, June 12, 2006; http://www.newsweek.com/id/52312/page/1)

The truth was revealed in a single moment of unthinking honesty by a senior US Army commander involved in planning the November 2004 Falluja offensive and convinced of its necessity. He visited the city afterward and declared:

“My God, what are the folks who live here going to say when they see this?” (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/ weekinreview/04burns.html?fta=y&pagewanted=all)

The answer was provided by physician Mahammad J. Haded, director of an Iraqi refugee centre, who was in Falluja during the US onslaught:

“The city is today totally ruined. Falluja is our Dresden in Iraq… The population is full of rage.” (http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-awad100305.htm)

In July 2005, the Independent commented on US actions in Iraq:

“The American army’s use of its massive fire-power is so unrestrained that all US military operations are in reality the collective punishment of whole districts, towns and cities.” (Patrick Cockburn, ‘We must avoid the terrorist trap,’ The Independent, July 11, 2005)

In April 2004, the Daily Telegraph reported the disgust of senior British army commanders in Iraq with the “heavy-handed and disproportionate” military tactics used by US forces, who view Iraqis “as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life… their attitude toward the Iraqis is tragic, it is awful.” (Sean Rayment, ‘US tactics condemned by British officers’, Defence Correspondent, Daily Telegraph, April 11, 2004)

READ FULL ALERT >>


What is Media Lens?

Media Lens is our response to the unwillingness, or inability, of the mainstream media to tell the truth about the real causes and extent of many of the problems facing us, such as human rights abuses, poverty, pollution and climate change.
CONTINUE

 bloggers

Report Says Pentagon Pressured, Intimidated Auditors

July 24, 2008

Dana Hedgpeth, The Washington Post, July 23, 2008

photo

A GAO report found that the Defense Contract Audit Agency, which oversees contractors for the Defense Department, made an upfront agreement with”a major aerospace company” to limit the scope of an audit. (Photo: EML Associates)

Auditors at an oversight agency of the Pentagon were pressured by supervisors to skew their reports on a major defense contractor’s work, hiding wrongdoing and charges of overbilling, according to an 80-page report from the Government Accountability Office.

The Defense Contract Audit Agency, which is charged with overseeing contractors for the Defense Department, made an upfront agreement with “a major aerospace company” to limit the scope of work and basis for an audit, the report said.

When the contractor, who is not named in the report, objected to the draft findings of the DCAA audit, managers at the audit agency assigned a new supervisor to the case and threatened the senior auditor with personnel action if “he did not delete findings from the report and change the draft audit opinion to adequate,” according to the GAO report.

Supervisors at DCAA attempted to intimidate auditors, prevented them from speaking with GAO investigators and created a “generally abusive work environment,” the report said.

GAO said it launched the investigation on its own after receiving complaints on a hotline about 14 DCAA audits. It conducted more than 100 interviews of more than 50 people involved in the audits at two DCAA locations in California. The report details three of the audits the GAO looked into but does not name any of the contractors.

Chris Isleib, a spokesman at the Pentagon, said he did not have a comment at this time.

Former Gitmo Prosecutor Says Trials Rigged

July 24, 2008

Air Force Col. Morris D. Davis, who resigned last year after two years as chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, today described the military commissions system as fatally “tainted” by politics and designed to produce guilty verdicts, no matter what the costs.

The possibility of the system delivering “credible verdicts is doubtful,” Davis said Tuesday in a remarkable interview on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show.

“The process has been so tainted, such a black eye to the country, that we have to make every effort possible to have an open trial…

“I’m afraid that what has happened, though, is that we’ve had a rush, in order to get things done before the election, rather than taking the time — and getting evidence declassified in order to have an open trial is a frustrating, time consuming process, but in my view a necessary step if these things are going to have credibility.

Morris said the politicization of the system began at the top, with the appointment of Susan Crawford, a “political appointee” with no time in uniform, to run the military commissions.

Morris also said that Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartman, senior legal advisor to the convening authority, “broke the law” by exercizing command influence on the proceedings.

“Most people were watching to see what DoD was going to do about it, to see if he’d be fired. But instead they charged six more detainees and pressed ahead.”

Morris also said that on Jan. 2, 2007, two hours after President Bush withdrew the nomination of DoD General Counsel Jim Haynes, implicated in torture policy memos, to be a federal judge, Haynes called him up to demand the quick prosecution of Australian David Hicks, a Guantanamo inmate who has since been freed.

”How quickly can you charge David Hicks?” Haynes said, according to Morris.

“At that time we had no statute in place, no convening authority for military commisions, no regulations for military commissions. The major pieces were not in place, and I’m having to deal with the general cousel who’s asking how soon we can charge David Hicks.”

Haynes compared the Guantanamo proceedings to the Nurenburg trials of Nazi officials at the end of World War Two. But when Morris noted that those trials had also rendered aquittals, Haynes expoloded.

“Acquittals? We’re not going to have any acquittals,” Haynes said, according to Morris. “We’ve been holding these guys for years. How could you explain that if we had acquittals? We’ve gotta have convictions.”

Morris said there was no doubt in his mind that Salim Hamdan, on trial now, was far more than a cluless chaffeur for Osama bin Laden. But the “black eye” the proceedings have earned will taint his conviction. (Listen to the audio tape here.)

The Israeli army released the soldier who shot a bound Palestinian in Ni’lin two weeks ago

July 24, 2008

uruknet.info, July 22, 2008

nilin-shooting-3.jpg


The Israeli National Radio reported on Monday evening that the Israeli Army District Attorney has released the Israeli soldier who shot a bound Palestinian civilian in Ni’lin village near Ramallah in the northern part of the West Bank two weeks ago.

A video showing an Israeli soldier shooting a bound Palestinian in the village of Ni’lin near Ramallah raised uproar among human rights organizations.

The tape, which was released on Sunday by the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, shows an Israeli soldier shooting Ashraf Abu Rahme with a rubber coated-steel bullet at short range while his arms were bound almost two weeks ago.

B’Tselem said that other soldiers witnessed the shooting but moved no limb to stop it, and demanded an investigation to be opened into the incident. The shooting took place July 7, during an anti-wall demonstration in the village.

The video shows Abu Rahme being taken to the military jeep by one soldier, while the other points his gun form a very short range at Abu Rahme and shoots him in his left foot. The video was filmed by a Palestinian girl, 14, from a window in her home in the village. B’Tselem has distributed about 100 cameras to Palestinians throughout the West Bank over the last year, as part of their “Shooting Back” project.

B’Tselem released a video last month showing the beginning of an apparent assault by stick-wielding Israeli settlers on Palestinian farmers. The footage shows four people holding sticks approaching the farmers near the settlement of Susya outside Hebron.

Dozens of similar violations go undocumented especially in nonviolent protests in remote villages that most media outlets do not reach. The Israeli soldier told the investigators that he opened fire at the Palestinian civilian after he had received orders by his commander.

The Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, said that this incident is against the morals of the Israeli army and an investigation will be conducted. The Israeli Army District Attorney announced that the charges against the soldier will be dropped but the officer who gave the order will be questioned and may face charges.

UK MPs urge the Quartet to bring Hamas into peace talks

July 24, 2008

A cross party group of MPs has called on the Quartet mediating in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to open a dialogue with Hamas, saying “until now there has been no engagement between the Quartet and Hamas, but now we think it is time”.

Publishing a report on the humanitarian and development situation in the occupied territories, the international development select committee said the international community should “seize the opportunity” of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas to bring the Palestinian group into the peace process.

The chair of the committee, Liberal Democrat Malcolm Bruce told the Guardian that the MPs believed it was time for the Quartet – made up of the US, the EU, Russia and the United Nations – to “sound out Hamas”.

The committee heard evidence from former prime minister Tony Blair – the representative of the Quartet – whose session in front of the committee was a rare return to the House of Commons. The MPs found that Blair had made a “welcome first step” to reduce strategic checkpoints.

Although the MPs reported that the Hamas armed takeover of Gaza was “neither justified nor acceptable”, they also said that it was important to include Hamas in peace talks. They also urged the Quartet to use the opportunity provided by the truce to begin a reconciliation between rival Palestinian parties Hamas and Fatah.

The Quartet’s insistence that Hamas must first agree to three principles – to recognise Israel, renounce violence, and abide by previous agreements – before being involved in peace talks had “achieved very little” in the last two years, the committee said.

Bruce said that food, fuel and water were in short supply in Gaza, and the public health system was under severe pressure following the closure of borders. Though a six-month ceasefire was agreed between Hamas and Israel last month allowing food and aid through Gaza’s borders, the committee found that the effect of Israel’s blockades were still felt and the situation on the ground was far worse.

Bruce said: “Israel has obligations to ensure the health and welfare of the Palestinian population, which it has not met.

“We believe the situation was allowed to continue for too long, and that the Quartet did not exert sufficient pressure on Israel to open the crossings.”

US-led forces kill more Afghan civilians

July 23, 2008
By Jerry White | World Socialist Web Site, 22 July 2008

US and NATO forces killed at least 13 Afghans over the weekend, adding to the toll of civilian deaths as the military intensifies efforts to crush opposition to the nearly seven-year-old US occupation.

The two latest incidents occurred as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama visited Afghanistan and called for more US troops to be sent to the war-ravaged country.

On Sunday, US-led coalition forces killed four Afghan police officers and five civilians in the Anar Dara district in the western province of Farah, near the Iranian border. Coalition forces, which entered the area around midnight, waged a four-hour firefight and called in air strikes after reportedly receiving small arms fire from a group of local policemen.

Provincial Deputy Governor Younus Rasuli said the US-led convoy of troops never informed local police or officials of their plans to be in the area, and the policemen mistook them for Taliban fighters.

The US military issued a perfunctory statement justifying the action against what it described as a “non-uniformed hostile force.” Coalition forces, the statement said, had “engaged the enemy with precision close air support.”

In a separate incident Saturday night, NATO forces killed at least four civilians in eastern Paktika province when International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) fired two mortar rounds that landed nearly half a mile short of their target. The Associated Press reported that NATO was investigating whether three other civilians were also killed in the attack, which occurred in the Barmal district, an area made up mostly of Sunni Pashtun people.

The ISAF issued a statement saying it “deeply regrets this accident” and would investigate the incident. The alliance acknowledged it was providing medical aid to four others who were wounded in the attack.

As has been the case in previous such incidents in which, all told, thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed by US-led forces, military commanders insisted they were taking every precaution to prevent civilian deaths, which they said, were ultimately the fault of the insurgency.

The slaughter of innocent men, women and children, however, is inevitable given the neo-colonial character of the war and the counter-insurgency methods the US and NATO forces are using against growing popular resistance.

The number of attacks launched against the occupation forces has jumped by over 40 percent this summer. For the first time last month, US and allied casualties in Afghanistan surpassed those in Iraq.

In response to the deteriorating military situation, 646 bombs were dropped in June—the second highest total for any month of the war. In the first half of 2008, 1,853 bombs and missiles were used, 40 percent more than the same period last year.

The escalating violence took place as Obama visited Kabul on Sunday. In the morning he met with US troops at Camp Eggers, a heavily fortified military base in the city, praising them for their “excellent work.”

Later, in a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, he pledged additional military support to the puppet regime. Karzai’s spokesman said Obama was “committed to supporting Afghanistan and to continue the war against terrorism with vigor.” He said Democrats and Republicans “are friends of Afghanistan and no matter who wins the US elections, Afghanistan will have a very strong partner in the United States.”

In an interview from Kabul broadcast by CBS News on Sunday, Obama said the situation in the country was “precarious and urgent” and reiterated his position that Afghanistan had to become the focus of US military action, as opposed to the “strategic mistake” in Iraq that had diverted the US from the so-called “war on terror.”

Obama said as US troops left Iraq, at least 7,000 should be sent to the Central Asian country and that plans to increase US presence should not wait until the next administration takes office.

The massacre of Afghan civilians exposes the brutal, neo-colonial reality of US imperialist policy that is supported by both parties and both presidential candidates.

Madness and Shame

July 23, 2008

by: Bob Herbert, The New York Times

You want a scary thought? Imagine a fanatic in the mold of Dick Cheney, but without the vice president’s sense of humor.

In her important new book, “The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals,” Jane Mayer of The New Yorker devotes a great deal of space to David Addington, Dick Cheney’s main man and the lead architect of the Bush administration’s legal strategy for the so-called war on terror.

She quotes a colleague as saying of Mr. Addington: “No one stood to his right.” Colin Powell, a veteran of many bruising battles with Mr. Cheney, was reported to have summed up Mr. Addington as follows: “He doesn’t believe in the Constitution.”

Very few voters are aware of Mr. Addington’s existence, much less what he stands for. But he was the legal linchpin of the administration’s Marquis de Sade approach to battling terrorism. In the view of Mr. Addington and his acolytes, anything and everything that the president authorized in the fight against terror – regardless of what the Constitution or Congress or the Geneva Conventions might say – was all right. That included torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus, you name it.

This is the mind-set that gave us Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the C.I.A.’s secret prisons, known as “black sites.”

Ms. Mayer wrote: “The legal doctrine that Addington espoused – that the president, as commander in chief, had the authority to disregard virtually all previously known legal boundaries if national security demanded it – rested on a reading of the Constitution that few legal scholars shared.”

When the constraints of the law are unlocked by the men and women in suits at the pinnacle of power, terrible things happen in the real world. You end up with detainees being physically and psychologically tormented day after day, month after month, until they beg to be allowed to commit suicide. You have prisoners beaten until they are on the verge of death, or hooked to overhead manacles like something out of the Inquisition, or forced to defecate on themselves, or sexually humiliated, or driven crazy by days on end of sleep deprivation and blinding lights and blaring noises, or water-boarded.

Continued . . .

The Speech Brown Should Have Made to the Knesset

July 23, 2008
The Palestine Chronicle, July 22, 2008
‘Britain has an uncanny knack of producing one silly leader after another’
By Stuart Littlewood – London

I and my dog Mortimer apologise most sincerely to the world, and especially to Arab friends, for our prime minister’s crass speech to the Knesset.

Britain, like the US, has an uncanny knack of producing one silly leader after another from a limitless supply that thrust themselves on an unsuspecting public in order to perpetuate the Great Betrayal and the Nakba. Brown is the latest high-flier from our political swamp. Judging by his performance so far, we Brits are destined to live our lives in a state of perpetual and excruciating embarrassment.

Let it be known that this prime minister doesn’t speak for me or anyone I know when he says: “Britain will always stand firmly by Israel’s side.” And nobody of my acquaintance, or their dog, would ever sign up to “an unbreakable partnership based on shared values of liberty, democracy and justice” with Israel. It is quite obvious that none of our values of liberty, democracy and justice is practised by that regime.

However, it was faintly amusing to hear Brown say that “we will do more than oppose what is wrong. We will show those who would give licence to terror the way home to what is right too – showing them that the path to a better future runs not through violence, not by murder, and never with the killing of civilians but by liberty’s torch, through justice’s mighty stream, and across tolerance’s foundation of equality.” That should have had Knesset members squirming in their seats, but the irony was obviously lost on them, and on Brown himself.

“I think of David Ben Gurion,” he blurted, “who from humble beginnings in Poland built up the Jewish National Institutions and in 1948 said it was not enough for the Jewish state simply to be Jewish, it had to be fully democratic offering equal citizenship to all residents: a democracy not just of one people but of all your peoples…”

Mentioning Ben Gurion in the same breath as democracy and equality is not a good idea. This is the same guy who said: “I support compulsory transfer [i.e. ethnic cleansing]. I don’t see anything immoral in it.” On another occasion he admitted: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel… We have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it is true, but 2,000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country.”

Brown even praised Menachem Begin but was careful not to mention the Irgun. It was Begin’s terror gang, the Irgun, that declared war on the British mandate government while Britain was still fighting Nazi Germany. And our prime minister must have forgotten that in 1946 the Irgun under Begin’s leadership blew up British headquarters in Jerusalem’s King David Hotel, killing 91.

Continued . . .

US/IRAN: Scowcroft, Brzezinski Urge Bush to Drop Precondition

July 23, 2008

By Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Jul 22 (IPS) – Two of Washington’s most prominent foreign policy greybeards praised Saturday’s direct participation in multinational talks with Iran by a senior U.S. diplomat but called on the administration of President George W. Bush to drop his demands that Tehran freeze its uranium enrichment programme as a precondition for broader negotiations.

Ret. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under Republican presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who held the same post under Democratic President Jimmy Carter, urged Bush to go further by offering immediate rewards to Tehran in exchange for such a freeze.

And both men warned that repeated U.S. threats to use military force against Iran were counter-productive and strengthened hard-line forces in the regime led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They said an actual military attack — whether by the U.S. or by Israel — would likely be disastrous for U.S. interests in the region.

“A war with Iran will produce calamities for sure,” said Brzezinski, who pointed, among other things, to its likely impact on the price of oil and the likelihood that it would create yet another front to add to the two wars — Iraq and Afghanstan — in which U.S. military forces are already engaged.

“(Brzezinski’s assessment) may be a little more dire (than mine) but not much,” Scowcroft told IPS in a brief interview after the two men spoke at a briefing sponsored by the Centre for Security and International Studies (CSIS) here. “It would turn the region into a cauldron of conflict, bitterness, and hatred. It would turn Islam against us.”

Both men have been strongly critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly the decision to invade Iraq — although Brzezinski has been considerably more vocal than Scowcroft, who remains a close friend of Bush’s father. Both leading lights of the so-called “realist” foreign-policy establishment, they are currently collaborating on a book to be published in September.

Their joint appearance at CSIS, which was announced late last week after the administration had confirmed that undersecretary of state for policy, Amb. William Burns, would attend Saturday’s meeting between the so-called P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany) and Iran, seemed timed to demonstrate strong bipartisan support for continued and enhanced U.S. engagement.

Continued . . .