“Strategic Alliance” ~ US and Iraq

July 5, 2008 at 7:07 pm (9/11. War on Terror, George Bush, Iraq War, Peace)
Tags: , , ,

In spite of the Bush Administrations attempts to keep up the appearance that the Iraqi Government welcomes the continued presence of US troops indefinitely, members of the Iraqi Parliament have made numerous attempts to assert the independence of Iraq. Never has this been more obvious than in recent months where Iraqi leaders have made both public and written statements opposing the continued US presence in their country.

Iraqi’s themselves have long been opposed the presence of US troops, largely because they are seen as a destabilizing factor. According to a recent BBC/ABC poll, 69% of Iraqis believe that the security situation in Baghdad will improve or at least stay the same with the withdraw of US troops.

After the discovery of a secret plan to continue the US military presence in Iraq indefinitely, numerous Iraqi lawmakers have attempted with little success to make their wishes known to American lawmakers and the American public. Although the majority of corporate media sources refuse to give voice to the Iraqi’s themselves, the information can be found through alternative sources. For example, “On Tuesday, Democracy Now! spoke to visiting Iraqi lawmakers…in New York. Iraqi parliament member Khalaf Al-Ulayyan criticized the US proposals” stating,

“I believe the parliament will not ratify the treaty in its current form, because it harms Iraqi sovereignty. Based on the details that have been leaked to the media, it seems that the deal will make Iraq not just an occupied country but an actual part of the US.”

And, in a recent letter to the American Congress and Senate, Iraqi lawmakers pointed out that any deal signed solely by the Executive branch, would be both “unconstitutional and illegal” under the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. According to the Iraqi Constitution Article 61 Section Four, the Iraqi government’s legislative power retains exclusive rights to ratify international treaties and agreements.

Representing the majority of the two-hundred and seventy five members of the Iraqi Parliament, the letter goes on to state,

Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment, or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanism that obligate the occupying military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and with leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.

The Iraqi Council of Representatives is looking to ratify agreements that end every form of American intervention in Iraq’s internal affairs and restore Iraq’s independence and sovereignty over its land.

According to The Independent, in response to the resistance met by Iraqi lawmakers, United States negotiators “are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal…The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York…” These funds continue to grow as the price of oil climbs, furthering the pressure on Iraqi Lawmakers to accept the deal. This hold on these funds also inhibits the ability of Iraq’s rebuilding efforts as these funds, which under the UN mandate, are specifically for the reconstruction of Iraq including “the wheat purchase program, the currency exchange program, the electricity and oil infrastructure programs, equipment for Iraqis security forces, and for Iraqi civil service salaries and ministry budget operations.”

As Americans continue to debate the continued military presence in Iraq, what seems to elude them is the absolute hypocrisy of claims made by the Bush Administration both in regards to Iraq’s sovereignty and “The War on Terror.” in which he claims, “The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.” Considering that Bush’s solution to terrorism is the establishment of a “free and self-governing Iraq” one would think this issue would be moot. Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people have shown with little doubt they wish us to leave.

It leaves one to wonder, when will we listen?

Leave a Comment

Convenient Crises

May 24, 2008 at 6:17 pm (George Bush, Iraq War, Peace)
Tags: , , , ,

Think of it as the true test of the Western humanitarian impulse: The international effort that went into coordinating relief after the 2004 tsunami has to be repeated, but in much harsher, trickier, uglier political circumstances. Yes, we should help the Burmese, even against the will of their irrational leaders. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn’t much time to ruminate about any of this.

~Anne Applebaum

The situation facing the Burmese and the Chinese in the face of natural disaster is in dire need of attention. Some reports and media outlets are offering figures as high as 125,000 dead and 2.4 million at risk due to starvation and disease. The numbers in Burma alone are staggering. In fact, the amount of suffering civilians has led lawmakers including President George Bush to respond swiftly.

In response to these combined natural disasters, the United States has come forward with close to 20 million dollars in aid and the international community has “responded by offering over 100 million”

It seems as if the United States and indeed the world at large has taken the advice of Applebaum. Swift action in the face of “irrational leaders” will save lives and reduce the suffering of victims.

Sadly, Western media outlets fail to compare this humanitarian crisis to the US created crisis taking place daily in the Middle East, namely in Iraq, where over 4 million have been displaced and are living in squalid conditions. This humanitarian crisis has been named the largest humanitarian and displacement crisis in the world, and goes on largely unnoticed.

In a recently released report published by Refugees International, (Uprooted and Unstable, 2008) “the needs of the displaced are not adequately addressed by the Government of Iraq or the international community.”

Indeed, when compared to the billions of dollars (most recently 165 billion) President George Bush requests from US taxpayers to pay for the continued military presence in Iraq annually, a mere 35 million in humanitarian aid was requested for the fiscal year 2008. The report goes on to note, “This vacuum is quickly being filled by militias and other armed groups, who engage in hearts and minds campaigns and provide assistance as a means of building support for their political and military goals.”

The Iraqi government fragmented and corrupt has done little to assist their own people in providing basic services and aid, according to Refugees International, “It is unable and unwilling to use its important resources to respond appropriately to the humanitarian crisis.” However, in sharp contrast, as reported by Democracy Now! the Iraqi government “has now become one of the largest purchasers of US arms” worldwide.

Yet, in spite of the dire humanitarian situation in Iraq, the continued hypocrisies and politicization of convenient crises, and the obvious blunder of pushing Iraqi civilians towards militias and radical groups, Western media and politicians will continue to distract voters from the real issues underlying continued destabilization of Iraq…the deliberate denial of Iraq’s humanitarian crisis.

One can easily take the words of Applebaum and make them apply to Iraq, “Yes, we should help the Iraqis, even against the will of irrational leaders like George Bush. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn’t much time to ruminate about any of this.

You can do something…here

Leave a Comment

Women’s International Perspective ~ Uganda

April 7, 2008 at 3:04 pm (Blogroll, George Bush, Military Industrial Complex, War Crimes)
Tags: , ,

Women’s International Perspective hosted its first ever speaker panel on Friday April 4, 2008, at the Monterey Institute of International Study. The organization, barely one year old at the time of the event offers a woman’s perspective of violence against women and children around the globe.

Joyce Laker, a human rights worker and women’s advocate in Uganda shared her experiences about violence against women and children. Uganda, known for its child soldiers has been riddled with violence and conflict for decades. Forced to join the armed resistance of the Lord’s Resistance Army, children as young as ten years old are often forced to kill their own parents first, to sometimes drink their blood or cannibalize their bodies, and then enter into a never ending cycle of violence.

As sociologist and scholar Riane Eisler points out, violence against women and children around the world is actually, “normal,” and calls it, “the most ubiquitous human rights violation in the world.” As evidenced by Joyce Laker’s experience in Uganda, Riane Eisler’s point carries great weight.

Joyce Laker shared alarming statistics representing reported sexual violence. Throughout Uganda, anywhere from 26 to 52 percent of the female population has experienced sexual violence. However, as Laker points out, these numbers are likely not accurate as the reporting and investigation of a rape for women is costly and tedious at its best, and further degrading at its worst. Women forced to pay police to conduct the investigation at rates of 3.00 for the police to come and take the report, 10.00 to provide transportation for the police to come take the report and 20.00 to provide transportation for the perpetrator to the police station.

These human rights violations and atrocities are rarely, if ever reported in United States mainstream media and do not gain the attention they deserve. As American media outlets and politicians continue to ignore developments in Africa, the Bush Administration has dramatically ramped up the militarization of the continent since 2002, flushing the area with over $130 million dollars in military sales, financing, and training expenditures for what the US considers strategic for the “war on terror.”

However, as the think tank Foreign Policy In Focus rightly queries, the fundamental question for many is whether the US will utilize this increased military presence to support freedom, self determination, growth, prosperity, and accountability on behalf of the majority of nearly one billion people in Africa or if this new initiative will instead serve to oversee surrogate nations whose leadership is accountable first to U.S security and economic interest. (Gerald Le Melle, “Africa Policy Outlook 2008,” (Waahsington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, February 7, 2008).

Under the Bush administration, AFRICOM’s (Africa Command) structure would “place humanitarian work previously done by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development under the directive of the Department of Defense.” (Le Melle 2008) As evidenced by circumstances on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous countries around the globe, US interests rarely coincide with human rights, the sickness of the global society in regards to the rights of women and children around the globe should determine which countries the US does and does not call an ally.

As Le Melle points out in the Africa Policy Outlook conclusion, “Despite being the most stretched out campaign in American history, the 2008 presidential election is marked by the typical absence of any serious discussion of Africa. It is as if Africa has already been ceded to the Department of Defense and therefore out of the view of the American public. In contract with the accelerating militarization of the U.S Africa relations described above, this silence is deafening.”

Leave a Comment

The Constitution, John Yoo, and You

April 4, 2008 at 3:23 pm (9/11. War on Terror, ACLU, Democracy Now, George Bush, The Constitution, Torture, War Crimes)
Tags: , , , ,

The manner in which we seek justice against those accused of harming us will determine whether the United States will be seen at home and abroad as a nation of laws.  We must decide whether we live the values of justice that make us proud to be Americans, or whether we will forsake those values and continue down a path of arbitrary rules and procedures more befitting those who are our enemies.  Because we are a great nation, true to our founders’ vision, we must uphold our core values even in the toughest of times.  The right to a speedy trial in a court of law before an objective arbiter; the right to due process; the right to rebut the evidence against you; the right not to be tortured or waterboarded, or convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence are what truly define America and our commitment to the rule of law and our founders’ aspirations.

 

Anthony D. Romero~

 

John Yoo, the former Bush Administration lawyer and legal advisor, along with Alberto Gonzales have become infamous in the American psyche as the legal team who deliberately argued the support of torture as well as various Constitutional violations. Shortly after the events of September 11, Americans were told that this was a new kind of war that would require changes in the way America conducted itself.

For most legal scholars, constitutionalists, and human rights activists the ideas of having to redefine or to defend current definitions of torture, cruel and unusual punishment, and whether or not constitutional law applied during wartime became a kind of surreal nightmare that few understood. According to Mark Danner, once Alberto Gonzales had written that “this new paradigm renders obsolete the Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions,” arguments among government officials broke out. The Department of Defense expressed grave concern stating that such a decision “will reverse over a century of US policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine protections of the law for our troops.”

As evidenced by photographs coming from Abu Ghraib and the “Torture Memo’s”, it has become apparent to any Americans listening that the torture that took place there as well as Gitmo was deliberate, and certainly conducted with the full permission of higher ups in the military and the White House.

In an interview with Phillepe Sands on Democracy Now! Juan Gonzales reported that, “The Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners and interrogation methods is coming under increased scrutiny this week following the declassification of a 2003 memo. The memo shows the Justice Department told the Pentagon that presidential authority overrode numerous laws banning torture or cruel treatment of prisoners in US custody. The memo endorsed assault, maiming and even administering mind-altering drugs on prisoners. The memo was written on March 14, 2003 by attorney John Yoo. At the time, Yoo was a deputy in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. Today, Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Meanwhile, the British attorney Philippe Sands has just published an article in Vanity Fair exposing new details about how Yoo and other high-ranking administration attorneys helped design and implement the interrogation policies seen at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret CIA prisons.

According to Vanity Fair, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales personally visited Guantanamo in 2002, discussed interrogation techniques and witnessed interrogations. Also on the trip was David Addington, then Dick Cheney’s chief counsel, and William Haynes, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

 

Remarkably and under reported, disdain for the rule of law does not end on the soil of Iraq and Cuba, according to a recently released memo obtained by the ACLU, through a Freedom of Information Act request, evidence of White House officials contempt for the Constitution becomes more evident. In documents citing the Fourth Amendment (protections against unreasonable search and seizure), titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.” authors point out, “our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,”

 

            Even more alarming however, is that this President and Vice President continue to hold their positions in office. It leaves this law-abiding citizen to stare in shock and awe as to how it is possible that United States citizens continue to allow this to happen.

1 Comment

We Must Remain Vigilant

February 4, 2008 at 5:10 pm (9/11. War on Terror, Chile, Democrats, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Iraq, Iraq War, Peace, Politics, Republicans, War Crimes)
Tags: , , , , ,

I, like so many other Americans, was sadly lulled into a state of complacency during the eighties and early nineties. All seemed well in America, the economy was “strong”, the civil rights movement was fizzling out, the women’s rights movement appeared to have been appeased, and the deaths of millions around the globe due to our foreign policy was shielded from out eyes by a complicit media, eager to place it’s corporate agenda before its responsibilities to journalism and democracy. Yes, those were the good old days, when Americans had no clue how little our government actually represented us and how much it represented the desires of big corporations. The Cold War was over, and now the world was safe from Communism and tyranny.

 

I remember being at an event called Sol-Fest about six months before the 2004 election. I was deeply concerned that Kerry might loose because I was certain he would change the direction of this country. At such a progressive event, I assumed many Kerry supporters would be there. This was perhaps the beginning of my awakening, looking back now, I see how truly complacent I was.

 

I overheard a woman speaking to some workers at a Democratic booth. “Quite frankly, I am not sure who I am voting for, John Kerry is just as bad as Bush. I am not happy about the prospects of either one.” My ear perked up and I wondered what she meant. Before I could discover more, she had moved on to the next booth, but I kept her statement filed away in my brain.

The 2004 election came and went, and despite serious voting discrepancies, John Kerry and the Democratic Party rolled over like a beaten dog. Considering the mess that Iraq was and the photos coming out of Abu Ghraib, I was astonished that the election was stolen and subsequently given away one more time. However, more troubling to me was the very real fact that after the release of these photos, the re-election of George Bush would let the Iraqi people themselves know that we, as Americans, cared little for democracy, the rights of humans, and least of all, them.

 

The more involved in politics I became, the more I was able to research and uncover the very real fact that the invasion of Iraq, the rise of the Taliban, and the funding and support of bin Laden did not occur in a vacuum, but rather with the assistance of my very own government. Even more alarming was the knowledge that this was not the first, nor would it be the last time, that members of my government would sell people around the globe and me down the river in order to pursue an agenda that usually led to the deaths, torture, imprisonment, and suffering of millions. From Iran to Chile US foreign policies have been the bane of modern man’s existence. In fact, after September 11, 2001 many historians and scholars surmised that the terrorists might have been from South America rather than the Middle East. The date September 11, 1973 the date the US backed coup put Pinochet in power was the main factor turning eyes to the south.

 

With the primary elections underway, my ability to write and participate has diminished greatly. What is it that we, as Americans, do not understand about our government? For all the voices, expressing discontent with the status quo support does not waive for those who will simply continue our horrid policies. Furthering anti-American sentiment around the globe, continuing to oppress and exploit those too poor to fight, we continually sell our democratic ideals and ourselves down the river by settling for a candidate rather than picking someone who actually represents the democratic ideals we claim to love and care for so much. We condemn the likes of Ralph Nader for “splitting the democratic vote” or support Hillary Clinton “because she is a woman.” While we never really acknowledge the fact that our past is catching up with us in the form of 9/11, the mortgage crisis, the loss of independent media, the huge influx of immigrants (Mexican economic refugees due to NAFTA), sky rocketing health care, and the stagnant wages of the Middle Class.

 

Sadly and the main reason for my silence, is that for all the facts presented, Americans will lazily continue to assume this is a partisan problem. When in reality it is the fact that our democracy has been lost to us and in its place, we are now seeing a fascist corporate agenda shaping our foreign and domestic policies, and due to our lack of vigilance, it will simply get worse.

 

Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if this is exactly what we need in America, a taste of reality and some humility. Perhaps if we learn what it feels like to be them, we will learn what it is like to fight for democracy. As evidenced by the support I have been witness to for candidates the media continues to tell us to vote for, we have a long way to go.

 

For more blogs on the state of politics, please visit

HERE

HERE

HERE

HERE

and HERE…

 

Leave a Comment

The Integrity of Hillary Clinton

January 10, 2008 at 7:39 am (Democrats, George Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iran, Iraq, Military Industrial Complex, Peace, Torture)
Tags: , ,

Inּtegּri|ty n. 3. the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity

 

The meaning and definition of the word integrity seems simple and straightforward, but in the world of American Politics, it is perhaps the most misused, abused, and elusive word spoken. However, the majority of Americans believe, that among desirable personality characteristics in those running for and holding political office, it is by far the most desired.

If there is one particular trait missing from the Hillary Clinton campaign, it is indeed, integrity. On both national and international issues, Clinton is simply one more piece to the Bush/Clinton political sandwich that has destroyed the majority of American ideals. Clearly calculating and career driven, Clinton is obviously not the candidate who will restore America’s reputation in the world as the beacon of freedom, humanity, and all that is right but will rather lead this nation down its continued path to Imperialism through Corporatism.

For any American genuinely concerned about these issues to hear support for the Clinton campaign based on Clinton’s sex is truly concerning. In spite of her voting record, continued elusive language in terms of the occupation of Iraq, the shrinking middle class, the value of the dollar, increasing power for corporations, illegal detention and torture of detainees, repeated violations of the Constitution, and her position on energy independence, she continues to enjoy broad support among some in the Progressive Movement. One only need look closely at Clinton’s choice of language to determine that she continues to address these issues in a rather superficial way, lacking the integrity that America so badly needs.

Immediately before the primaries in New Hampshire, American media outlets focused the world’s attention on the fact that Clinton showed some emotion during a question and answer period.

Reminiscent of the absurd question asked during the Democratic debate in Nevada, where a young college student inquired as to whether Hillary preferred pearls or diamonds, a woman in New Hampshire asked, “As a woman, I know it’s hard to get out of the house and to get ready… and my question is very personal: how do you do it? How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?” To this, Clinton answered, “It’s not easy, and I could not do it if I just didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do…I have had so many opportunities from this country – I just don’t want us to fall back. This is very personal for me … it is not just political… I see what’s happening… we have to reverse it.”

Sadly missing from any emotion Clinton has ever shown are tears for fallen soldiers or their families, the destruction of the entire society and nation of Iraq, which has killed thousands, and made millions homeless and impoverished,  and the continued assault on American civil liberties.

In fact, it is on these very important issues that Clinton continues to lead the American people towards the Bush doctrine. This is evidenced by her support of Imperialistic Bush policies to date, including the Iraq War, a possible attack on Iran and The Patriot Act. Even those who approve of Clinton’s stance on these issues or those finding themselves forgiving of her apparent Bushesque blunderings, an alarm should sound at the clear contradiction between her words and actions.

In her victory speech, Clinton showed a real lack of integrity when she spoke of all that ails America, “The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. It’s time we had a president who stands up for all of you. I intend to be that president, to be a president who puts you first, your lives, your families, your children, your futures.”

Nowhere, does Clinton acknowledge that the very corporations she criticizes here are funding her campaign. A short list includes; 18.36 million (representing the largest contributions) from the financial sector, 14.3 million from lawyers and lobbyists representing oil, insurance, pharmaceutical, and lending companies, over 8 hundred thousand from the energy industry, and close to 2.2 million from the military industrial complex and construction companies combined, many of whom are currently operating in Iraq.  

If the staggering numbers alone are not sounding the alarm bells enough for Americans to realize Clinton plans on using her power to enrich the elite in this country further, perhaps a look at Clintons funding in comparison to other presidential hopefuls will. Clinton willingly accepts funds from the defense industry where only John McCain outranks her. In the Oil and Gas industry, Clinton enjoys another cool second place, from lobbyists however; she takes first place leaving all other candidates behind with second in line taking close to half of the funds she has received to date.

Clearly, Clinton’s actions and words do not match, leaving this writer to wonder how any one who wishes the direction of this country to change does not recognize these obvious warning signs. Perhaps the last seven years have left Americans so desperate and dumbfounded; they have decided lies from the mouth of a woman are perhaps easier to swallow, especially if they are followed by a shot of tears.

Leave a Comment

Cowardly or Complicit?

December 30, 2007 at 5:48 am (Democrats, George Bush, Iraq, Military Industrial Complex, Peace, Private Army, Republicans)
Tags: , , , ,

I remain hopeful that Americans can still rouse themselves to save our democracy. But the time in which to head of financial and moral bankruptcy is growing short.

~ Chalmers Johnson

With the Democratic Congresses approval rating at an all time low, one must wonder, “What are they thinking?” If the Democrats were holding to any kind of democratic philosophy, their direction in government should be clear. The House Speaker herself has stated on many occasions that the Democrats were given a mandate in 2006…to end the Iraq occupation. We should all keep in mind that this mandate includes the cessation of spending like a bunch of drunken sailors on holiday leave.

Yet their contempt for “the will of the people” continues to stand. Americans are no better off than they were under a Republican held majority. These circumstances beg the question, are the Democrats cowardly or complicit? In order to answer this question one must only look to some of the driving forces behind the continued failed policy in Iraq, namely that of private American defense contractors. This particular industry has exploded in recent years, in not only profits, but also the power it wields in politics. During the 2006 election cycle, defense contributions (totaling 17, 923, 5552 dollars) and lobbying efforts (over 40, 000, 000 dollars) has reached an all time high, this number shows a sharp contrast to figures collected as early as 1990 where total contributions equaled 7,069,584 dollars. As the rhetoric continues, around the Iraq debate, the developing pattern is quite clear; as defense spending has risen so have the contributions to candidates.

Interestingly, it appears from current figures the defense industry carries with it one more asset…a crystal ball. In both the “Defense” and “Miscellaneous Defense” categories, lobbying efforts and contributions have shown clear favorability towards Republican candidates. However, this is no longer true. For the 2006 election cycle Republicans acquired approximately 65% of contributions where as Democrats received only 34%. Already for the 2008 election cycle, Democrats are gaining strength in this sector. As of today, December 29, 2007, Democrats have received 52% of the contributions from defense contractors. In contrast, the Republicans have only received 48%.

Perhaps we can surmise that Democrats are neither cowardly nor powerless as so many would have us believe. With a majority in both house’s, and more members of the Republican Party recognizing support for this endless war is political suicide, clearly a solution exists. Just as money and greed are justifying the continuance of the Occupation of Iraq, it can end it as well. Democrats have the ability to end this occupation; it appears they simply lack the will to do so. With the presidential election around the corner, it would behoove all of us who wish to see this war end to examine the candidates and their loyalty to defense contractor profits. To date, every candidate both Republican and Democrat have accepted money in the thousands from this industry. That is every candidate save two: Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

As evidenced in recent years, money wields greater power than the will of the American people, however, the people continue to hold the power of the vote, perhaps it is time we used it wisely.

Leave a Comment

The Torture Question

December 27, 2007 at 4:36 pm (9/11. War on Terror, ACLU, George Bush, Mark Twain, Peace, Torture, War Crimes, Waterboarding)
Tags: , , , ,

“Funston’s example has bred many imitators, and many ghastly additions to our history: the torturing of Filipinos by the awful ‘water- cure,’ for instance, to make them confess — what? Truth? Or lies? How can one know which it is they are telling? For under unendurable pain a man confesses anything that is required of him, true or false, and his evidence is worthless.”

~Mark Twain

“The Army exists, not just to win America’s wars, but to defend America’s values. The policy and practice of torture without accountability has jeopardized both.”

~David R. Irvine
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) USA

Defined by Theodore Roosevelt as “an old Filipino method of mild torture” the debate about the use of waterboarding continues in this modern age. Seen by most as a brutal form of torture and intimidation the question of its use and legality is now an issue that is openly debated in American politics. It should be noted however, that the current debate shares its roots in a long and shameful history of US policies based in imperial desires and blatant racism dating back as far as 1898.

As Americans approach the 110 the anniversary of the “water cure” being used by US interrogators, a glance at 18 U.S.C 2340 2(a) which clearly defines torture as, the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering, shows us that the use of waterboarding is indeed considered torture. Notably, in a letter written by a US soldier deployed in the Philippines, he had used the water cure on 160 people and only 26 had survived. In a report released by Human Rights First, documentation of over 100 murders of detainees in US custody have occurred. However, these numbers alone cannot be entirely trusted because most autopsy reports of detainees are kept classified by the CIA where any agents may be implicated in the murder investigation. Regardless of this secrecy, investigations into the murders of several detainees reveal the role of water in the victims death. In light of these deaths, both present and past, the argument that waterboarding is not torture looses significant ground.

 

As recently as 2002 the Department of Justice stated that physical pain had to be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death to constitute torture. By this logic, forced digit removal, broken limbs, and beatings would not be considered torture. The DOJ itself has since denounced this memo, yet the debate surrounding the use of torture and waterboarding continues.

One would think that a look at recent US history could settle this question for us as well. Remarkably, the United States convicted Axis officers of war crimes for organizing and participating in military tribunals that relied on evidence obtained by torture.

As noted by the ACLU, fifty years later, it ill-suits this country to conduct war crimes trials of Guantanamo detainees under rules structured to allow admission of the same type of evidence.

Leave a Comment

Losing the “War on Terror”

November 14, 2007 at 7:53 pm (9/11. War on Terror, George Bush, Iraq War, Peace)

“This is not for that purposes of killing Americans…this is for the purpose of driving them crazy. They are cowboys and will react without thinking”.

 

~ Abu Mus’ab al Zawahiri

 

Immediately following the events on 9/11, Americans were asking the question of ‘Why?’ Like so many who watched the twin towers fall, I found myself asking the same question. In response to this question, media talking heads and political pundits gladly and simply answered this question by telling us, “They hate us because we are free”. In combination with the use of the word they, this statement fails to address the complexities of US history and the Arab world. Little did the American people understand the implications of what this talking point meant at the time, it was imperative that the Bush Administration dehumanize the entire Arab world so rather than discuss bin Laden or al Zawahiri and give us the entire history of al Qadea, the people who committed the crimes of September eleventh became people without families, lives, names, faces, or real complaints against US policies…the people who committed these crimes became They.

 

In most societies, dropping bombs on and dismembering innocent little girls whose mothers take them to preschool everyday, love their daddies, like to eat bananas, and dream of becoming a doctor or teacher someday is unacceptable. If the American people were told the truth about the military engagement we were about to embark on, they never would have supported it. For example, during the bombing campaign that started in October of 2001, over twenty thousand civilians were killed in Tora Bora. Out of this bombing just one Taliban leader was killed (The Secret History of al Qaeda 2006). While conducting “The War on Terror”, it is imperative Americans only think of Them or They rather than to think of the hundreds of thousands of people brutally murdered by cruel and ruthless weaponry, including little girls like the one described above.

 

Also important to note (and what the Bush Administration does not want you to think about) is exactly how, the use of our military has allowed bin Laden to successfully take on the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world, and all while living in the mountains of Afghanistan, with little to no financial means, primitive use of technology, and pathetic amounts of weaponry compared to the military arsenal the US possesses. It appears that bin Laden understands the reality of human nature far better than we. He understands that if we brutally and repeatedly murder, maim, and dismember civilians in the Arab world, especially the most vulnerable, women and children, people will rise up against us and resist. Bin Laden can continue his successful war of attrition without ever lifting another finger, issuing another fatwa, or releasing one more video tape. As evidenced by intelligence reports released from the United States itself, the occupation of Arab lands and continued bombing of innocent civilians is recruiting jihad fighters faster than we can kill them.

 

According to journalist and author Abdel Bari Atwan, “The insurgents are not only winning this bloody war, but winning it spectacularly .No matter how many insurgents coalition forces kill, the are always faced with a new wave of young men longing to be martyred and take as many of their enemies with them as they can…The popularity of the insurgency among ordinary Iraqi civilians is another sign of US failure.” And it continues to grow; anti-American sentiment among Muslim populations and sentiment around the entire world have continued to deteriorate. In a paper released in July of 2005 by Chatam House, International security experts noted that the situation in Iraq has provided ‘a boost to the al Qaeda network’s propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, and provided an ideal targeting and training area for al Qaeda-linked terrorists’.

 

Included with American intelligence reports connecting the US Occupation with an increase in terrorism and radicalism around the globe are two studies  released by the Saudi government and an Israeli think tank, both show that the majority of foreign fighters were not jihadis before the Iraq war, but were ‘radicalized by the war itself’ (Abdel Bari Atwan 2006). The radicalization of the Arab world is not successful because of the ideology of radical Islam or al Qaeda, it is so successful due to the needless death, economic hardships, and continued marginalization of an entire group of people that is being imposed by US policy and the “War on Terror”.

 

The American Government calls them They, as Americans, it is time for us to start recognizing Them for who They actually are. Human beings, with hopes, love, and dreams. In fact, They are just like Us.

Leave a Comment

Invisible People of the Middle East

September 26, 2007 at 1:15 am (9/11. War on Terror, Blogroll, George Bush, Iran, John Bolton, Nuclear Weapons, Peace)

“We’re talking about a clear message to Iran — Israel has the right to self-defense — and that includes offensive operations against WMD facilities that pose a threat to Israel. The United States would justify such attacks.”

~John Bolton

de∙fense 1 the act or power of defending, or guarding against attack, harm, or danger 2 the fact or state of being defended 3 a) something that defends: means of or resources for protection b) a plan or system of defending 4 justification or support speech or writing; vindication 5 self-protection as by boxing 6 the side that is defending in any contest 7 a)the arguments in behalf of the defendant in a law case b) the defendant and his or her lawyer or lawyers, collectively

of∙fen∙sive 1 attacking; aggressive 2 of or for attack 3 designating or of the side that is seeking to score in any contest 4 unpleasant, as to the senses; disgusting; repugnant 5 causing resentment, anger, etc.; insulting

It appears Mr. John Bolton has either mastered the art of doubletalk or has confused the simple definitions of these words. Perhaps the words themselves have taken on new meaning. One can only wonder how the argument of “self-defense,” when no attack ever took place, would hold up in a court of law. Only the savviest of jurists could ever defend the argument successfully, yet we hear no questioning of the Israeli/US policy when these terms distort the discussion of an attack on Iran.

Dr. Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher recently released a discussion paper exploring the realities of an attack on Iran. The document discusses the prospect of the possible attempted destruction of the Iranian regime and state by the United States and its allies. The report definitively concludes the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus, and economic infrastructure within days, if not hours, of President George Bush giving the order.

Remarkably, the Democratic Congress who was given a directive to end the Iraq Occupation by the American voters in the 2006 election recently refused to insist on being consulted before any attacks on Iran. As Senator and presidential hopeful Ron Paul has rightfully argued, “Congress is the only US entity that can declare war.” Despite this obvious constitutional authority and the abuse of power that President George Bush has exercised with the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are prepared to attack Iran if necessary.

Notable in the paper is a quote from Philip Giraldi in the American Conservative who notes, The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked…STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan in response to another 9/11 type terrorist attack on the United States…As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Much like US policy in Iraq, the post-war planning in Iran does not exist. As John Pike of the indispensable global policy forum puts it, “They think they can just bow up want they want to blow up and let the ant heap sort itself our afterwards.”

The discussion explores the possibilities of varied military strikes, ranging from limited strikes to target suspected nuclear facilities to the escalation of targeting all areas needed for the Iranian government and civilian populace to function listed above. The Administration as well as the Israeli government both understand the importance of preventing any possible retaliation from Iran. The paper states, There would be provisions for assaults to prevent Iran striking back in any significant manner. These would involve US forces in Iraq and Iran, protection for the Straights of Hormuz and oil facilities in the Gulf States, disruption of Revolutionary Guard, and other elite forces loyal to the current government.

The discussion of possible Iranian retaliation in the case of a pre-emptive strike concludes that the only way to avoid escalation is to completely destroy Iran’s capacity to retaliate. This includes the bombing of all suspected WMD sites, civilian and military infrastructure, military bases, economic infrastructure and state apparatus.

The plans to launch a pre-emptive military strike on Iran have been in the making since March of 2003. British Military sources stated on condition of anonymity that “the US military switched its whole focus to Iran” from March 2003…and continues…this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq. As one anonymous Iraq veteran wrote while serving in Iraq, I sat in a meeting in Baghdad when I was last there over a week ago to discuss this very matter before Ambassador Bremer left for Washington and the U.N., and it was apparent that everyone is really grasping at straws when it comes to understanding Sistani. More importantly, none of the real differences of opinion about what kind of influence and control a fetwah in his name condemning the process would mean in terms of popular reaction is based on more than conjecture.

In any case, what don’t seem to register right now are the real reasons why we don’t want to have direct elections in the near future. Yes, certainly we’re concerned about the mechanics (though the Green Zone notion that ration cards won’t work appears to have been based on completely flawed information provided by so-called “experts”), and our fear that imperfect elections might yield catastrophic results is genuine. But the catastrophic result we’re worried about isn’t women being disenfranchised or election results being contested — it’s that, in the short term, the best organized party and thus the most likely winner is the Iranian-backed SCIRI. We’ve got big fears about the Iranians projecting power all the way through the southern region of Iraq to the border with Saudi Arabia, and so we should, because that’s exactly what they’re aggressively seeking to do. People who speculate about whether we’ll take on Iran in the next round don’t realize that the battle is already more or less underway here in Iraq.

The paper discusses at great length not only potential targets in Iran but the varied weapons of choice, which includes the use of nuclear weapons. The paper points out, It is not responsible to argue that they will never be used and that there is not need for public debate. The weapons exist. The military personnel trained in their use exist. The political policy describing their possible use exists. What is lacking is a public discussion amongst those who support present policies of the realities of putting these policies into practice.

Perhaps the most alarming analysis of the paper is the discussion of civilian casualties. Using Department of Defense methodology for attacks of 3×10kt ground burst weapons per location, the paper concludes that approximately 2,816,000 civilian casualties will occur. However, this number is only inclusive of attacks of less than half of the suspected WMD sites. This number of casualties also does not include the effects of the inevitable fallout from the use of nuclear weapons, of which it is certain, radiation from these explosions would reach the upper atmosphere and be carried across much of the earth. In the early 1960’s public concern over detected concentrations of radioactivity in cow’s milk produced the public pressure that led to a US, UK, Russian ban on testing in the atmosphere.

After reading this blog and the contents of this discussion paper, I have only one small favor to ask of you. Please, for the love of humanity, your country, and God, call your representatives today and demand and end to this madness.

Tell them to vote NO on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (No. 3017), a provocative measure that will only undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy. Talking points: No more blank checks for this administration. Rather than escalating tensions, the U.S. should pursue smart, tough-minded dialogue and diplomacy, which are far more likely than force to produce a satisfactory resolution in the case of Iran. Iran’s gains in Iraq are largely due to the Bush invasion and subsequent mishandling of Iraq. By rushing to war without a strategy for winning the peace, we opened the door for Iran to connect with the Iraqi Shiites in power to engender discord. Let’s stop a war with Iran
before it begins. Call your senators at the Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121, and please call them today.

 

 

 

Leave a Comment