Peace and Justice Post

By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet. Posted February 8, 2008.

A new book takes a close look at the triumphs, challenges and regrets of reporters working to cover the first three years of the Iraq war.

The late British journalist James Cameron, known for his coverage of the Vietnam War, said of his journalism, “I may not have always been satisfactorily balanced; I always tended to argue that objectivity was of less importance than truth.” Perhaps in times of peace, objectivity naturally hews closer to truth. But when leadership misleads (or, euphemisms be damned, lies to) the public, journalists bear a greater responsibility. “Reporting” can all too easily translate into providing a megaphone for intentionally misleading information.

It is these issues that are at the forefront of Reporting Iraq: An Oral History of the War by the Journalists Who Covered It. Comprised mainly of interviews with over 40 journalists who covered the war, Reporting Iraq offers a candid view of the difficulties and complexities of working in an environment so hostile to reporters.

In one episode Rajiv Chandrasekaran of the Washington Post recalls the difficulty of getting any relevant information from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA): “Well, off the record,” CPA advisor Dan Senor told him, “Paris is burning, but on the record, security and stability are returning to Iraq.” Such double-speak motivated reporters to take great risks to find the facts — and spurred a wartime environment where journalists have now come to rely heavily on Iraqi stringers who, unlike western reporters, are able move more freely around the country. Reporting Iraq takes a close look at the triumphs, challenges and regrets of reporters working to cover the first three years of the occupation of Iraq.

Continued . . .

MRZINE, February 8, 2008

by Mahmoud El-Yousseph

Let’s pretend for a moment that Israel and not Gaza is under siege by its Arab neighbors.  The Arabs are preventing all food supplies, medicine, and fuel from reaching starving Israelis.  The reason given: Israel’s refusal to accept the Arab peace initiative (land for peace).

What would America and the rest of the world do?  You can bet the sky would fall down and America would raise holy hell.

First, President Bush would put our armed forces on worldwide alert, dispatch aircraft carriers to the region, and issue a 24-hour ultimatum to lift the siege or else.  U.S. lawmakers would be tripping over each other to the microphone to condemn the act as war crime against humanity.  It would headline front pages in all mainstream media, with editorials denouncing the Arabs as bloodthirsty savages who do not value human life and appeal to save Israel before it is too late.  TV stations would preempt regularly scheduled programs for constant updates and analyses.  The topic would be on every radio talk show with calls to “Send the Marines” and to start the “Tel Aviv Airlift.”  The crisis would dominate the presidential debate, and every candidate would try to outdo the others as to who cares more about Israel.  And yes, Arab/Muslim communities would be asked if they condone or condemn the siege.

That is a hypothetical scenario — the truth is, the siege has indeed taken place since June 2007, and the victims are not Israelis, but rather 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza (more than half of whose population are under 18).  The reasons given by Israel for the siege: the Hamas government does not recognize the Israeli occupation as legitimate and it has fired home-made rockets across the border.

Continued . . . 

The Providence Journal (Rhode Island), February 8, 2008

DAVID M. GITLITZ

WHY has the Bush administration been dancing around the question of whether waterboarding is torture?

Waterboarding was one of the most common tortures employed by the Spanish Inquisition for the first half of its 450-year-long history (circa 1480-1834). This has never been a secret. It is attested to by reams of documents — letters, debates, manuals of instruction and copious records of trials that include verbatim accounts of the torture sessions themselves — in the Historical Archives of Spain and Mexico, in which I have worked for the last 30 years. The information about inquisitorial waterboarding has also been available to the English-reading general public since publication of H.C. Lea’s A History of the Inquisition, the last volume of which appeared a hundred years ago this year.

Here is Lea’s description of the inquisitorial waterboarding:

“The patient was placed on an escalera or potro — a kind of trestle, with sharp-edged rungs across it like a ladder. It slanted so that the head was lower than the feet and, at the lower end was a depression in which the head sank, while an iron band around the forehead or throat kept it immovable. A bostezo, or iron prong, distended the mouth, a toca, or strip of linen, was thrust down the throat to conduct water trickling slowly from a jarra or jar, holding usually a little more than a quart. The patient gasped and felt he was suffocating, and at intervals, the toca was withdrawn and he was adjured to tell the truth. The severity of the infliction was measured by the number of jars consumed, sometimes reaching to six or eight.”

Keep reading . . .

RINF.com, Feb 9, 2008

By Joseph A. Lopisi

It is hard to pick a place to start in terms of talking about the most outrageous lies that the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission have presented to the people in this country as a reason to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and to launch a “fake war on terror”.

The reason I say this is that I have been reading articles and watching videos about the lies and deceptions surrounding 9/11 for the past three years. If anything, there are so many obvious unanswered questions about 9/11. However, not only has no one answered any of these questions but in fact no one in the mainstream media nor anyone in the United States Congress except for Representative Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney have even asked these questions.

Some of these questions are:

Keep reading . . .

REUTERS

Reuters North American News Service

Feb 08, 2008 23:57 EST

· Olmert hitting back after Hamas rocket attacks
· Cuts break international law, rights groups say

Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Saturday February 9, 2008
The Guardian

Israel started cutting the amount of electricity it supplies to Gaza yesterday as part of a new economic campaign targeting Hamas that has drawn sharp criticism from human rights groups.

Power on one of 10 lines into the Palestinian territory was cut to hit back at militants firing rockets into Israel. Although the reduction amounts to less than 1% of the 124 megawatts that Israel sells to Gaza, further cuts are due in the weeks ahead as Israel seeks to “disengage” from Gaza.

There was little immediate sign it would halt the escalating conflict. Militants yesterday fired at least 20 makeshift rockets into Israel, damaging a factory.

The decision to cut electricity has been backed by Israel’s high court, which this month turned down a challenge by Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups. Human Rights Watch said: “The cuts are seriously affecting civilians who have nothing to do with these armed groups and that violates a fundamental principle of the laws of war.”

Continued . . .

What is all this nonsense about us electing a “commander in chief”?

Okay, I mean we all know it’s President Bush’s favorite title. He thrills to being a “war president,” and loves strutting around in front of guys in uniform and getting saluted. But really, what is this all about?

The Constitution says that the President is the commander in chief of the army and the navy, and of the militia if it is called to national service. But that is really just for the sake of having a civilian at the top of the food chain.

President cum commander in chiefs do not actually run the military. They aren’t trained to do that any more than they run education, or run the weather service or NASA. Running the military, like running any federal agency, is what the head of that agency does, and in the case of the military, that’s what the Joint Chiefs of Staff do. A president certainly makes critical decisions in choosing who heads each agency, and in broad policy matters by discussing options with department leaders. The same is true in the case of the military with regard to the Joint Chiefs. But presidents decidedly do not act as top generals.

Keep reading . . .

By Ed Stoddard | Reuters, Feb 7, 2008

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) – Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said on Thursday a lasting peace accord with Israel was unlikely in 2008 despite renewed diplomatic efforts to resolve the long-running conflict.

In an interview with Reuters in the Texas capital, Austin, where he is on a private visit, he highlighted the lack of progress on the issue of Israeli settlements and military incursions into the West Bank as among the chief obstacles in the “road map” to peace and Palestinian statehood.

“I do not believe though that the final resolution … will be complete in the course of this year. I don’t think that is likely,” Fayyad said.

On a trip to the Middle East last month, U.S. President George W. Bush said he believed a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians would be signed before he leaves office in January 2009.

Continued . . .

· Ex-chief justice, wife and children held in Islamabad
· No school or check-ups for disabled eight-year-old

Declan Walsh in Islamabad
Friday February 8, 2008
The Guardian

Pakistan’s youngest political prisoner lives in a house on a hill just a few hundred metres from President Pervez Musharraf’s soaring presidential palace in Islamabad. Little about him is typical. He is physically disabled, spends his days watching cartoons on TV, and is eight years old.

Bilaj Chaudhry is the son of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Pakistan’s former chief justice. Since he was fired by Musharraf three months ago, the judge, his wife and four children have been locked in their house. Barbed wire barricades block the street, armed police and intelligence agents swarm outside, and visitors are forbidden. The phones have been cut, the water supply disrupted, and an employee who delivers food is carefully searched. Even stepping on to the front lawn is forbidden.

Continued . . .