the issue was never whether iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or whether iran has a nuclear weapon. the issue is that the u.s has no right to bomb nations just because they feel like it. as we all know, we have nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean i want bombs falling on boston common. and this robert gibbs is really starting to bother me, as all press secretaries must eventually do. "all options remain on the table?" if that is so, then where is the change? and how would we react if another country stated that bombing american cities remained an option that was "on the table?" where are all the liberals now? do they acept such militaristic nonsense, now that is mouthed by the party of their choice?
in connection with this, we have heard a lot about how obama will make sure that we don't use torture. well, as it turns out, the policy of rendition remains firmly on the books. rendition means that the cia can take "terrorist suspects" (ie, anyone we don't like) and transfer them to allies, where they will receive the very same treatment that obama is supposedly opposed to. in the end does it matter if we torture directly, or if we supply our trained allies, which include the most brutal regimes on the planet, to do the torturing for us? on this one, the liberals have spoken. human rights watch, for one, has defended the policies of rendition, as long as it is done in "limited" circumstances. well, what does that mean? the guy getting the shit kicked out of him will surely not be pacified by the knowledge that the use of rendition will now be "limited." way to go, hrw.
Sanity Reigns in Washington? Not Just Yet
by Tom Gallagher
Just when you might have been feeling a bit of euphoria over President Obama's orders to close Guantanamo and ban torture, along comes Dianne Feinstein to bring us back to earth and remind us far we still are from having a truly sane foreign policy. Actually, the California Senator started off her first meeting as Senate Intelligence Committee Chair just fine with her vow that there would never again be "a National Intelligence Estimate that was as bad and wrong as the Iraq NIE was." She went on to explain that "I voted to support the war because of that and I have to live with that vote for the rest of my life." And there comes the problem -- the presumption that invading Iraq would have been right if the intelligence report had been right.
Certainly we can appreciate Feinstein's contriteness. 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry also claimed to have been misled, yet still argued that his vote for the war was right -- a stretch of logic that certainly figured significantly in the failure of his candidacy. But what if the NIE had been correct?
Its central claim was that Iraq had the "weapons of mass destruction" that were so famously never found after the invasion. Specifically, it read, "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
Among the resulting charges leveled against Iraq was that the development of a nuclear weapon would have placed it in violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory. Seldom reported in the US, however, is the fact that many nations feel that the five signatories currently possessing nuclear weapons, the US, the UK, France, Russia, and China, themselves stand in violation of the portion of the treaty calling for "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament" and the conclusion of a "treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
Now we could argue treaty interpretations until the sun goes down, but one thing that just about all Americans would agree to is that no other nation has the right to enforce their interpretation of our treaty obligations by invasion. Fortunately, we don't even have to take such a possibility seriously because there's no country that would consider it. Other nations do not have that luxury, however -- so long as the US maintains the position that it is entitled its enforce its views by military force.
Is this simply an academic exercise? Unfortunately not. While Obama's willingness to actually talk with Iran is widely and understandably treated as a significant advance upon Bush's refusal to entertain the notion, when asked whether the "military option" remained on the table, Obama'a spokesman Robert Gibbs was quite clear: "The president hasn't changed his viewpoint that he should preserve all his options." Imagining our reaction if a foreign leader directed a similar statement at us might give us some measure of just how far we still have to go.
Tom Gallagher is an antiwar activist living in San Francisco, You may contact him at TGTGTGTGTG@aol.com,
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
a furlough blow
fuck you, california, with your muscle bound governor. are there not enough rich people in california to solve this problem? a system of progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth would solve the problem in a second. if that were to occur on a national scale, we could all work less, both by choice and due to a new found abundance of wealth. the wealth exists, but it is not shared. to punish the working people for the crimes of an economic system that they are the victims of is yet another in a long list of crimes perpetrated on the common people by those in power. it may seem as nothing compared to bombed baghdad, but a crime it still is.
so, the state will ask its workers to take a 10% pay cut, but will it ask its utility companies, its supermarkets, its landlords and mortage lenders, to also take a 10% pay cut? if diego and frida are asked to lose money, shouldn't their landlord also be asked to lose money? is their realtor not also a "resident" of california? if people are forced to make less, it seems fair that others should be forced to charge them less.
california, you have let your citizens down. it is not the first time, and it surely will not be the last. and what of you, hollywood? will you now make sure to spend 10% less on your movie productions? will you pay your stars 10% less, and charge 10% less in the theatres? and what of you, arnold? will you and your rich wife turn to a life of middle class modesty? come on, orange county, there must be some money to spare. this is a crisis after all! perhaps neiman marcus can chip in by charging 10% less at their california stores.
the answers, as always, are the same; tax the rich so that they are no longer rich. redistribute and expropriate wealth. stop spending trillions on war. tax the corporations. redistribute and expropriate them, so that workers can run the workplace in a democratic manner. that's the answer.
i'm sorry pinko, that the power elite in california, and throughout all of america, doesn't know it.
today it is you, but tomorrow it may well be cyborg.
i use to have reservations, but now, i am convinced; we are all on the reservation now.
and i have never felt so furlough.
so, the state will ask its workers to take a 10% pay cut, but will it ask its utility companies, its supermarkets, its landlords and mortage lenders, to also take a 10% pay cut? if diego and frida are asked to lose money, shouldn't their landlord also be asked to lose money? is their realtor not also a "resident" of california? if people are forced to make less, it seems fair that others should be forced to charge them less.
california, you have let your citizens down. it is not the first time, and it surely will not be the last. and what of you, hollywood? will you now make sure to spend 10% less on your movie productions? will you pay your stars 10% less, and charge 10% less in the theatres? and what of you, arnold? will you and your rich wife turn to a life of middle class modesty? come on, orange county, there must be some money to spare. this is a crisis after all! perhaps neiman marcus can chip in by charging 10% less at their california stores.
the answers, as always, are the same; tax the rich so that they are no longer rich. redistribute and expropriate wealth. stop spending trillions on war. tax the corporations. redistribute and expropriate them, so that workers can run the workplace in a democratic manner. that's the answer.
i'm sorry pinko, that the power elite in california, and throughout all of america, doesn't know it.
today it is you, but tomorrow it may well be cyborg.
i use to have reservations, but now, i am convinced; we are all on the reservation now.
and i have never felt so furlough.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Pakistan, where outrage continues to mount over the US military’s first act of war approved by President Obama. Last Friday, unmanned US Predator drones fired missiles at houses in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, killing as many as twenty-two people, including at least three children.
The United States has carried out thirty such drone attacks on alleged al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistani territory since last summer, killing some 250 people, according to a tally by Reuters.
The Pakistani prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday that US drone attacks were “counterproductive” and ended up uniting local communities with militants. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicated Tuesday at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that such strikes will continue and that Pakistani officials are aware of US policy on this matter.
ROBERT GATES: Both President Bush and President Obama have made clear that we will go after al-Qaeda wherever al-Qaeda is, and we will continue to pursue them.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: Has that decision been transmitted to the Pakistan government?
ROBERT GATES: Yes, sir.
AMY GOODMAN: Pakistani officials, however, deny there’s any agreement with the United States to secretly allow drone attacks inside Pakistan. Defense Secretary Gates’s comments on the missile attacks were the first to publicly acknowledge the strikes since last Friday. This is an excerpt of last Friday’s White House press briefing with, well, the new press secretary, Robert Gibbs.
REPORTER: And other US officials have confirmed these Predator drone air strikes, Pakistan. What is it about cannot confirming whether the President was consulted—
ROBERT GIBBS: I’m not going to get into these matters.
REPORTER: How does that compromise operational security?
ROBERT GIBBS: I’m not going to get into these matters.
REPORTER: Don’t you think it’s justifiable curiosity, Robert, about the President’s first military action—
ROBERT GIBBS: I think there are many things that you should be justifiably curious about, but I’m not going to get into talking about—
REPORTER: If other members of the US government are confirming this, why is it that you can’t comment?
ROBERT GIBBS: I’m not going to get into these matters.
AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Joseph Biden also refused to comment Sunday as to whether the United States would notify Pakistan before sending forces into their territory. He was on CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Last week, an American drone apparently attacked an al-Qaeda force, or what they thought was an al-Qaeda force, in the territorial part of Pakistan, a cross-border operation. It’s my understanding that the President, the previous president, gave our US forces and the CIA permission to go across that border, to go after al-Qaeda if it became necessary on the ground. Does President Obama—will he continue that policy?
VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN: Bob, as you know, I can’t speak to any particular attack. I can’t speak to any particular action. It’s not appropriate for me to do that.
But I can say that the President of the United States said during his campaign and in the debates that if there is an actionable target of a high-level al-Qaeda personnel, that he would not hesitate to use action to deal with that.
But here’s the good news. The good news is that in my last trip—and I’ve been to Pakistan many times and that region many times—there is a great deal more cooperation going on now between the Pakistan military in an area called the FATA, the Federally Administered Territory—Waziristan, North Waziristan—all that area we hear about, that is really sort of ungovernable—not sort of, it’s been ungovernable for the Pakistani government. That’s where the bad guys are hiding. That’s where the al-Qaeda folks are, and some other malcontents.
And so, what we’re doing is we’re in the process of working with the Pakistanis to help train up their counterinsurgency capability of their military, and we’re getting new agreements with them about how to deal with cross-border movements of these folks. So we’re making progress.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Would you have notified them before any of these cross-border movements, because, as you well know, there is a fear that there would be leaks on something like that, and there might be a temptation not to? Exactly what is our policy on that?
VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN: I always try to be completely candid with you, but I can’t respond to that question. I’m not going to respond to that question.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You’re not going to respond to that question.
i find these exchanges and interviews instructive. dig the press secretary..."i'm not going to get into these matters." didn't the liberals just spend eight years complaining that secrecy in government is a grave matter? well, it doesn't get more secretive than the above remark. the liberal left spent years mocking bush's various press secretaries. who among them will now belittle robert gibbs? of course, they will remain silent on the issue like the true believers they are. for, in america, politics is akin to religion, where we mindlessly repeat certain passages and texts, and conveniently leave out anything that doesn't fit with our preexisting doctrines and beliefs.
and dig biden..."that's where the bad guys are hiding. that's where the al queda folks are, and some other malcontents." what is this guy, 5? "that's where the bad guys are hiding? did he steal a bush and cheney speech book? again, various liberals have mocked the level of discourse eminating from the bush white house over the last 8 years. who among them will now condemn the semi-literacy displayed by biden? and, of course, it isn't merely the way he says what he is saying; it is what he is saying, and what they are doing, that is the problem. and it these similarities with the bush administration that should give us all cause for concern.
the question is a simple one; if it was a crime for bush to use brutal militarism, is it not also a crime when obama does the same? who are the "liberals" among us who will speak to the humanity of the 22 people killed? are their deaths made more explainable and justifiable because obama saw to it that they would no longer exist? once again, the limits of liberalism shine through, for it is not who is doing the killing, but the fact that killing is being done, that needs to be challenged. where is the victory in a democratic press secretary, as opposed to a republican press secretary, saying he can not comment? where is the victory in a democratic vp, as opposed to a republican vp, speaking of various bad guys? where is the victory in a democratic president, of whatever pigmentation, as opposed to a republican president, ordering the killing of innocent people?
recently, we heard a lot of conjecture about how dr king would have felt about obama becoming president. well, how would king feel about the murder of 22 pakistanis, called for by the same obama king would supposedly have wept tears of joy for? perhaps he would have reminded us that the u.s government remains the most violent nation on earth. in fact, he surely would have.
so yeah, listen to these guys. watch them. follow the trail of crimes, and count the deaths.
and then tell me if change has come to america.
The United States has carried out thirty such drone attacks on alleged al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistani territory since last summer, killing some 250 people, according to a tally by Reuters.
The Pakistani prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani told an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday that US drone attacks were “counterproductive” and ended up uniting local communities with militants. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicated Tuesday at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that such strikes will continue and that Pakistani officials are aware of US policy on this matter.
ROBERT GATES: Both President Bush and President Obama have made clear that we will go after al-Qaeda wherever al-Qaeda is, and we will continue to pursue them.
SEN. CARL LEVIN: Has that decision been transmitted to the Pakistan government?
ROBERT GATES: Yes, sir.
AMY GOODMAN: Pakistani officials, however, deny there’s any agreement with the United States to secretly allow drone attacks inside Pakistan. Defense Secretary Gates’s comments on the missile attacks were the first to publicly acknowledge the strikes since last Friday. This is an excerpt of last Friday’s White House press briefing with, well, the new press secretary, Robert Gibbs.
REPORTER: And other US officials have confirmed these Predator drone air strikes, Pakistan. What is it about cannot confirming whether the President was consulted—
ROBERT GIBBS: I’m not going to get into these matters.
REPORTER: How does that compromise operational security?
ROBERT GIBBS: I’m not going to get into these matters.
REPORTER: Don’t you think it’s justifiable curiosity, Robert, about the President’s first military action—
ROBERT GIBBS: I think there are many things that you should be justifiably curious about, but I’m not going to get into talking about—
REPORTER: If other members of the US government are confirming this, why is it that you can’t comment?
ROBERT GIBBS: I’m not going to get into these matters.
AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Joseph Biden also refused to comment Sunday as to whether the United States would notify Pakistan before sending forces into their territory. He was on CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Last week, an American drone apparently attacked an al-Qaeda force, or what they thought was an al-Qaeda force, in the territorial part of Pakistan, a cross-border operation. It’s my understanding that the President, the previous president, gave our US forces and the CIA permission to go across that border, to go after al-Qaeda if it became necessary on the ground. Does President Obama—will he continue that policy?
VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN: Bob, as you know, I can’t speak to any particular attack. I can’t speak to any particular action. It’s not appropriate for me to do that.
But I can say that the President of the United States said during his campaign and in the debates that if there is an actionable target of a high-level al-Qaeda personnel, that he would not hesitate to use action to deal with that.
But here’s the good news. The good news is that in my last trip—and I’ve been to Pakistan many times and that region many times—there is a great deal more cooperation going on now between the Pakistan military in an area called the FATA, the Federally Administered Territory—Waziristan, North Waziristan—all that area we hear about, that is really sort of ungovernable—not sort of, it’s been ungovernable for the Pakistani government. That’s where the bad guys are hiding. That’s where the al-Qaeda folks are, and some other malcontents.
And so, what we’re doing is we’re in the process of working with the Pakistanis to help train up their counterinsurgency capability of their military, and we’re getting new agreements with them about how to deal with cross-border movements of these folks. So we’re making progress.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Would you have notified them before any of these cross-border movements, because, as you well know, there is a fear that there would be leaks on something like that, and there might be a temptation not to? Exactly what is our policy on that?
VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN: I always try to be completely candid with you, but I can’t respond to that question. I’m not going to respond to that question.
BOB SCHIEFFER: You’re not going to respond to that question.
i find these exchanges and interviews instructive. dig the press secretary..."i'm not going to get into these matters." didn't the liberals just spend eight years complaining that secrecy in government is a grave matter? well, it doesn't get more secretive than the above remark. the liberal left spent years mocking bush's various press secretaries. who among them will now belittle robert gibbs? of course, they will remain silent on the issue like the true believers they are. for, in america, politics is akin to religion, where we mindlessly repeat certain passages and texts, and conveniently leave out anything that doesn't fit with our preexisting doctrines and beliefs.
and dig biden..."that's where the bad guys are hiding. that's where the al queda folks are, and some other malcontents." what is this guy, 5? "that's where the bad guys are hiding? did he steal a bush and cheney speech book? again, various liberals have mocked the level of discourse eminating from the bush white house over the last 8 years. who among them will now condemn the semi-literacy displayed by biden? and, of course, it isn't merely the way he says what he is saying; it is what he is saying, and what they are doing, that is the problem. and it these similarities with the bush administration that should give us all cause for concern.
the question is a simple one; if it was a crime for bush to use brutal militarism, is it not also a crime when obama does the same? who are the "liberals" among us who will speak to the humanity of the 22 people killed? are their deaths made more explainable and justifiable because obama saw to it that they would no longer exist? once again, the limits of liberalism shine through, for it is not who is doing the killing, but the fact that killing is being done, that needs to be challenged. where is the victory in a democratic press secretary, as opposed to a republican press secretary, saying he can not comment? where is the victory in a democratic vp, as opposed to a republican vp, speaking of various bad guys? where is the victory in a democratic president, of whatever pigmentation, as opposed to a republican president, ordering the killing of innocent people?
recently, we heard a lot of conjecture about how dr king would have felt about obama becoming president. well, how would king feel about the murder of 22 pakistanis, called for by the same obama king would supposedly have wept tears of joy for? perhaps he would have reminded us that the u.s government remains the most violent nation on earth. in fact, he surely would have.
so yeah, listen to these guys. watch them. follow the trail of crimes, and count the deaths.
and then tell me if change has come to america.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
is it the corruption obama is mad at?
since when do we mind corrupt governments? of course, "we" are mad because this man, puppet though he may have initially been, has had enough of the massacres perpetrated against his people. perhaps he feels the need to say such things for his own protection within afghanistan, but the fact is, he is saying them, and that, we do not like. there may be a new afghani president soon. airplanes with leaders we have tired of on them have been known to crash, and lone lunes have been known to become dead on shots when we have decided that a leader has outlived his welcome.
Report: Obama Admin to Pressure Karzai
Gates also addressed Afghanistan, where Obama is planning on escalating the US occupation.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates: ”There is little doubt that our greatest military challenge right now is Afghanistan. As you know, the United States has focused more on Central Asia in recent months. President Obama has made it clear that the Afghanistan theater should be our top overseas military priority."
Gates’s comments come as the Obama administration says it plans on taking a “tougher line” toward Afghan president Hamid Karzai. The New York Times reports White House officials now see Karzai as “a potential impediment to American goals” because of corruption in his government. But Karzai has also recently angered US officials by criticizing deadly US air strikes and demanding a timetable for a withdrawal of foreign troops.
Report: Obama Admin to Pressure Karzai
Gates also addressed Afghanistan, where Obama is planning on escalating the US occupation.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates: ”There is little doubt that our greatest military challenge right now is Afghanistan. As you know, the United States has focused more on Central Asia in recent months. President Obama has made it clear that the Afghanistan theater should be our top overseas military priority."
Gates’s comments come as the Obama administration says it plans on taking a “tougher line” toward Afghan president Hamid Karzai. The New York Times reports White House officials now see Karzai as “a potential impediment to American goals” because of corruption in his government. But Karzai has also recently angered US officials by criticizing deadly US air strikes and demanding a timetable for a withdrawal of foreign troops.
omg
all societies that have been run by religious authorities have been deeply oppressive. look it up; it is in the nature of religion to place no value on the views of those outside of the faith. to the extent that has changed, it has changed in societies that have balanced religion with secular beliefs. being stoned to death is of course, a political issue, and for us to be silenced because those throwing the stones think themselves religious, is every bit as ludicrous as silence in the face of christian slaveholders and segregationists. or for that matter, of american imperialism. unedited religion will get many of us killed. it always has and it always will, and any true progressive, whether religious or not, needs to hope for the secularization of politics and government. with religion comes judging others, feeling superior to others, especially when the religious hold power to enforce their judgements. of course, religion is often used to enforce political brutality, as when bush said that god told him to strike iraq, or when israel babbles on about how god gave them the land. it should be noted that such actions by the u.s and its allies have actually helped to strengthen fundamentalist religion in the islamic world. as i've spoken to before, the u.s government has systematically destroyed every progressive secular nationalist movement and leader in the muslim world, from mossadegh in iran to nasser in egypt to sukarno in indonesia to the afghan government of the late 70's and early 80's. when we eliminated these forces, we greatly weakened the abilities of these socities to think in progressive and secular ways, for the power vacuum was soon filled by either religious extremists, as in afghanistan, or by authoritarian dictators, like the shah in iran, who were militarily and economically supported by our government. in the first case, religious extremisn is embedded in the society. in the latter case, secular leadership is disgraced as a puppet of america. in either case, the growth of progressive secular nationalism is checked and reversed, as we babble on about religious freedom.
it is hard to know where true belief ends and the cynical use of religion ends, but if we weren't religious, the powerful could not use such justifications for their inexcusable actions. politicians would be laughed at if they felt the need to start wars, or to whip divorced women, because of religion. the fact that many people don't laugh is a condemnation of collective human intelligence and decency, and speaks to the ongoing horrors that religion helps to bring into existence.
king, a great religious man, once said "we have guided missiles and misguided men." those who start wars because god told them so are "misguided." those who stone and whip women are "misguided." those who practice homophobia because of their "faith" are misguided. our antiquated hatreds makes those missiles, stones, and whips, even more deadly, because they guarantee a world where they will be used. such behaviors can not be justified, and the sane few of us left should not be silenced because others persist in literally believing in texts written thousands of years ago by semi-literate men.
even if those men do have all the power.
especially when those men have all the power.
Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
by Johann Hari
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism - giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds - are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten - to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind - and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it - but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided - so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech - including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed - so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN - and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" - and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest - but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's - or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies - that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" - and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs - but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea - at the heart of the Universal Declaration - is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
An excellent blog that keeps you up to dates on secularist issues is Butterflies and Wheels, which you can read here.
© 2009 The Independent
Johann Hari is a columnist for the London Independent. He has reported from Iraq, Israel/Palestine, the Congo, the Central African Republic, Venezuela, Peru and the US, and his journalism has appeared in publications all over the world.
it is hard to know where true belief ends and the cynical use of religion ends, but if we weren't religious, the powerful could not use such justifications for their inexcusable actions. politicians would be laughed at if they felt the need to start wars, or to whip divorced women, because of religion. the fact that many people don't laugh is a condemnation of collective human intelligence and decency, and speaks to the ongoing horrors that religion helps to bring into existence.
king, a great religious man, once said "we have guided missiles and misguided men." those who start wars because god told them so are "misguided." those who stone and whip women are "misguided." those who practice homophobia because of their "faith" are misguided. our antiquated hatreds makes those missiles, stones, and whips, even more deadly, because they guarantee a world where they will be used. such behaviors can not be justified, and the sane few of us left should not be silenced because others persist in literally believing in texts written thousands of years ago by semi-literate men.
even if those men do have all the power.
especially when those men have all the power.
Why Should I Respect These Oppressive Religions?
Whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents say they're victims of 'prejudice'
by Johann Hari
The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism - giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds - are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten - to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind - and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it - but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided - so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech - including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed - so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN - and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" - and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest - but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's - or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies - that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" - and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs - but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea - at the heart of the Universal Declaration - is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely.
An excellent blog that keeps you up to dates on secularist issues is Butterflies and Wheels, which you can read here.
© 2009 The Independent
Johann Hari is a columnist for the London Independent. He has reported from Iraq, Israel/Palestine, the Congo, the Central African Republic, Venezuela, Peru and the US, and his journalism has appeared in publications all over the world.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
i'm sure
i'm sure that the poor of afghanistan will rest good tonight knowing the man who made this request just signed on to a plan to make american cars have higher fuel efficiency standards. that will make those bombed wedding parties feel much better. and by the way, this whole fuel efficiency thing is bullshit; we need less cars, and more walking, more public transit, more bikes.
america; where putting a band aid on a cancer never grows old. and where wars go on and on, regardless of which party is in power.
Obama Asks Britain to Send 4,000 More Troops to Afghanistan
The Times of London reports President Obama has asked Britain to supply up to 4,000 extra frontline troops to take part in a US-led surge of forces in Afghanistan. Obama has already endorsed a Pentagon plan to nearly double the US presence in Afghanistan
america; where putting a band aid on a cancer never grows old. and where wars go on and on, regardless of which party is in power.
Obama Asks Britain to Send 4,000 More Troops to Afghanistan
The Times of London reports President Obama has asked Britain to supply up to 4,000 extra frontline troops to take part in a US-led surge of forces in Afghanistan. Obama has already endorsed a Pentagon plan to nearly double the US presence in Afghanistan
all we have to do...
is just recycle those newspapers and bottles.
and all will be well.
Mickey Z
When your planet is as polluted as ours, there’s plenty of eco-blame to go around...but let’s get serious here. Huge multi-national corporations ravage the earth every single second of every single day, in search of their beloved profits. The Average American (AvAm) can rightly share some blame - thanks to silent complicity - for the subsequent eco-nightmare. The real offenders, however, remain invisible and unpunished by cleverly deflecting most of the eco-blame to the AvAm.
And then there’s this...
As if it wasn’t bad enough to spend a million taxpayer dollars per minute on war, the US military is also in a league by itself when it comes to pollution. “The US Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies combined,” writes Lucinda Marshall, founder of the Feminist Peace Network. “In the US, one out of every ten Americans lives within ten miles of a military site that has been listed as a Superfund priority cleanup site,” adds Marshall. “The health problems that have been documented as being attributable to these various toxins in military use include miscarriages, low birth weight, birth defects, kidney disease, and cancer. Military pollution most directly affects those who are targeted by our weapons, soldiers and anyone living near a military base, both in the US and abroad.”
Keep that in mind the next time someone insinuates that everything would be so much better if you and I would just “go green.”
and all will be well.
Mickey Z
When your planet is as polluted as ours, there’s plenty of eco-blame to go around...but let’s get serious here. Huge multi-national corporations ravage the earth every single second of every single day, in search of their beloved profits. The Average American (AvAm) can rightly share some blame - thanks to silent complicity - for the subsequent eco-nightmare. The real offenders, however, remain invisible and unpunished by cleverly deflecting most of the eco-blame to the AvAm.
And then there’s this...
As if it wasn’t bad enough to spend a million taxpayer dollars per minute on war, the US military is also in a league by itself when it comes to pollution. “The US Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest US chemical companies combined,” writes Lucinda Marshall, founder of the Feminist Peace Network. “In the US, one out of every ten Americans lives within ten miles of a military site that has been listed as a Superfund priority cleanup site,” adds Marshall. “The health problems that have been documented as being attributable to these various toxins in military use include miscarriages, low birth weight, birth defects, kidney disease, and cancer. Military pollution most directly affects those who are targeted by our weapons, soldiers and anyone living near a military base, both in the US and abroad.”
Keep that in mind the next time someone insinuates that everything would be so much better if you and I would just “go green.”
let us never forget
that domestic prisons have long been used to torture the poor, people of color, and political radicals. every crime the u.s partakes in is an export of a domestic crime. slavery and genocide against the indigenous led to the war with mexico. pre-existing racial discrimination within america always leads to racism in our imperial wars. crimes start at home, and then expand outward. this is how it must be, and the left needs to be aware of this. what is solitary confinement, if not torture? what is police brutality, if not torture? what are politically inspired murders and frame ups, if not torture? what does it say about our nation that we have more people in prison than any other nation on earth? can there be a more tortured state than imprisonment? chomsky likes to speak of how a free our society is, but if we are so free, how can we have the most people in the world who are unfree?
furthermore, what can be more of a torture than living in a country under bombardment by american weapons? would the iraq war have been any more justified if we only tortured people with bombs, and not in prisons? what of the torture of "collateral damage?" when the strongest military in the world decides to start a war, they are in essence creating a torture chamber out of the entire country being attacked.
but sadly, no memo will ever end the warfare state.
What About Closing Angola, Mr. Obama?
Torture at a Louisiana Prison
By JORDAN FLAHERTY
The torture of prisoners in US custody is not only found in military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. If President Obama is serious about ending US support for torture, he can start here in Louisiana.
The Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola is already notorious for a range of offenses, including keeping former Black Panthers Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, in solitary for over 36 years. Now a death penalty trial in St. Francisville, Louisiana has exposed widespread and systemic abuse at the prison. Even in the context of eight years of the Bush administration, the behavior documented at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola stands out both for its brutality and for the significant evidence that it was condoned and encouraged from the very top of the chain of command.
In a remarkable hearing that explored torture practices at Angola, twenty-five inmates testified last summer to facing overwhelming violence in the aftermath of an escape attempt at the prison nearly a decade ago. These twenty-five inmates - who were not involved in the escape attempt - testified to being kicked, punched, beaten with batons and with fists, stepped on, left naked in a freezing cell, and threatened that they would be killed. They were threatened by guards that they would be sexually assaulted with batons. They were forced to urinate and defecate on themselves. They were bloodied, had teeth knocked out, were beaten until they lost control of bodily functions, and beaten until they signed statements or confessions presented to them by prison officials. One inmate had a broken jaw, and another was placed in solitary confinement for eight years.
While prison officials deny the policy of abuse, the range of prisoners who gave statements, in addition to medical records and other evidence introduced at the trial, present a powerful argument that abuse is a standard policy at the prison. Several of the prisoners received $7,000 when the state agreed to settle, without admitting liability, two civil rights lawsuits filed by 13 inmates. The inmates will have to spend that money behind bars –more than 90% of Angola's prisoners are expected to die behind its walls.
Systemic Violence
During the attempted escape at Angola, in which one guard was killed and two were taken hostage, a team of officers - including Angola warden Burl Cain - rushed in and began shooting, killing one inmate, Joel Durham, and wounding another, David Mathis.
The prison has no official guidelines for what should happen during escape attempts or other crises, a policy that seems designed to encourage the violent treatment documented in this case. Richard Stalder, at that time the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, was also at the prison at the time. Yet despite – or because of - the presence of the prison warden and head of corrections for the state, guards were given free hand to engage in violent retribution. Cain later told a reporter after the shooting that Angola's policy was not to negotiate, saying, ''That's a message all the inmates know. They just forgot it. And now they know it again.''
Five prisoners – including Mathis - were charged with murder, and currently are on trial, facing the death penalty – partially based on testimony from other inmates that was obtained through beatings and torture. Mathis is represented by civil rights attorneys Jim Boren (who also represented one of the Jena Six youths) and Rachel Connor, with assistance from Nola Investigates, an investigative firm in New Orleans that specializes in defense for capital cases.
The St. Francisville hearing was requested by Mathis' defense counsel to demonstrate that, in the climate of violence and abuse, inmates were forced to sign statements through torture, and therefore those statements should be inadmissible. 20th Judicial District Judge George H. Ware Jr. ruled that the documented torture and abuse was not relevant. However, the behavior documented in the hearing not only raises strong doubts about the cases against the Angola Five, but it also shows that violence against inmates has become standard procedure at the prison.
The hearing shows a pattern of systemic abuse so open and regular, it defies the traditional excuse of bad apples. Inmate Doyle Billiot testified to being threatened with death by the guards, "What's not to be afraid of? Got all these security guards coming around you everyday looking at you sideways, crazy and stuff. Don't know what's on their mind, especially when they threaten to kill you." Another inmate, Robert Carley testified that a false confession was beaten out of him. ""I was afraid," he said. "I felt that if I didn't go in there and tell them something, I would die."
Inmate Kenneth "Geronimo" Edwards testified that the guards "beat us half to death." He also testified that guards threatened to sexually assault him with a baton, saying, "that's a big black…say you want it." Later, Edwards says, the guards, "put me in my cell. They took all my clothes. Took my jumpsuit. Took all the sheets, everything out the cell, and put me in the cell buck-naked…It was cold in the cell. They opened the windows and turned the blowers on." At least a dozen other inmates also testified to receiving the same beatings, assault, threats of sexual violence, and "freezing treatment."
Some guards at the prison treated the abuse as a game. Inmate Brian Johns testified at the hearing that, "one of the guards was hitting us all in the head. Said he liked the sound of the drums – the drumming sound that – from hitting us in the head with the stick."
Solitary Confinement
Two of Angola's most famous residents, political prisoners Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, have become the primary example of another form of abuse common at Angola – the use of solitary confinement as punishment for political views. The two have now each spent more than 36 years in solitary, despite the fact that a judge recently overturned Woodfox's conviction (prison authorities continue to hold Woodfox and have announced plans to retry him). Woodfox and Wallace – who together with former prisoner King Wilkerson are known as the Angola Three - have filed a civil suit against Angola, arguing that their confinement has violated both their 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment and 4th amendment right to due process.
Recent statements by Angola warden Burl Cain makes clear that Woodfox and Wallace are being punished for their political views. At a recent deposition, attorneys for Woodfox asked Cain, "Lets just for the sake of argument assume, if you can, that he is not guilty of the murder of Brent Miller." Cain responded, "Okay. I would still keep him in (solitary)…I still know that he is still trying to practice Black Pantherism, and I still would not want him walking around my prison because he would organize the young new inmates. I would have me all kind of problems, more than I could stand, and I would have the blacks chasing after them...He has to stay in a cell while he's at Angola."
In addition to Cain's comments, Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell has said the case against the Angola Three is personal to him. Statements like this indicate that this vigilante attitude not only pervades New Orleans' criminal justice system, but that the problem comes from the very top.
The problem is not limited to Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola – similar stories can be found in prisons across the US. But from the abandonment of prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison during Katrina to the case of the Jena Six, Louisiana's criminal justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world, often seems to be functioning under plantation-style justice. Most recently, journalist A.C. Thompson, in an investigation of post-Katrina killings, found evidence that the New Orleans police department supported vigilante attacks against Black residents of New Orleans after Katrina.
Torture and abuse is illegal under both US law – including the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment - and international treaties that the US is signatory to, from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified in 1992). Despite the laws and treaties, US prison guards have rarely been held accountable to these standards.
Once we say that abuse or torture is ok against prisoners, the next step is for it to be used in the wider population. A recent petition for administrative remedies filed by Herman Wallace states, "If Guantanamo Bay has been a national embarrassment and symbol of the U.S. government's relation to charges, trials and torture, then what is being done to the Angola 3… is what we are to expect if we fail to act quickly…The government tries out it's torture techniques on prisoners in the U.S. – just far enough to see how society will react. It doesn't take long before they unleash their techniques on society as a whole." If we don't stand up against this abuse now, it will only spread.
Despite the hearings, civil suits, and other documentation, the guards who performed the acts documented in the hearing on torture at Angola remain unpunished, and the system that designed it remains in place. In fact, many of the guards have been promoted, and remain in supervisory capacity over the same inmates they were documented to have beaten mercilessly. Warden Burl Cain still oversees Angola. Meanwhile, the trial of the Angola Five is moving forward, and those with the power to change the pattern of abuse at Angola remain silent.
Jordan Flaherty is a journalist based in New Orleans, and an editor of Left Turn Magazine. He can be reached at neworleans@leftturn.org.
furthermore, what can be more of a torture than living in a country under bombardment by american weapons? would the iraq war have been any more justified if we only tortured people with bombs, and not in prisons? what of the torture of "collateral damage?" when the strongest military in the world decides to start a war, they are in essence creating a torture chamber out of the entire country being attacked.
but sadly, no memo will ever end the warfare state.
What About Closing Angola, Mr. Obama?
Torture at a Louisiana Prison
By JORDAN FLAHERTY
The torture of prisoners in US custody is not only found in military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. If President Obama is serious about ending US support for torture, he can start here in Louisiana.
The Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola is already notorious for a range of offenses, including keeping former Black Panthers Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, in solitary for over 36 years. Now a death penalty trial in St. Francisville, Louisiana has exposed widespread and systemic abuse at the prison. Even in the context of eight years of the Bush administration, the behavior documented at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola stands out both for its brutality and for the significant evidence that it was condoned and encouraged from the very top of the chain of command.
In a remarkable hearing that explored torture practices at Angola, twenty-five inmates testified last summer to facing overwhelming violence in the aftermath of an escape attempt at the prison nearly a decade ago. These twenty-five inmates - who were not involved in the escape attempt - testified to being kicked, punched, beaten with batons and with fists, stepped on, left naked in a freezing cell, and threatened that they would be killed. They were threatened by guards that they would be sexually assaulted with batons. They were forced to urinate and defecate on themselves. They were bloodied, had teeth knocked out, were beaten until they lost control of bodily functions, and beaten until they signed statements or confessions presented to them by prison officials. One inmate had a broken jaw, and another was placed in solitary confinement for eight years.
While prison officials deny the policy of abuse, the range of prisoners who gave statements, in addition to medical records and other evidence introduced at the trial, present a powerful argument that abuse is a standard policy at the prison. Several of the prisoners received $7,000 when the state agreed to settle, without admitting liability, two civil rights lawsuits filed by 13 inmates. The inmates will have to spend that money behind bars –more than 90% of Angola's prisoners are expected to die behind its walls.
Systemic Violence
During the attempted escape at Angola, in which one guard was killed and two were taken hostage, a team of officers - including Angola warden Burl Cain - rushed in and began shooting, killing one inmate, Joel Durham, and wounding another, David Mathis.
The prison has no official guidelines for what should happen during escape attempts or other crises, a policy that seems designed to encourage the violent treatment documented in this case. Richard Stalder, at that time the secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, was also at the prison at the time. Yet despite – or because of - the presence of the prison warden and head of corrections for the state, guards were given free hand to engage in violent retribution. Cain later told a reporter after the shooting that Angola's policy was not to negotiate, saying, ''That's a message all the inmates know. They just forgot it. And now they know it again.''
Five prisoners – including Mathis - were charged with murder, and currently are on trial, facing the death penalty – partially based on testimony from other inmates that was obtained through beatings and torture. Mathis is represented by civil rights attorneys Jim Boren (who also represented one of the Jena Six youths) and Rachel Connor, with assistance from Nola Investigates, an investigative firm in New Orleans that specializes in defense for capital cases.
The St. Francisville hearing was requested by Mathis' defense counsel to demonstrate that, in the climate of violence and abuse, inmates were forced to sign statements through torture, and therefore those statements should be inadmissible. 20th Judicial District Judge George H. Ware Jr. ruled that the documented torture and abuse was not relevant. However, the behavior documented in the hearing not only raises strong doubts about the cases against the Angola Five, but it also shows that violence against inmates has become standard procedure at the prison.
The hearing shows a pattern of systemic abuse so open and regular, it defies the traditional excuse of bad apples. Inmate Doyle Billiot testified to being threatened with death by the guards, "What's not to be afraid of? Got all these security guards coming around you everyday looking at you sideways, crazy and stuff. Don't know what's on their mind, especially when they threaten to kill you." Another inmate, Robert Carley testified that a false confession was beaten out of him. ""I was afraid," he said. "I felt that if I didn't go in there and tell them something, I would die."
Inmate Kenneth "Geronimo" Edwards testified that the guards "beat us half to death." He also testified that guards threatened to sexually assault him with a baton, saying, "that's a big black…say you want it." Later, Edwards says, the guards, "put me in my cell. They took all my clothes. Took my jumpsuit. Took all the sheets, everything out the cell, and put me in the cell buck-naked…It was cold in the cell. They opened the windows and turned the blowers on." At least a dozen other inmates also testified to receiving the same beatings, assault, threats of sexual violence, and "freezing treatment."
Some guards at the prison treated the abuse as a game. Inmate Brian Johns testified at the hearing that, "one of the guards was hitting us all in the head. Said he liked the sound of the drums – the drumming sound that – from hitting us in the head with the stick."
Solitary Confinement
Two of Angola's most famous residents, political prisoners Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox, have become the primary example of another form of abuse common at Angola – the use of solitary confinement as punishment for political views. The two have now each spent more than 36 years in solitary, despite the fact that a judge recently overturned Woodfox's conviction (prison authorities continue to hold Woodfox and have announced plans to retry him). Woodfox and Wallace – who together with former prisoner King Wilkerson are known as the Angola Three - have filed a civil suit against Angola, arguing that their confinement has violated both their 8th amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment and 4th amendment right to due process.
Recent statements by Angola warden Burl Cain makes clear that Woodfox and Wallace are being punished for their political views. At a recent deposition, attorneys for Woodfox asked Cain, "Lets just for the sake of argument assume, if you can, that he is not guilty of the murder of Brent Miller." Cain responded, "Okay. I would still keep him in (solitary)…I still know that he is still trying to practice Black Pantherism, and I still would not want him walking around my prison because he would organize the young new inmates. I would have me all kind of problems, more than I could stand, and I would have the blacks chasing after them...He has to stay in a cell while he's at Angola."
In addition to Cain's comments, Louisiana Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell has said the case against the Angola Three is personal to him. Statements like this indicate that this vigilante attitude not only pervades New Orleans' criminal justice system, but that the problem comes from the very top.
The problem is not limited to Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola – similar stories can be found in prisons across the US. But from the abandonment of prisoners in Orleans Parish Prison during Katrina to the case of the Jena Six, Louisiana's criminal justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world, often seems to be functioning under plantation-style justice. Most recently, journalist A.C. Thompson, in an investigation of post-Katrina killings, found evidence that the New Orleans police department supported vigilante attacks against Black residents of New Orleans after Katrina.
Torture and abuse is illegal under both US law – including the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment - and international treaties that the US is signatory to, from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified in 1992). Despite the laws and treaties, US prison guards have rarely been held accountable to these standards.
Once we say that abuse or torture is ok against prisoners, the next step is for it to be used in the wider population. A recent petition for administrative remedies filed by Herman Wallace states, "If Guantanamo Bay has been a national embarrassment and symbol of the U.S. government's relation to charges, trials and torture, then what is being done to the Angola 3… is what we are to expect if we fail to act quickly…The government tries out it's torture techniques on prisoners in the U.S. – just far enough to see how society will react. It doesn't take long before they unleash their techniques on society as a whole." If we don't stand up against this abuse now, it will only spread.
Despite the hearings, civil suits, and other documentation, the guards who performed the acts documented in the hearing on torture at Angola remain unpunished, and the system that designed it remains in place. In fact, many of the guards have been promoted, and remain in supervisory capacity over the same inmates they were documented to have beaten mercilessly. Warden Burl Cain still oversees Angola. Meanwhile, the trial of the Angola Five is moving forward, and those with the power to change the pattern of abuse at Angola remain silent.
Jordan Flaherty is a journalist based in New Orleans, and an editor of Left Turn Magazine. He can be reached at neworleans@leftturn.org.
evo! evo! evo!
Bolivia Looking Forward: New Constitution Passed, Celebrations Hit the Streets
January 27, 2009 By Ben Dangl
Ben Dangl's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
After Bolivia's new constitution was passed in a national referendum on Sunday, thousands gathered in La Paz to celebrate. Standing on the balcony of the presidential palace, President Evo Morales addressed a raucous crowd: "Here begins a new Bolivia. Here we begin to reach true equality."
Polls conducted by Televisión Boliviana announced that the document passed with 61.97% support from some 3.8 million voters. According the poll, 36.52% of voters voted against the constitution, and 1.51% cast blank and null votes. The departments where the constitution passed included La Paz, Cochabamba, Oruro, Potosí, Tarija, and Pando. It was rejected in Santa Cruz, Beni, and Chuquisaca.
The constitution, which was written in a constituent assembly that first convened in August of 2006, grants unprecedented rights to Bolivia's indigenous majority, establishes broader access to basic services, education and healthcare and expands the role of the state in the management of natural resources and the economy.
When the news spread throughout La Paz that the constitution had been passed in the referendum, fireworks, cheers and horns sounded off sporadically. By 8:30, thousands had already gathered in the Plaza Murillo. The crowd cheered "Evo! Evo! Evo!" until Morales, Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera and other leading figures in the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) government, crowded out onto the balcony of the presidential palace.
"I would like to take this opportunity to recognize all of the brothers and sisters of Bolivia, all of the compañeros and compañeras, all of the citizens that through their vote, through their democratic participation, decide to refound Bolivia," Morales said. "From 2005 to 2009 we have gone from triumph to triumph, while the neoliberals, the traitors have been constantly broken down thanks to the consciousness of the Bolivian people."
He shook his fist in the air, the applause died down. "And I want you to know something, the colonial state ends here. Internal colonialism and external colonialism ends here. Sisters and brothers, neoliberalism ends here too."
At various points in the speech Morales, and others on the balcony, held up copies of the new constitution. Morales continued, "And now, thanks to the consciousness of the Bolivian people, the natural resources are recuperated for life, and no government, no new president can...give our natural resources away to transnational companies."
A Weakened Right
Though news reports and analysts have suggested that the passage of the new constitution will exacerbate divisions in the country, some of the political tension may be directed into the electoral realm as general elections are now scheduled to take place in December of this year. In addition, the constitution's passage is another sign of the weakness of the Bolivian right, and their lack of a clear political agenda and mandate to confront the MAS's popularity. The recent passage of the constitution is likely to divide and further debilitate the right.
Even Manfred Reyes Villa, an opponent of Morales and ex-governor of Cochabamba, told Joshua Partlow of the Washington Post that, "Today, there is not a serious opposition in the country." When the right-wing led violence in the department of Pando in September of 2008 left some 20 people dead and many others wounded, the right lost much of its legitimacy and support. "With Pando, the regional opposition just collapsed," George Gray Molina, an ex-United Nations official in Bolivia, and a current research fellow at Oxford University, told Partlow. "I think they lost authority and legitimacy even among their own grass roots."
Celebrations
Fireworks shot off at the end of Morales' speech in the Plaza Murillo, sending pigeons flying scared. Live folk music played on stage as the crowd danced and the TV crews packed up and left. The wind blew around giant balloon figures of hands the color of the Bolivian flag holding the new constitution.
As the night wore on, more people began dancing to the bands in the street than to those on the stage. At midnight, when the police asked the thousands gathered to leave the plaza, the crowd took off marching down the street, taking the fiesta to central La Paz, cheering nearly every Latin American revolutionary cheer, pounding drums and sharing beer. After marching down a number of blocks on the empty streets, the crowd hunkered down for a street party at the base of a statue of the Latin American liberator, Simón Bolívar. The celebration, which included Bolivians, Argentines, Brazilians, French, British, North Americans and more, went on into the early hours of the morning.
Oscar Rocababo, a Bolivian sociologist working on his Master's degree in La Paz, was elated about the victory in the referendum. "The passage of this constitution is like the cherry on top of the ice cream, the culmination of many years of struggle."
January 27, 2009 By Ben Dangl
Ben Dangl's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
After Bolivia's new constitution was passed in a national referendum on Sunday, thousands gathered in La Paz to celebrate. Standing on the balcony of the presidential palace, President Evo Morales addressed a raucous crowd: "Here begins a new Bolivia. Here we begin to reach true equality."
Polls conducted by Televisión Boliviana announced that the document passed with 61.97% support from some 3.8 million voters. According the poll, 36.52% of voters voted against the constitution, and 1.51% cast blank and null votes. The departments where the constitution passed included La Paz, Cochabamba, Oruro, Potosí, Tarija, and Pando. It was rejected in Santa Cruz, Beni, and Chuquisaca.
The constitution, which was written in a constituent assembly that first convened in August of 2006, grants unprecedented rights to Bolivia's indigenous majority, establishes broader access to basic services, education and healthcare and expands the role of the state in the management of natural resources and the economy.
When the news spread throughout La Paz that the constitution had been passed in the referendum, fireworks, cheers and horns sounded off sporadically. By 8:30, thousands had already gathered in the Plaza Murillo. The crowd cheered "Evo! Evo! Evo!" until Morales, Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera and other leading figures in the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) government, crowded out onto the balcony of the presidential palace.
"I would like to take this opportunity to recognize all of the brothers and sisters of Bolivia, all of the compañeros and compañeras, all of the citizens that through their vote, through their democratic participation, decide to refound Bolivia," Morales said. "From 2005 to 2009 we have gone from triumph to triumph, while the neoliberals, the traitors have been constantly broken down thanks to the consciousness of the Bolivian people."
He shook his fist in the air, the applause died down. "And I want you to know something, the colonial state ends here. Internal colonialism and external colonialism ends here. Sisters and brothers, neoliberalism ends here too."
At various points in the speech Morales, and others on the balcony, held up copies of the new constitution. Morales continued, "And now, thanks to the consciousness of the Bolivian people, the natural resources are recuperated for life, and no government, no new president can...give our natural resources away to transnational companies."
A Weakened Right
Though news reports and analysts have suggested that the passage of the new constitution will exacerbate divisions in the country, some of the political tension may be directed into the electoral realm as general elections are now scheduled to take place in December of this year. In addition, the constitution's passage is another sign of the weakness of the Bolivian right, and their lack of a clear political agenda and mandate to confront the MAS's popularity. The recent passage of the constitution is likely to divide and further debilitate the right.
Even Manfred Reyes Villa, an opponent of Morales and ex-governor of Cochabamba, told Joshua Partlow of the Washington Post that, "Today, there is not a serious opposition in the country." When the right-wing led violence in the department of Pando in September of 2008 left some 20 people dead and many others wounded, the right lost much of its legitimacy and support. "With Pando, the regional opposition just collapsed," George Gray Molina, an ex-United Nations official in Bolivia, and a current research fellow at Oxford University, told Partlow. "I think they lost authority and legitimacy even among their own grass roots."
Celebrations
Fireworks shot off at the end of Morales' speech in the Plaza Murillo, sending pigeons flying scared. Live folk music played on stage as the crowd danced and the TV crews packed up and left. The wind blew around giant balloon figures of hands the color of the Bolivian flag holding the new constitution.
As the night wore on, more people began dancing to the bands in the street than to those on the stage. At midnight, when the police asked the thousands gathered to leave the plaza, the crowd took off marching down the street, taking the fiesta to central La Paz, cheering nearly every Latin American revolutionary cheer, pounding drums and sharing beer. After marching down a number of blocks on the empty streets, the crowd hunkered down for a street party at the base of a statue of the Latin American liberator, Simón Bolívar. The celebration, which included Bolivians, Argentines, Brazilians, French, British, North Americans and more, went on into the early hours of the morning.
Oscar Rocababo, a Bolivian sociologist working on his Master's degree in La Paz, was elated about the victory in the referendum. "The passage of this constitution is like the cherry on top of the ice cream, the culmination of many years of struggle."
Monday, January 26, 2009
a bit more on the world's leading rogue state
How Obama's New Rules Keep Intact
The Torture Ban That Doesn't Ban Torture
By ALLAN NAIRN
If you're lying on the slab still breathing, with your torturer hanging over you, you don't much care if he is an American or a mere United States - sponsored trainee.
When President Obama declared flatly this week that "the United States will not torture" many people wrongly believed that he'd shut the practice down, when in fact he'd merely repositioned it.
Obama's Executive Order bans some -- not all -- US officials from torturing but it does not ban any of them, himself included, from sponsoring torture overseas.
Indeed, his policy change affects only a slight percentage of US-culpable tortures and could be completely consistent with an increase in US-backed torture worldwide.
The catch lies in the fact that since Vietnam, when US forces often tortured directly, the US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy -- paying, arming, training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americans at least one discreet step removed.
That is, the US tended to do it that way until Bush and Cheney changed protocol, and had many Americans laying on hands, and sometimes taking digital photos.
The result was a public relations fiasco that enraged the US establishment since by exposing US techniques to the world it diminished US power.
But despite the outrage, the fact of the matter was that the Bush/Cheney tortures being done by Americans were a negligible percentage of all of the tortures being done by US clients.
For every torment inflicted directly by Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and the secret prisons, there were many times more being meted out by US-sponsored foreign forces.
Those forces were and are operating with US military, intelligence, financial or other backing in Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Nigeria, and the Philippines, to name some places, not to mention the tortures sans-American-hands by the US-backed Iraqis and Afghans.
What the Obama dictum ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system's torture, which is done by foreigners under US patronage.
Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so.
His Executive Order instead merely pertains to treatment of "...an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict..." which means that it doesn't even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of "armed conflict," which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren't in armed conflict.
And even if, as Obama says, "the United States will not torture," it can still pay, train, equip and guide foreign torturers, and see to it that they, and their US patrons, don't face local or international justice.
This is a return to the status quo ante, the torture regime of Ford through Clinton, which, year by year, often produced more US-backed strapped-down agony than was produced during the Bush/Cheney years.
Under the old -- now new again -- proxy regime Americans would, say, teach interrogation/torture, then stand in the next room as the victims screamed, feeding questions to their foreign pupils. That's the way the US did it in El Salvador under JFK through Bush Sr. (For details see my "Behind the Death Squads: An exclusive report on the U.S. role in El Salvador’s official terror," The Progressive, May, 1984 ; the US Senate Intelligence Committee report that piece sparked is still classified, but the feeding of questions was confirmed to me by Intelligence Committee Senators. See also my "Confessions of a Death Squad Officer," The Progressive, March, 1986, and my "Comment," The New Yorker, Oct. 15, 1990,[regarding law, the US, and El Salvador]).
In Guatemala under Bush Sr. and Clinton (Obama's foreign policy mentors) the US backed the army's G-2 death squad which kept comprehensive files on dissidents and then electroshocked them or cut off their hands. (The file/ surveillance system was launched for them in the '60s and '70s by CIA/ State/ AID/ special forces; for the history see "Behind the Death Squads," cited above, and the books of Prof. Michael McClintock).
The Americans on the ground in the Guatemalan operation, some of whom I encountered and named, effectively helped to run the G-2 but, themselves, tiptoed around its torture chambers. (See my "C.I.A. Death Squad," The Nation [US], April 17, 1995, "The Country Team," The Nation [US], June 5, 1995, letter exchange with US Ambassador Stroock, The Nation [US], May 29, 1995, and Allan Nairn and Jean-Marie Simon, "Bureaucracy of Death," The New Republic, June 30, 1986).
It was a similar story in Bush Sr. and Clinton's Haiti -- an operation run by today's Obama people -- where the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) helped launch the terrorist group FRAPH, the CIA paid its leader, and FRAPH itsef laid the machetes on Haitian civilians, torturing and killing as US proxies. (See my "Behind Haiti's paramilitaries: our man in FRAPH," The Nation [US], Oct 24, 1994, and "He's our S.O.B.," The Nation [US], Oct. 31, 1994; the story was later confirmed on ABC TV's "This Week" by US Secretary of State Warren Christopher).
In today's Thailand -- a country that hardly comes to mind when most people think of torture -- special police and militaries get US gear and training for things like "target selection" and then go out and torture Thai Malay Muslims in the rebel deep south, and also sometimes (mainly Buddhist) Burmese refugees and exploited northern and west coast workers.
Not long ago I visited a key Thai interrogator who spoke frankly about army/ police/ intel torture and then closed our discussion by saying "Look at this," and invited me into his back room.
It was an up to date museum of plaques, photos and awards from US and Western intelligence, including commendations from the CIA counter-terrorism center (then run by people now staffing Obama), one-on-one photos with high US figures, including George W. Bush, a medal from Bush, various US intel/ FBI/ military training certificates, a photo of him with an Israeli colleague beside a tank in the Occupied Territories, and Mossad, Shin Bet, Singaporean, and other interrogation implements and mementos.
On my way out, the Thai intel man remarked that he was due to re-visit Langley soon.
His role is typical. There are thousands like him worldwide. US proxy torture dwarfs that at Guantanamo.
Many Americans, to their credit, hate torture. The Bush/Cheney escapade exposed that.
But to stop it they must get the facts and see that Obama's ban does not stop it, and indeed could even accord with an increase in US-sponsored torture crime.
In lieu of action, the system will grind on tonight. More shocks, suffocations, deep burns. And the convergence of thousands of complex minds on one simple thought: 'Please, let me die.'
Allan Nairn writes the blog News and Comment at www.newsc.blogspot.com.
The Torture Ban That Doesn't Ban Torture
By ALLAN NAIRN
If you're lying on the slab still breathing, with your torturer hanging over you, you don't much care if he is an American or a mere United States - sponsored trainee.
When President Obama declared flatly this week that "the United States will not torture" many people wrongly believed that he'd shut the practice down, when in fact he'd merely repositioned it.
Obama's Executive Order bans some -- not all -- US officials from torturing but it does not ban any of them, himself included, from sponsoring torture overseas.
Indeed, his policy change affects only a slight percentage of US-culpable tortures and could be completely consistent with an increase in US-backed torture worldwide.
The catch lies in the fact that since Vietnam, when US forces often tortured directly, the US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy -- paying, arming, training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americans at least one discreet step removed.
That is, the US tended to do it that way until Bush and Cheney changed protocol, and had many Americans laying on hands, and sometimes taking digital photos.
The result was a public relations fiasco that enraged the US establishment since by exposing US techniques to the world it diminished US power.
But despite the outrage, the fact of the matter was that the Bush/Cheney tortures being done by Americans were a negligible percentage of all of the tortures being done by US clients.
For every torment inflicted directly by Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and the secret prisons, there were many times more being meted out by US-sponsored foreign forces.
Those forces were and are operating with US military, intelligence, financial or other backing in Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Nigeria, and the Philippines, to name some places, not to mention the tortures sans-American-hands by the US-backed Iraqis and Afghans.
What the Obama dictum ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system's torture, which is done by foreigners under US patronage.
Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so.
His Executive Order instead merely pertains to treatment of "...an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict..." which means that it doesn't even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of "armed conflict," which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren't in armed conflict.
And even if, as Obama says, "the United States will not torture," it can still pay, train, equip and guide foreign torturers, and see to it that they, and their US patrons, don't face local or international justice.
This is a return to the status quo ante, the torture regime of Ford through Clinton, which, year by year, often produced more US-backed strapped-down agony than was produced during the Bush/Cheney years.
Under the old -- now new again -- proxy regime Americans would, say, teach interrogation/torture, then stand in the next room as the victims screamed, feeding questions to their foreign pupils. That's the way the US did it in El Salvador under JFK through Bush Sr. (For details see my "Behind the Death Squads: An exclusive report on the U.S. role in El Salvador’s official terror," The Progressive, May, 1984 ; the US Senate Intelligence Committee report that piece sparked is still classified, but the feeding of questions was confirmed to me by Intelligence Committee Senators. See also my "Confessions of a Death Squad Officer," The Progressive, March, 1986, and my "Comment," The New Yorker, Oct. 15, 1990,[regarding law, the US, and El Salvador]).
In Guatemala under Bush Sr. and Clinton (Obama's foreign policy mentors) the US backed the army's G-2 death squad which kept comprehensive files on dissidents and then electroshocked them or cut off their hands. (The file/ surveillance system was launched for them in the '60s and '70s by CIA/ State/ AID/ special forces; for the history see "Behind the Death Squads," cited above, and the books of Prof. Michael McClintock).
The Americans on the ground in the Guatemalan operation, some of whom I encountered and named, effectively helped to run the G-2 but, themselves, tiptoed around its torture chambers. (See my "C.I.A. Death Squad," The Nation [US], April 17, 1995, "The Country Team," The Nation [US], June 5, 1995, letter exchange with US Ambassador Stroock, The Nation [US], May 29, 1995, and Allan Nairn and Jean-Marie Simon, "Bureaucracy of Death," The New Republic, June 30, 1986).
It was a similar story in Bush Sr. and Clinton's Haiti -- an operation run by today's Obama people -- where the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) helped launch the terrorist group FRAPH, the CIA paid its leader, and FRAPH itsef laid the machetes on Haitian civilians, torturing and killing as US proxies. (See my "Behind Haiti's paramilitaries: our man in FRAPH," The Nation [US], Oct 24, 1994, and "He's our S.O.B.," The Nation [US], Oct. 31, 1994; the story was later confirmed on ABC TV's "This Week" by US Secretary of State Warren Christopher).
In today's Thailand -- a country that hardly comes to mind when most people think of torture -- special police and militaries get US gear and training for things like "target selection" and then go out and torture Thai Malay Muslims in the rebel deep south, and also sometimes (mainly Buddhist) Burmese refugees and exploited northern and west coast workers.
Not long ago I visited a key Thai interrogator who spoke frankly about army/ police/ intel torture and then closed our discussion by saying "Look at this," and invited me into his back room.
It was an up to date museum of plaques, photos and awards from US and Western intelligence, including commendations from the CIA counter-terrorism center (then run by people now staffing Obama), one-on-one photos with high US figures, including George W. Bush, a medal from Bush, various US intel/ FBI/ military training certificates, a photo of him with an Israeli colleague beside a tank in the Occupied Territories, and Mossad, Shin Bet, Singaporean, and other interrogation implements and mementos.
On my way out, the Thai intel man remarked that he was due to re-visit Langley soon.
His role is typical. There are thousands like him worldwide. US proxy torture dwarfs that at Guantanamo.
Many Americans, to their credit, hate torture. The Bush/Cheney escapade exposed that.
But to stop it they must get the facts and see that Obama's ban does not stop it, and indeed could even accord with an increase in US-sponsored torture crime.
In lieu of action, the system will grind on tonight. More shocks, suffocations, deep burns. And the convergence of thousands of complex minds on one simple thought: 'Please, let me die.'
Allan Nairn writes the blog News and Comment at www.newsc.blogspot.com.
democracy still exists...(just not here)
Bolivians Approve New Constitution
Bolivian President Evo Morales has claimed victory after voters approved a new constitution that would advance indigenous rights and reaffirm state control over Bolivia’s natural gas reserves.
Evo Morales: “The colonial state ends here. Internal colonialism and external colonialism end here. Sisters and brothers, neoliberalism ends here, too.”
About 60 percent of voters approved the referendum. The new constitution will give the indigenous majority more seats in Congress and greater clout in the justice system. It also officially recognizes their pre-Columbian spiritual traditions and promotes indigenous languages.
Bolivian President Evo Morales has claimed victory after voters approved a new constitution that would advance indigenous rights and reaffirm state control over Bolivia’s natural gas reserves.
Evo Morales: “The colonial state ends here. Internal colonialism and external colonialism end here. Sisters and brothers, neoliberalism ends here, too.”
About 60 percent of voters approved the referendum. The new constitution will give the indigenous majority more seats in Congress and greater clout in the justice system. It also officially recognizes their pre-Columbian spiritual traditions and promotes indigenous languages.
wasn't this the war that we are "withdrawing" from?
here are a couple more people that will never be able to feel joy over obama's victory. it's nice to know, that even with a black man in the white house, our government is still capable of using tactics worthy of fred hampton's murder.
Iraqi Couple Killed in US House Raid
In Iraq, US soldiers killed an Iraqi couple and wounded their eight-year-old daughter during a house raid in the northern city of Kirkuk. The raid targeted the home of a former general in Saddam Hussein’s army. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has announced plans to reopen the infamous Abu Ghraib prison under a new name: Baghdad’s Central Prison.
Iraqi Couple Killed in US House Raid
In Iraq, US soldiers killed an Iraqi couple and wounded their eight-year-old daughter during a house raid in the northern city of Kirkuk. The raid targeted the home of a former general in Saddam Hussein’s army. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has announced plans to reopen the infamous Abu Ghraib prison under a new name: Baghdad’s Central Prison.
Afghans Protest After Report of US Killing of 16 Civilians
Thousands of Afghans protested against the United States on Sunday over reports that a US air raid killed sixteen Afghan civilians on the previous day.
US Drones Kill 20 in Strikes on Pakistan
The US military has carried out its first strikes in Pakistan since President Barack Obama took office. At least twenty were killed on Friday after US Predator drones carried out two separate missile strikes. The Guardian newspaper says Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for the attacks inside Pakistan.
36 more dead people that the teary eyed liberals will never weep over. is it not instructive that "obama gave the go ahead for the attacks inside pakistan?" at least 20 were killed as a result. but what does obama care? it's not as if his wife and children are lying under the rubble. but, of course, someone's wife and children are, and to that person, they mean every bit as much as obama's family means to him. my guess is that this guy won't feel any better knowing that the man who signed off on the murder of his family is considered a black man in america.
so, where is that peace movement i'm always hearing about? does it only come out to play when republicans are in power? and if they tell us that obama "needs time," i ask this; would we give a civilian "time" who just gave the go ahead to have 20 people killed? come on people, put your mugs and t-shirts away, and put your mind to work.
it probably needs the practice.
Thousands of Afghans protested against the United States on Sunday over reports that a US air raid killed sixteen Afghan civilians on the previous day.
US Drones Kill 20 in Strikes on Pakistan
The US military has carried out its first strikes in Pakistan since President Barack Obama took office. At least twenty were killed on Friday after US Predator drones carried out two separate missile strikes. The Guardian newspaper says Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for the attacks inside Pakistan.
36 more dead people that the teary eyed liberals will never weep over. is it not instructive that "obama gave the go ahead for the attacks inside pakistan?" at least 20 were killed as a result. but what does obama care? it's not as if his wife and children are lying under the rubble. but, of course, someone's wife and children are, and to that person, they mean every bit as much as obama's family means to him. my guess is that this guy won't feel any better knowing that the man who signed off on the murder of his family is considered a black man in america.
so, where is that peace movement i'm always hearing about? does it only come out to play when republicans are in power? and if they tell us that obama "needs time," i ask this; would we give a civilian "time" who just gave the go ahead to have 20 people killed? come on people, put your mugs and t-shirts away, and put your mind to work.
it probably needs the practice.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
with a black press like this, who needs a white one?
i normally refrain from criticizing the boston banner. the banner is the local black paper, and usually, it's decent. but, i am sad to report that the paper is in the throes of obama fever, and the condition appears quite serious. first, i am going to quote from a recent editorial in the paper. i will then comment on the editorial, and then reference another article from the very same paper which acts to completely contradict the nonsensical euphoria of the initial piece.
"past generations of african americans lived disciplined lives, studied and worked hard to prepare for jobs that were not available to them despite their qualifications. they carried on through their disappointment to challenge the barriers of racial discrimination so that their children would have greater opportunities. the inauguration of obama as president of the u.s is the fulfillment of those sacrifices.
the younger generation confronts a different world. racial discrimination has not been totally eliminated, but it is now more of a petty inconvenience. today's real challenge is competition for professional positions on a global scale. it has never been more important for the youth to accept the wisdom of the elders - education paves the road to success."
ok, let's take this step by step. did all "past generations of african americans live disciplined lives?" of course not; some did, some didn't. some worked hard, others did not. some were sober, others were alcoholics. it is no different than today. romanticizing the past is an insidious way of denigrating the present. it is akin to praising hank aaron as a prelude to knocking barry bonds. this is a tactic that the white man normally uses to put the modern black man in "his place." sadly, the banner is doing it for "charlie." the fact is, most black people in the past, just as most black people now, or for that matter, most people, spend most of their time trying to survive. sometimes they fight injustice, other times they keep quiet, just like everybody else. yes, there were exceptional people in the 60's, and in the 30's, and before that, but there are surely also exceptional people now as well. but, in every era, most people get up in the morning, raise children, and pay the rent. it is an injustice to use the past as a hammer with which to knock those living in the present.
the banner then makes one of the most embarrasing statements i have ever read. "racial discimination has not been totally eliminated, but it is now more of a petty inconvenience." excuse me? are we now to believe that because obama has become president, that racism is now akin to a slow line at the supermarket, or a bus that doesn't run on schedule? racism "is now more of a petty inconvenience?" are racial health disparities, including wide disparities in infant mortality and life expectancy, a "petty inconvenience?" is police brutality a "petty inconvenience?" if so, i would like to hear the editorial writer explain his position to the families of oscar grant, shawn bell, mumia abu jamal, and hundreds of others. are impoverished, segregated schools a "petty inconvenience?" are unequal prison sentences, convictions, and use of the death penalty, a matter of "petty inconvenience?" are poor, segregated neighborhoods, with a lack of access to banks, supermarkets, and various cultural outlets, a matter of "petty inconvenience?" is a black unemployment rate that is twice that of the white unemployment rate, a matter of "petty inconvenience?" is the fact that the average black person makes 60 cents to the average white person's dollar, a matter of "petty inconvenience?" one could go on. and on and on and on...
the tragedy here is that the banner is doing the work of the white power structure. it as if cosby wrote this piece. surely, we should acknowledge that obama could not have gained the presidency 40 years ago. the fact that he became the president does say something positive. but, to read his ascent in this way is to drastically underestimate the extent to which american racism is an institutionalized, systemic set of structures which continue to impact the lives of millions of black people. the rise of obama doesn't mitigate that anymore than the rise of colin powell or condi rice does. for, the american power structure (ie, institutionalized white supremacy) has always allowed for individual people of color to succeed. but individual success stories within the structures of american power can not end racism, because racism is built into those very structures. obama can't end racism anymore than michael jordan or oprah can. millions of well off whites voted for obama, and feel great about it. have these same whites thought about redistributing their wealth to benefit the black masses? are they aware of the racial health disparities, segregated schools and housing, and police brutality that i mentioned earlier? if so, what are they doing to acknowledge them? are they acting to eliminate these manifestations of white supremacy? while they weep for joy for obama, do they have a plan to employ young black men? have any of the white obama voters protested on behalf of bell or grant? do they know who they are? do they care that a white man with a prison record is more likely to find a job than a black man without a record? do they know that a white man with a high school diploma is more likely to find a job, and makes more money, than a black man with a college degree? and, if these liberal lovers of obama do know these things, just what are they doing to try to change a culture which produces such outcomes?
by the way, on the next page of the banner was an article that spoke to the ongoing racial inequalities in employment, and the high rates of black poverty. while reading the article, i did not have the feeling that such matters were a "petty inconvenience."
and don't forget the next line in the editorial..."today's real challenge is competition for professional positions on a global scale."
sorry folks, but i give up. i don't even know what the fuck that means.
all i can say is that this was not a banner day for the boston banner.
"past generations of african americans lived disciplined lives, studied and worked hard to prepare for jobs that were not available to them despite their qualifications. they carried on through their disappointment to challenge the barriers of racial discrimination so that their children would have greater opportunities. the inauguration of obama as president of the u.s is the fulfillment of those sacrifices.
the younger generation confronts a different world. racial discrimination has not been totally eliminated, but it is now more of a petty inconvenience. today's real challenge is competition for professional positions on a global scale. it has never been more important for the youth to accept the wisdom of the elders - education paves the road to success."
ok, let's take this step by step. did all "past generations of african americans live disciplined lives?" of course not; some did, some didn't. some worked hard, others did not. some were sober, others were alcoholics. it is no different than today. romanticizing the past is an insidious way of denigrating the present. it is akin to praising hank aaron as a prelude to knocking barry bonds. this is a tactic that the white man normally uses to put the modern black man in "his place." sadly, the banner is doing it for "charlie." the fact is, most black people in the past, just as most black people now, or for that matter, most people, spend most of their time trying to survive. sometimes they fight injustice, other times they keep quiet, just like everybody else. yes, there were exceptional people in the 60's, and in the 30's, and before that, but there are surely also exceptional people now as well. but, in every era, most people get up in the morning, raise children, and pay the rent. it is an injustice to use the past as a hammer with which to knock those living in the present.
the banner then makes one of the most embarrasing statements i have ever read. "racial discimination has not been totally eliminated, but it is now more of a petty inconvenience." excuse me? are we now to believe that because obama has become president, that racism is now akin to a slow line at the supermarket, or a bus that doesn't run on schedule? racism "is now more of a petty inconvenience?" are racial health disparities, including wide disparities in infant mortality and life expectancy, a "petty inconvenience?" is police brutality a "petty inconvenience?" if so, i would like to hear the editorial writer explain his position to the families of oscar grant, shawn bell, mumia abu jamal, and hundreds of others. are impoverished, segregated schools a "petty inconvenience?" are unequal prison sentences, convictions, and use of the death penalty, a matter of "petty inconvenience?" are poor, segregated neighborhoods, with a lack of access to banks, supermarkets, and various cultural outlets, a matter of "petty inconvenience?" is a black unemployment rate that is twice that of the white unemployment rate, a matter of "petty inconvenience?" is the fact that the average black person makes 60 cents to the average white person's dollar, a matter of "petty inconvenience?" one could go on. and on and on and on...
the tragedy here is that the banner is doing the work of the white power structure. it as if cosby wrote this piece. surely, we should acknowledge that obama could not have gained the presidency 40 years ago. the fact that he became the president does say something positive. but, to read his ascent in this way is to drastically underestimate the extent to which american racism is an institutionalized, systemic set of structures which continue to impact the lives of millions of black people. the rise of obama doesn't mitigate that anymore than the rise of colin powell or condi rice does. for, the american power structure (ie, institutionalized white supremacy) has always allowed for individual people of color to succeed. but individual success stories within the structures of american power can not end racism, because racism is built into those very structures. obama can't end racism anymore than michael jordan or oprah can. millions of well off whites voted for obama, and feel great about it. have these same whites thought about redistributing their wealth to benefit the black masses? are they aware of the racial health disparities, segregated schools and housing, and police brutality that i mentioned earlier? if so, what are they doing to acknowledge them? are they acting to eliminate these manifestations of white supremacy? while they weep for joy for obama, do they have a plan to employ young black men? have any of the white obama voters protested on behalf of bell or grant? do they know who they are? do they care that a white man with a prison record is more likely to find a job than a black man without a record? do they know that a white man with a high school diploma is more likely to find a job, and makes more money, than a black man with a college degree? and, if these liberal lovers of obama do know these things, just what are they doing to try to change a culture which produces such outcomes?
by the way, on the next page of the banner was an article that spoke to the ongoing racial inequalities in employment, and the high rates of black poverty. while reading the article, i did not have the feeling that such matters were a "petty inconvenience."
and don't forget the next line in the editorial..."today's real challenge is competition for professional positions on a global scale."
sorry folks, but i give up. i don't even know what the fuck that means.
all i can say is that this was not a banner day for the boston banner.
who, my friend, has the right to defend themselves?
and by the way, since when did the right to defend yourself become code for the right to offend others? yeah, that's right; since we started using the phrase in that very way. so, obama tells us that israel has the right to defend itself. it apparently does this by offending others. and yet, these others do not have the same right to defend themselves, or to offend israel. this line of reasoning is the peak of hypocrisy; it elevates israeli suffering, while ignoring the far greater suffering of gaza. but of course, hypocrisy is endemic to the american power structure. it is naive of us to think this hypocrisy would get up and run away simply because a democrat has taken power, tan though he may be. so, "democracies" have the right to defend themselves, but wasn't hamas democratically elected? better to not think of that for too long. and is it only democracies that have "the right to defend themselves?" what of colonized people? for example, on november 9th, 1981, a vote passed in the un by the count of 126 to 1. the only nation that voted against it was the u.s. i presume israel voted fot it, unless they abstained. the resolution gives "the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of the people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes." i would like to look obama in the eye and ask him if he feels israel has allowed these freedoms to the palestinian people. and, if they have not, at what point would the palestinians gain the "right to defend themselves?"
in our upside down world, it is those who have the greatest military arsenals, who get to lecture the rest of us about peace. they get to tell us who can defend themselves and who can't. and, best of all, we all get to go along and pretend that the entire thing represents progress and change
in our upside down world, it is those who have the greatest military arsenals, who get to lecture the rest of us about peace. they get to tell us who can defend themselves and who can't. and, best of all, we all get to go along and pretend that the entire thing represents progress and change
i prefer meca to mecca
Gaza Needs Many Years to Heal
by Dr. Mona El-Farra
I am still in Cairo. With a sad heart I am watching home from a distance. The hardest days were when I went to the Rafah Crossing point. I was only one kilometer away from Gaza, but could not enter. I was told that as a Palestinian with dual nationality, I can get in but not out.
While at the border I was greatly touched by the expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people. I met doctors from Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Greece, Turkey and many other countries who came to help the people of Gaza in defiance of Israel's savage attacks on children, women, and men. We must all work on continuing and expanding these solidarity efforts on different levels. We cannot let Israel get away with its crimes against humanity in Gaza.
I want to thank you all for your solidarity as well as for your practical support. Whether you donated one pound or thousands of pounds, your support and your continuous protests let the people of Gaza feel that they are not alone and will never be forgotten.
I am still in daily contact with friends, relatives, and fellow doctors back home. And I conveyed to them your messages of support and solidarity. I also visited dozens of the injured who were transferred to Egyptian hospitals. They are in great need of rehabilitation after their wounds heal.
I want to share the results of the concrete support for Gaza that the Middle East Children's Alliance (MECA) delivered:
3 ambulances
20 tons of medicine
30 tons of powdered milk and fortified baby cereal
50 wheelchairs
Thousands of coloring books and crayons for kids
Thousands of meals handed-delivered daily to displaced families taking shelter at UN schools
I thank you all, with a special thank you for the teams of volunteers in different areas of Gaza who worked under fire to meet the needs of our community, and for the emergency workers who worked tirelessly to reach the injured and dead. Time is gold in saving lives but Israel deliberately delayed and shot at emergency vehicles leading to the death of 15 emergency workers and countless Gazans.
The 22 days of Israeli attacks on Gaza was just one episode in a long line of catastrophes for Palestinians. Our struggle for justice and freedom continues.
To help MECA send more medical aid to Gaza for thousands of sick and injured people living under siege, visit www.mecaforpeace.org
Dr. Mona El-Farra is a Palestinian physician and human rights and women's rights activist. She was born in Khan Younis, Gaza and has dedicated her live to improving the situation for women, children and families in Gaza. As MECA's Director of Gaza Projects, Dr. El-Farra oversees the distribution of food and medical aid and support for educational and recreational programs for children. She is also on the board of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society of the Gaza Strip and a member of the Union of Health Work Committees. Dr. El-Farra has a son and two daughters.
by Dr. Mona El-Farra
I am still in Cairo. With a sad heart I am watching home from a distance. The hardest days were when I went to the Rafah Crossing point. I was only one kilometer away from Gaza, but could not enter. I was told that as a Palestinian with dual nationality, I can get in but not out.
While at the border I was greatly touched by the expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people. I met doctors from Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Greece, Turkey and many other countries who came to help the people of Gaza in defiance of Israel's savage attacks on children, women, and men. We must all work on continuing and expanding these solidarity efforts on different levels. We cannot let Israel get away with its crimes against humanity in Gaza.
I want to thank you all for your solidarity as well as for your practical support. Whether you donated one pound or thousands of pounds, your support and your continuous protests let the people of Gaza feel that they are not alone and will never be forgotten.
I am still in daily contact with friends, relatives, and fellow doctors back home. And I conveyed to them your messages of support and solidarity. I also visited dozens of the injured who were transferred to Egyptian hospitals. They are in great need of rehabilitation after their wounds heal.
I want to share the results of the concrete support for Gaza that the Middle East Children's Alliance (MECA) delivered:
3 ambulances
20 tons of medicine
30 tons of powdered milk and fortified baby cereal
50 wheelchairs
Thousands of coloring books and crayons for kids
Thousands of meals handed-delivered daily to displaced families taking shelter at UN schools
I thank you all, with a special thank you for the teams of volunteers in different areas of Gaza who worked under fire to meet the needs of our community, and for the emergency workers who worked tirelessly to reach the injured and dead. Time is gold in saving lives but Israel deliberately delayed and shot at emergency vehicles leading to the death of 15 emergency workers and countless Gazans.
The 22 days of Israeli attacks on Gaza was just one episode in a long line of catastrophes for Palestinians. Our struggle for justice and freedom continues.
To help MECA send more medical aid to Gaza for thousands of sick and injured people living under siege, visit www.mecaforpeace.org
Dr. Mona El-Farra is a Palestinian physician and human rights and women's rights activist. She was born in Khan Younis, Gaza and has dedicated her live to improving the situation for women, children and families in Gaza. As MECA's Director of Gaza Projects, Dr. El-Farra oversees the distribution of food and medical aid and support for educational and recreational programs for children. She is also on the board of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society of the Gaza Strip and a member of the Union of Health Work Committees. Dr. El-Farra has a son and two daughters.
Friday, January 23, 2009
remember guys, that this is the war "worth fighting."
i don't know about you, but i feel a lot more secure knowing i will not have to fight these impoverished afghan civilians on mass ave.
Report: Afghan Civilians Killed in US Attack
Meanwhile, there are reports more than two dozen Afghan civilians have been killed in a US attack north of Kabul. Five of the dead were women. A local resident of Tagab Valley said there were no militants in the area at the time. The US military says it’s investigating.
Report: Afghan Civilians Killed in US Attack
Meanwhile, there are reports more than two dozen Afghan civilians have been killed in a US attack north of Kabul. Five of the dead were women. A local resident of Tagab Valley said there were no militants in the area at the time. The US military says it’s investigating.
yet another example of that wonderful thing we call "bipartisan foreign policy."
by the way, while we celebrate the glories of political change, 19 more pakistanis were killed yesterday by pilotless amercan drones. this is the first official blood on president obama's hands. sadly, i doubt it will be the last. for those of you who will say that he just took power and that it will take a while to reverse previous policies, i remind you that obama has often repeated his support for strikes on pakistan. yes, it is true he has had a better couple days than bush had in 8 years, but a door knob would do better than bush. much has been said of his pledge to close the guantanamo prison camp within one year. of course the camp should be closed, but what of the rest of guantanamo? have we not forgotten that guantanano is first and foremost a military base, housed illegally on cuban territory? how would miami residents feel if cuba stuck a military base right in the heart of their city? raul castro has pointed out that cuba will continue to call for the closing of the entire base, not just the camp. for that matter, i call for the closing of all 700 u.s military bases, including the one just created in iraq to the tune of 600 million dollars. if obama is opposed to the war in iraq, shouldn't he also be opposed to the creation of expensive military bases in that country? and speaking of guantanamo, why should it take 1 year to close a prison camp? send the guards home, release the prisoners, and get the fuck out of there! should that really take 365 days?
in any case, enjoy some tidbits from the party of change.
The Democrats on Israel
Compiled by Adriana Kojeve
January 23, 2009 By Adriana Kojeve
Adriana Kojeve's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
"Israel continues to show admirable restraint in dealing with her hostile neighbors, even in the face of increasing rocket attacks, kidnappings, and threats to her people. I support her actions in defense of her people, and I pray for a swift and just conclusion to the fighting." -- Jerrold "Progressive" Nadler, DEMOCRAT, July 13, 2006.
"There are no quick solutions for the difficulties we face today, but we know that we have to stand with democracies and free peoples against the threat of nihilism and extremism. That is why we stand with Israel because it is a beacon of democracy in the region; that is why we stand with Israel because its very existence is a defiant affront to anti-Semitism; that is why we stand with Israel because in defeating terror because Israel's cause is our cause. And that is why we stand with Israel because of our shared values and our shared belief in the dignity of men and women and the right to live without fear or oppression." -- Hillary Clinton, DEMOCRAT, February 1, 2007.
"Those who threaten Israel threaten us; Israel has always faced these threats on the frontlines and I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel's security. That starts with insuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will insure that Israel can defend itself from any threat from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation, defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success and it must be deepened. As President I will implement a memorandum of understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade, investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation." -- Barack "Change" Obama, DEMOCRAT, June 4, 2008.
"Israel has taken actions to defend itself and its people in an effort to restore security in the region. It is in everyone's interest, particularly the innocent lives at risk on both sides of the border, that Hamas bring an end to its aggression, recognize its neighbor's right to exist, and work toward mutual peace and security"
-- Benjamin Cardin, DEMOCRAT, December 29, 2008.
"Israel, like every other nation, has a right to defend itself; I find it naive and unrealistic that some say Israel should ‘sit down and talk' to Hamas, a group sworn to Israel's annihilation, that broke the recent ceasefire by flinging missiles at Israeli cities. The Palestinian people must realize that Israel is here to stay and that no amount of violence, which Hamas seeks to undertake, will change that fact." -- Charles Schumer, DEMOCRAT, December 30, 2008.
"Over the past few days, I have closely monitored the current escalation of violence in Israel and Gaza. I hope and pray for a peaceful solution for both sides and I strongly condemn Hamas for breaking the current ceasefire. I believe the Israeli people, under constant attack from the Palestinian territories, have a right to protect themselves and I stand with them as they fight to defend the basic rights of humanity.
I traveled to Israel in 2007 and I discovered firsthand what I had always known to be true - Israel is an extraordinary democracy blessed with very courageous citizens who refuse to live their lives in fear. New Yorkers have experienced the horror of terrorism; we must not and will not let senseless acts of terror undermine our commitment and resolve to fight for democratic principles both at home and around the world." -- David Patterson, DEMOCRAT, December 31, 2008.
"Israel has commendably made strenuous efforts to minimize harm to civilians, while Hamas has needlessly imperiled innocent Palestinians in Gaza by conducting its military operations from within heavily populated civilian areas. I support the efforts of Israel and others to improve access to humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. Along with my colleagues, I hope for a quick resolution to this crisis and for a future without rockets falling on Isra." -- Jerrold "Progressive" Nadler, DEMOCRAT, January 9, 2009.
Adriana Kojeve is a music and cultural critic living in New York City. She can reached akojeve@gmail.com.
in any case, enjoy some tidbits from the party of change.
The Democrats on Israel
Compiled by Adriana Kojeve
January 23, 2009 By Adriana Kojeve
Adriana Kojeve's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
"Israel continues to show admirable restraint in dealing with her hostile neighbors, even in the face of increasing rocket attacks, kidnappings, and threats to her people. I support her actions in defense of her people, and I pray for a swift and just conclusion to the fighting." -- Jerrold "Progressive" Nadler, DEMOCRAT, July 13, 2006.
"There are no quick solutions for the difficulties we face today, but we know that we have to stand with democracies and free peoples against the threat of nihilism and extremism. That is why we stand with Israel because it is a beacon of democracy in the region; that is why we stand with Israel because its very existence is a defiant affront to anti-Semitism; that is why we stand with Israel because in defeating terror because Israel's cause is our cause. And that is why we stand with Israel because of our shared values and our shared belief in the dignity of men and women and the right to live without fear or oppression." -- Hillary Clinton, DEMOCRAT, February 1, 2007.
"Those who threaten Israel threaten us; Israel has always faced these threats on the frontlines and I will bring to the White House an unshakable commitment to Israel's security. That starts with insuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will insure that Israel can defend itself from any threat from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation, defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success and it must be deepened. As President I will implement a memorandum of understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade, investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation." -- Barack "Change" Obama, DEMOCRAT, June 4, 2008.
"Israel has taken actions to defend itself and its people in an effort to restore security in the region. It is in everyone's interest, particularly the innocent lives at risk on both sides of the border, that Hamas bring an end to its aggression, recognize its neighbor's right to exist, and work toward mutual peace and security"
-- Benjamin Cardin, DEMOCRAT, December 29, 2008.
"Israel, like every other nation, has a right to defend itself; I find it naive and unrealistic that some say Israel should ‘sit down and talk' to Hamas, a group sworn to Israel's annihilation, that broke the recent ceasefire by flinging missiles at Israeli cities. The Palestinian people must realize that Israel is here to stay and that no amount of violence, which Hamas seeks to undertake, will change that fact." -- Charles Schumer, DEMOCRAT, December 30, 2008.
"Over the past few days, I have closely monitored the current escalation of violence in Israel and Gaza. I hope and pray for a peaceful solution for both sides and I strongly condemn Hamas for breaking the current ceasefire. I believe the Israeli people, under constant attack from the Palestinian territories, have a right to protect themselves and I stand with them as they fight to defend the basic rights of humanity.
I traveled to Israel in 2007 and I discovered firsthand what I had always known to be true - Israel is an extraordinary democracy blessed with very courageous citizens who refuse to live their lives in fear. New Yorkers have experienced the horror of terrorism; we must not and will not let senseless acts of terror undermine our commitment and resolve to fight for democratic principles both at home and around the world." -- David Patterson, DEMOCRAT, December 31, 2008.
"Israel has commendably made strenuous efforts to minimize harm to civilians, while Hamas has needlessly imperiled innocent Palestinians in Gaza by conducting its military operations from within heavily populated civilian areas. I support the efforts of Israel and others to improve access to humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. Along with my colleagues, I hope for a quick resolution to this crisis and for a future without rockets falling on Isra." -- Jerrold "Progressive" Nadler, DEMOCRAT, January 9, 2009.
Adriana Kojeve is a music and cultural critic living in New York City. She can reached akojeve@gmail.com.
may we not refer to this thinking as representing the "death of a nation?"
"Few of us," wrote Arthur Miller, "can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."
Thursday, January 22, 2009
z, i give this post an a
In His inauguration speech, the Pope of Hope declared:
“We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”
My only question: Should Dubya sue for plagiarism?
“We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”
My only question: Should Dubya sue for plagiarism?
obama has said quite the opposite, no?
"I refuse to let my personal success, as part of a fraction of one percent of the Negro people, to explain away the injustices to fourteen million of my people; because with all the energy at my command, I fight for the right of the Negro people and other oppressed labor-driven Americans to have decent homes, decent jobs, and the dignity that belongs to every human being!"
paul robeson
compare this to obama's narrative..."if a skinny kid with a funny name can make it, that shows that anything is possible in this great land of ours..." sadly, the problem is that anything is possible. for, you see, it is possible to be shot by a cop while lying face down on the pavement. it is possible to be shot by the police while taking out your keys. it is possible to be shot by the police on your wedding day. of course, it is more possible for these things to happen if you are a black man. do not these scenarios also speak to the possibilities that are the american experience? and what of our systemic oppressions? do racial health disparities speak to the greatness of america? what of segregated schools? how about our rampant militarism? on this day, should we not all celebrate the wonders of our weaponry, which allows "our boys" and their peers in israel to kill with impunity? my, the militaristic possibilities of america appear endless. what a cause for joy.
revisit that first line in robeson's quote. says it all, doesn't it, in the year of your obama, 2009.
who will help those murdered by unnatural disasters?
report From Rafah
Worse Than an Earthquake
By KATHY KELLY
Rafah, Gaza.
Traffic on Sea Street, a major thoroughfare alongside Gaza's coastline, includes horses, donkeys pulling carts, cyclists, pedestrians, trucks and cars, mostly older models. Overhead, in stark contrast to the street below, Israel's ultra modern unmanned surveillance planes criss-cross the skies. F16s and helicopters can also be heard. Remnants of their deliveries, the casings of missiles, bombs and shells used during the past three weeks of Israeli attacks, are scattered on the ground.
Workers have cleared most of the roads. Now, they are removing massive piles of wreckage and debris, much as people do following an earthquake.
"Yet, all the world helps after an earthquake," said a doctor at the Shifaa hospital in Gaza. "We feel very frustrated," he continued. "The West, Europe and the U.S., watched this killing go on for 22 days, as though they were watching a movie, watching the killing of women and children without doing anything to stop it. I was expecting to die at any moment. I held my babies and expected to die. There was no safe place in Gaza."
He and his colleagues are visibly exhausted, following weeks of work in the Intensive Care and Emergency Room departments at a hospital that received many more patients than they could help. "Patients died on the floor of the operating room because we had only six operating rooms," said Dr. Saeed Abuhassan, M.D, an ICU doctor who grew up in Chicago. "And really we don't know enough about the kinds of weapons that have been used against Gaza."
In 15 years of practice, Dr. Abuhassan says he never saw burns like those he saw here. The burns, blackish in color, reached deep into the muscles and bones. Even after treatment was begun, the blackish color returned.
Two of the patients were sent to Egypt because they were in such critical condition. They died in Egypt. But when autopsies were done, reports showed that the cause of death was poisoning from elements of white phosphorous that had entered their systems, causing cardiac arrests.
In Gaza City, the Burn Unit's harried director, a plastic surgeon and an expert in treating burns, told us that after encountering cases they'd never seen before, doctors at the center performed a biopsy on a patient they believed may have suffered chemical burns and sent the sample to a lab in Egypt. The results showed elements of white phosphorous in the tissue.
The doctor was interrupted by a phone call from a farmer who wanted to know whether it was safe to eat the oranges he was collecting from groves that had been uprooted and bombed during the Israeli invasion. The caller said the oranges had an offensive odor and that when the workers picked them up their hands became itchy.
Audrey Stewart had just spent the morning with Gazan farmers in Tufaa, a village near the border between Gaza and Israel. Israeli soldiers had first evacuated people, then dynamited the houses, then used bulldozers to clear the land, uprooting the orange tree groves. Many people, including children, were picking through the rubble, salvaging belongings and trying to collect oranges. At one point, people began shouting at Audrey, warning her that she was standing next to an unexploded rocket.
The doctor put his head in his hands, after listening to Audrey's report. "I told them to wash everything very carefully. But these are new situations. Really, I don't know how to respond," he said.
Yet he spoke passionately about what he knew regarding families that had been burned or crushed to death when their homes were bombed. "Were their babies a danger to anyone?" he asked us.
"They are lying to us about democracy and Western values," he continued, his voice shaking. "If we were sheep and goats, they would be more willing to help us."
Dr. Saeed Abuhassan was bidding farewell to the doctors he'd worked with in Gaza. He was returning to his work in the United Arab Emirates. But before leaving, he paused to give us a word of advice. "You know, the most important thing you can tell people in your country is that U.S. people paid for many of the weapons used to kill people in Gaza," said Dr. Saeed Abuhassan. "And this, also, is why it's worse than an earthquake."
Kathy Kelly, a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, is writing from Arish, a town near the Rafah border between Egypt and Gaza. Bill Quigley, a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola New Orleans and Audrey Stewart are also in Egypt and contributed to this article. Kathy Kelly is the author of Other Lands Have Dreams (published by CounterPunch/AK Press). Her email is kathy@vcnv.org
Worse Than an Earthquake
By KATHY KELLY
Rafah, Gaza.
Traffic on Sea Street, a major thoroughfare alongside Gaza's coastline, includes horses, donkeys pulling carts, cyclists, pedestrians, trucks and cars, mostly older models. Overhead, in stark contrast to the street below, Israel's ultra modern unmanned surveillance planes criss-cross the skies. F16s and helicopters can also be heard. Remnants of their deliveries, the casings of missiles, bombs and shells used during the past three weeks of Israeli attacks, are scattered on the ground.
Workers have cleared most of the roads. Now, they are removing massive piles of wreckage and debris, much as people do following an earthquake.
"Yet, all the world helps after an earthquake," said a doctor at the Shifaa hospital in Gaza. "We feel very frustrated," he continued. "The West, Europe and the U.S., watched this killing go on for 22 days, as though they were watching a movie, watching the killing of women and children without doing anything to stop it. I was expecting to die at any moment. I held my babies and expected to die. There was no safe place in Gaza."
He and his colleagues are visibly exhausted, following weeks of work in the Intensive Care and Emergency Room departments at a hospital that received many more patients than they could help. "Patients died on the floor of the operating room because we had only six operating rooms," said Dr. Saeed Abuhassan, M.D, an ICU doctor who grew up in Chicago. "And really we don't know enough about the kinds of weapons that have been used against Gaza."
In 15 years of practice, Dr. Abuhassan says he never saw burns like those he saw here. The burns, blackish in color, reached deep into the muscles and bones. Even after treatment was begun, the blackish color returned.
Two of the patients were sent to Egypt because they were in such critical condition. They died in Egypt. But when autopsies were done, reports showed that the cause of death was poisoning from elements of white phosphorous that had entered their systems, causing cardiac arrests.
In Gaza City, the Burn Unit's harried director, a plastic surgeon and an expert in treating burns, told us that after encountering cases they'd never seen before, doctors at the center performed a biopsy on a patient they believed may have suffered chemical burns and sent the sample to a lab in Egypt. The results showed elements of white phosphorous in the tissue.
The doctor was interrupted by a phone call from a farmer who wanted to know whether it was safe to eat the oranges he was collecting from groves that had been uprooted and bombed during the Israeli invasion. The caller said the oranges had an offensive odor and that when the workers picked them up their hands became itchy.
Audrey Stewart had just spent the morning with Gazan farmers in Tufaa, a village near the border between Gaza and Israel. Israeli soldiers had first evacuated people, then dynamited the houses, then used bulldozers to clear the land, uprooting the orange tree groves. Many people, including children, were picking through the rubble, salvaging belongings and trying to collect oranges. At one point, people began shouting at Audrey, warning her that she was standing next to an unexploded rocket.
The doctor put his head in his hands, after listening to Audrey's report. "I told them to wash everything very carefully. But these are new situations. Really, I don't know how to respond," he said.
Yet he spoke passionately about what he knew regarding families that had been burned or crushed to death when their homes were bombed. "Were their babies a danger to anyone?" he asked us.
"They are lying to us about democracy and Western values," he continued, his voice shaking. "If we were sheep and goats, they would be more willing to help us."
Dr. Saeed Abuhassan was bidding farewell to the doctors he'd worked with in Gaza. He was returning to his work in the United Arab Emirates. But before leaving, he paused to give us a word of advice. "You know, the most important thing you can tell people in your country is that U.S. people paid for many of the weapons used to kill people in Gaza," said Dr. Saeed Abuhassan. "And this, also, is why it's worse than an earthquake."
Kathy Kelly, a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, is writing from Arish, a town near the Rafah border between Egypt and Gaza. Bill Quigley, a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola New Orleans and Audrey Stewart are also in Egypt and contributed to this article. Kathy Kelly is the author of Other Lands Have Dreams (published by CounterPunch/AK Press). Her email is kathy@vcnv.org
a war crime is a war crime
whether we speak of it or not. it is a crime, whether it is perpetrated by jews or against them. it is a crime, even if it is done with american weapons. it is a crime even if our media doesn't cover it, or instead chooses to write articles about gazan children throwing stones, or the trauma experienced by israeli civilians. it is a crime though our schools fail to teach our youth about it. it is a crime though a man with a kenyan born father will now sign off on the killings. it is a crime when muslims are killed as well. those with pale skin, christian religion, and the correct nationality, surely do their fair share of killing, despite our collective silence on the subject. as i sit here, i remember that bumper sticker..."kill em' all. let allah sort them out." a few days ago i saw that, and tuesday, obama scolded those in the middle east who continue to blame the west for their problems.
why do they hate us? oh, let me count the ways.
Gaza 2009
January 22, 2009 By Dr. Haidar Eid
Dr. Haidar Eid's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
"Where can I bring him a father from? Where can I bring him a mother from? You tell me!"
These are the desperate words of Subhi Samouni to Al Jazeera's Gaza correspondent. Subhi lost 17 members of his immediate family, including the parents of his 7-year old grandson. Shockingly, even as I write this article, corpses of the Samouni family are still being retrieved from under the rubble - 15 days after the Israeli Occupation Forces shelled the two houses. The Israeli Occupation Forces locked 120 members of the family in one house for 12 hours before they shelled it..
Subhi's words echo the harsh reality of all Palestinians in Gaza: alone, abandoned, hunted down, brutalized, and, like Subhi's grandson, orphaned. 22 days of savage butchery took the lives of 1312 Palestinians, over 85 per cent of them civilians, including 434 children, 104 women, 16 medics, 4 journalists,
5 foreigners, and 105 old people..
What can one say to comfort a man who has the harrowing task of having to bury his entire family, including his wife, his sons, his daughters and his grandchildren? Tell us and we will relay your words to Uncle Subhi because his loss has made our words of condolences meaningless to our ears.
Think also of words you want to say to 70-year old Rasheed Mohammed, whose 44-year old son Samir was executed with a single bullet to the heart in front of his wife and children. The IOF refused to let an ambulance pick up his corpse for 11 days so his family had to wait for the assault to stop before they could bury him. 70-year old Rasheed had the excruciatingly painful experience of looking at, touching, kissing, and then burying the decomposed body of his son. Tell this family how to make sense of their harsh reality - say something to make the children sleep, to ease the anguish in the father's heart, to help the wife understand why her husband had to be taken from her.
You might prefer to talk to 14-year old Amira Qirm, whose house in Gaza City was shelled with artillery and phosphorous bombs - bombs which burnt to death 3 members of her immediate family: her father, her 12-year-old brother, Ala'a, and her 11-year old sister, Ismat. Alone, injured and terrified, Amira crawled 500m on her knees to a house close by - it was empty because the family had fled when the Israeli attack began. She stayed there for 4 days, surviving only on water, and listening to the sounds of the Israeli killing machine all around her, too afraid to cry out in pain in case the soldiers heard her. When the owner of the house returned to get clothes for his family, he found Amira, weak and close to death. She is now being treated for her injuries in the overcrowded and under- resourced Al-Shifa hospital.
You can try to comfort 10 year-old Mohammed Samouni who was found lying next to the bodies of his mother and siblings, 5 days after they were killed. He would tell you what he has been telling everyone - that his brother woke suddenly after being asleep for a long time. His brother told him that he was hungry, asked for a tomato to eat and then died. Are there any other 10-year olds in the world who are asked to carry this experience around with them for the rest of their lives? Of course not - this ‘privilege' is reserved just for Palestinian children because they were born on the land that Israel wants for itself. But it is these traumatized children who will deny Israel what it wants because their very survival is a challenge to that apartheid state. It is these same children who will surely inherit Palestine: it is their birthright and no assault can change that fact - not today, not ever..
And through it all we were subjected to Tzipi Livni, Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs, adamant in her defence of the world's most ‘moral' army. "We don't target civilians" she lied. "We don't want the Palestinians to leave Gaza. We just want them to move within Gaza itself!" Israel's PM Ehud Olmert too had something to say to Palestinians in Gaza: "We are not your enemy. Hamas is your enemy."
Amira, Mohammed, Rasheed, Subhi and the more than 40 000 families whose houses have been demolished know differently. Those people who rushed to the cemetery after it was bombed and found the body parts of their dead relatives exposed to the elements know differently. They know that they were deliberately targeted because they are Palestinian. All the rest is propaganda to appease the conscience of those with Palestinian blood on their hands - those who are both inside and outside Israel.
For 22 long days and dark nights, Gazans were left alone to face the 4th strongest army in the world - an army that has 250 nuclear heads, thousands of trigger-happy soldiers armed with Merkava tanks, F16s, Apache helicopters, naval gunships and phosphorous bombs. 22 sleepless nights, 1528 hours of constant shelling and shooting, every single minute expecting to be the next victim.
During these 22 days, while morgues overflowed and hospitals struggled to treat the injured, Arab regimes issued tons of statements, condemned and denounced and held one meaningless press conference after another. They even held two summits, the first one convened 19 full days after the assault on Gaza began and the second one the day after Israel had declared a unilateral ceasefire!
The official Arab position vis-à-vis the Palestinians since 1948, with the exception of the progressive Nationalist era (1954-1970) has been a lethal cocktail of cowardice and hypocrisy. Their latest collective failure to break the 2-year old Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip and their lack of action to support Palestinians under brutal military assault must be questioned.
Arabs must demand answers from the spineless Arab League because there was no brotherly solidarity shown to Gazans during the Israeli assault. There was no Pan Arabism evident in their platitudes. Some, shockingly, even found it an appropriate time to blame Palestinians for the situation they found themselves in, instead of demanding that Israel stop its merciless assault.
In Gaza today, we wonder how the expressions of support for us in the streets of Arab capitals can be translated into action in the absence of democracy. We wonder whether Arab citizens of despotic regimes can non-violently change the system. We torment ourselves with trying to discern the means that are currently available for democratic political change. With the ongoing massacre in Gaza, and the construction of an Apartheid system in Palestine (1948, 1967), we know that to survive, we must have the support and solidarity of our Arab brothers and sisters. We saw the Arab people rise to that challenge and stand by us for 22 days but we did not see their leaders behind them.
Archbishop Desmund Tutu of South Africa said " If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." The UN, EU, Arab League and the international community by and large have remained silent in the face of atrocities committed by Apartheid Israel. They are therefore on the side of Israel. Hundreds of dead corpses of children and women have failed to convince them to act. This is what every Palestinian knows today - whether on the streets of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank or refugee camps in the Diaspora
We are, therefore, left with one option; an option that does not wait for the UNSC, Arab Summits, or Organization of Islamic Conference to convene: the option of people's power. This remains the only power capable of counteracting the massive power imbalance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The horror of the racist Apartheid regime in South Africa was challenged with a sustained campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) initiated in 1958 and given new urgency in 1960 after the Sharpeville Massacre. This campaign led ultimately to the collapse of white rule in 1994 and the establishment of a multi-racial, democratic state.
Similarly, the Palestinian call for BDS has been gathering momentum since 2005. Gaza 2009, like Sharpeville 1960, cannot be ignored: it demands a response from all who believe in a common humanity. Now is the time to boycott the apartheid Israeli state, to divest and to impose sanctions against it. This is the only way to ensure the creation of a secular, democratic state for all in historic Palestine.
This is the only answer to Uncle Subhi's puzzling questions: it is the only way to give his grandson a future, a life of dignity and equality, a life with both peace and justice, because like all children, he deserves nothing less.
Haidar Eid teaches English literature in Gaza City. He is also an activist and political commentator.
why do they hate us? oh, let me count the ways.
Gaza 2009
January 22, 2009 By Dr. Haidar Eid
Dr. Haidar Eid's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
"Where can I bring him a father from? Where can I bring him a mother from? You tell me!"
These are the desperate words of Subhi Samouni to Al Jazeera's Gaza correspondent. Subhi lost 17 members of his immediate family, including the parents of his 7-year old grandson. Shockingly, even as I write this article, corpses of the Samouni family are still being retrieved from under the rubble - 15 days after the Israeli Occupation Forces shelled the two houses. The Israeli Occupation Forces locked 120 members of the family in one house for 12 hours before they shelled it..
Subhi's words echo the harsh reality of all Palestinians in Gaza: alone, abandoned, hunted down, brutalized, and, like Subhi's grandson, orphaned. 22 days of savage butchery took the lives of 1312 Palestinians, over 85 per cent of them civilians, including 434 children, 104 women, 16 medics, 4 journalists,
5 foreigners, and 105 old people..
What can one say to comfort a man who has the harrowing task of having to bury his entire family, including his wife, his sons, his daughters and his grandchildren? Tell us and we will relay your words to Uncle Subhi because his loss has made our words of condolences meaningless to our ears.
Think also of words you want to say to 70-year old Rasheed Mohammed, whose 44-year old son Samir was executed with a single bullet to the heart in front of his wife and children. The IOF refused to let an ambulance pick up his corpse for 11 days so his family had to wait for the assault to stop before they could bury him. 70-year old Rasheed had the excruciatingly painful experience of looking at, touching, kissing, and then burying the decomposed body of his son. Tell this family how to make sense of their harsh reality - say something to make the children sleep, to ease the anguish in the father's heart, to help the wife understand why her husband had to be taken from her.
You might prefer to talk to 14-year old Amira Qirm, whose house in Gaza City was shelled with artillery and phosphorous bombs - bombs which burnt to death 3 members of her immediate family: her father, her 12-year-old brother, Ala'a, and her 11-year old sister, Ismat. Alone, injured and terrified, Amira crawled 500m on her knees to a house close by - it was empty because the family had fled when the Israeli attack began. She stayed there for 4 days, surviving only on water, and listening to the sounds of the Israeli killing machine all around her, too afraid to cry out in pain in case the soldiers heard her. When the owner of the house returned to get clothes for his family, he found Amira, weak and close to death. She is now being treated for her injuries in the overcrowded and under- resourced Al-Shifa hospital.
You can try to comfort 10 year-old Mohammed Samouni who was found lying next to the bodies of his mother and siblings, 5 days after they were killed. He would tell you what he has been telling everyone - that his brother woke suddenly after being asleep for a long time. His brother told him that he was hungry, asked for a tomato to eat and then died. Are there any other 10-year olds in the world who are asked to carry this experience around with them for the rest of their lives? Of course not - this ‘privilege' is reserved just for Palestinian children because they were born on the land that Israel wants for itself. But it is these traumatized children who will deny Israel what it wants because their very survival is a challenge to that apartheid state. It is these same children who will surely inherit Palestine: it is their birthright and no assault can change that fact - not today, not ever..
And through it all we were subjected to Tzipi Livni, Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs, adamant in her defence of the world's most ‘moral' army. "We don't target civilians" she lied. "We don't want the Palestinians to leave Gaza. We just want them to move within Gaza itself!" Israel's PM Ehud Olmert too had something to say to Palestinians in Gaza: "We are not your enemy. Hamas is your enemy."
Amira, Mohammed, Rasheed, Subhi and the more than 40 000 families whose houses have been demolished know differently. Those people who rushed to the cemetery after it was bombed and found the body parts of their dead relatives exposed to the elements know differently. They know that they were deliberately targeted because they are Palestinian. All the rest is propaganda to appease the conscience of those with Palestinian blood on their hands - those who are both inside and outside Israel.
For 22 long days and dark nights, Gazans were left alone to face the 4th strongest army in the world - an army that has 250 nuclear heads, thousands of trigger-happy soldiers armed with Merkava tanks, F16s, Apache helicopters, naval gunships and phosphorous bombs. 22 sleepless nights, 1528 hours of constant shelling and shooting, every single minute expecting to be the next victim.
During these 22 days, while morgues overflowed and hospitals struggled to treat the injured, Arab regimes issued tons of statements, condemned and denounced and held one meaningless press conference after another. They even held two summits, the first one convened 19 full days after the assault on Gaza began and the second one the day after Israel had declared a unilateral ceasefire!
The official Arab position vis-à-vis the Palestinians since 1948, with the exception of the progressive Nationalist era (1954-1970) has been a lethal cocktail of cowardice and hypocrisy. Their latest collective failure to break the 2-year old Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip and their lack of action to support Palestinians under brutal military assault must be questioned.
Arabs must demand answers from the spineless Arab League because there was no brotherly solidarity shown to Gazans during the Israeli assault. There was no Pan Arabism evident in their platitudes. Some, shockingly, even found it an appropriate time to blame Palestinians for the situation they found themselves in, instead of demanding that Israel stop its merciless assault.
In Gaza today, we wonder how the expressions of support for us in the streets of Arab capitals can be translated into action in the absence of democracy. We wonder whether Arab citizens of despotic regimes can non-violently change the system. We torment ourselves with trying to discern the means that are currently available for democratic political change. With the ongoing massacre in Gaza, and the construction of an Apartheid system in Palestine (1948, 1967), we know that to survive, we must have the support and solidarity of our Arab brothers and sisters. We saw the Arab people rise to that challenge and stand by us for 22 days but we did not see their leaders behind them.
Archbishop Desmund Tutu of South Africa said " If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." The UN, EU, Arab League and the international community by and large have remained silent in the face of atrocities committed by Apartheid Israel. They are therefore on the side of Israel. Hundreds of dead corpses of children and women have failed to convince them to act. This is what every Palestinian knows today - whether on the streets of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank or refugee camps in the Diaspora
We are, therefore, left with one option; an option that does not wait for the UNSC, Arab Summits, or Organization of Islamic Conference to convene: the option of people's power. This remains the only power capable of counteracting the massive power imbalance in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The horror of the racist Apartheid regime in South Africa was challenged with a sustained campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) initiated in 1958 and given new urgency in 1960 after the Sharpeville Massacre. This campaign led ultimately to the collapse of white rule in 1994 and the establishment of a multi-racial, democratic state.
Similarly, the Palestinian call for BDS has been gathering momentum since 2005. Gaza 2009, like Sharpeville 1960, cannot be ignored: it demands a response from all who believe in a common humanity. Now is the time to boycott the apartheid Israeli state, to divest and to impose sanctions against it. This is the only way to ensure the creation of a secular, democratic state for all in historic Palestine.
This is the only answer to Uncle Subhi's puzzling questions: it is the only way to give his grandson a future, a life of dignity and equality, a life with both peace and justice, because like all children, he deserves nothing less.
Haidar Eid teaches English literature in Gaza City. He is also an activist and political commentator.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
enough
enough of aretha's hat and her cleavage. enough of mrs. obama's gown. enough of judge roberts botching the oath, though it was likely the intentional act of a roaring racist. enough of alice walker's ball sucking of the big o.
but there are other things i would like to hear more of. why is dick head cheney in a wheelchair? please tell me more! i want to hear how many homeless were rounded up from the streets of dc. i want to hear the percentage of these men who are black, considering that the rise of obama signifies the fulfillment of the dream. i want to hear someone explain just what this dream is, and if the dream is merely about success or power, why didn't colin powell or condi rice fit the bill? i want someone to explain how the 170 million used on the inaugural could have been spent on housing the poor, or feeding the hungry, especially considering the supposed economic crisis we are experiencing. how much money was spent by the 2 million people who came to dc to "experience history," and how could that amount of money been spent to help us through this "economic crisis." it should be pointed out that every dollar spent on an obama t shirt, mug, hat, condom, or dildo, is one less dollar spent on the real needs of millions of people. the obamas tell us that we need to serve others; could they at least condemn such crass consumerism? if obama is really concerned with helping people, why doesn't he say "instead of wasting that 10 bucks on a shirt with my face on it, likely made by oppressed children in the third world, you should put that money toward helping people." surely, such a statement would have an impact. why has it not been made? of course, no major political leader in this country criticizes consumerism anymore. business is king, and no one, even a president, dare say a thing that fundamentally questions it. so, we talk about tough times as millions spend 500 a night at a hotel to watch a man who will live in a mansion become president. our media moans about gowns and hats and shoes. we speak of hard times, as millionaire singers such as beyonce torture our ears with strangled cries today known as popular song.
tough times? you bet.
in this country, they always are.
don't sleep on your z's.
Dam Nation
By Mickey Z.
“Every morning when I awake, I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam,” Derrick Jensen writes. “I’ve written books and done activism, but it is neither a lack of words nor activism that is killing salmon here in the Northwest. It’s the dams. Anyone who knows anything about salmon knows the dams must go. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows the dams will stay.”
To that, I’ll add: Anyone who knows anything about hydroelectric dams comprehends and laments the damage they cause: From climate change to the destruction of rivers to human displacement to disappearing salmon…and beyond. As Jacques Leslie, author of Deep Water: The Epic Struggle over Dams, Displaced People, and the Environment, points out: “The world’s dams have shifted so much weight that geophysicists believe they have slightly altered the speed of the earth’s rotation, the tilt of its axis, and the shape of its gravitational field.”
Bearing all this in mind, it should come as no surprise that some activists have contemplated the demolition of dams. It should also come as no surprise that such musings are deemed “terrorism” by the powers-that-be. What might come as a surprise to some is that those same powers-that-be have absolutely no problem blowing up a dam…if it serves their interests.
During World War II, British scientists invented a spinning cylindrical “dam buster” bomb specifically to demolish German dams. Conversely, of the 185 Nazis indicted at Nuremberg, only 24 were singled out for the death penalty. Among those two dozen was the German High Commissioner in Holland who ordered the opening of Dutch dikes to slow the advance of Allied troops. Roughly 500,000 acres were flooded and the result was mass starvation. That their crimes merited capital punishment in the eyes of the Nuremberg Tribunal can serve as a measuring stick when we review similar crimes committed by others.
During the Korean War, the US Air Force (USAF) bombed the Toksan Dam (among others) in order to flood North Korea’s rice farms. Here’s how the USAF justified this tactic: “To the Communists the smashing of the dams meant primarily the destruction of their chief sustenance—rice. The Westerner can little conceive the awesome meaning that the loss of this staple food commodity has for an Asian—starvation and slow death.”
Fast-forward to the US assault on Southeast Asia: In a now-declassified memorandum dated April 15, 1969, evangelist Billy Graham urged President Richard Nixon to blow up dikes which “could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam.” Even without Rev. Graham’s heavenly sanction, US bombing of dikes in South Vietnam was already a common and uncontroversial tactic.
The moral of this story: Attacking a dam is terrorism…except when it isn’t.
By Mickey Z.
“Every morning when I awake, I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam,” Derrick Jensen writes. “I’ve written books and done activism, but it is neither a lack of words nor activism that is killing salmon here in the Northwest. It’s the dams. Anyone who knows anything about salmon knows the dams must go. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows the dams will stay.”
To that, I’ll add: Anyone who knows anything about hydroelectric dams comprehends and laments the damage they cause: From climate change to the destruction of rivers to human displacement to disappearing salmon…and beyond. As Jacques Leslie, author of Deep Water: The Epic Struggle over Dams, Displaced People, and the Environment, points out: “The world’s dams have shifted so much weight that geophysicists believe they have slightly altered the speed of the earth’s rotation, the tilt of its axis, and the shape of its gravitational field.”
Bearing all this in mind, it should come as no surprise that some activists have contemplated the demolition of dams. It should also come as no surprise that such musings are deemed “terrorism” by the powers-that-be. What might come as a surprise to some is that those same powers-that-be have absolutely no problem blowing up a dam…if it serves their interests.
During World War II, British scientists invented a spinning cylindrical “dam buster” bomb specifically to demolish German dams. Conversely, of the 185 Nazis indicted at Nuremberg, only 24 were singled out for the death penalty. Among those two dozen was the German High Commissioner in Holland who ordered the opening of Dutch dikes to slow the advance of Allied troops. Roughly 500,000 acres were flooded and the result was mass starvation. That their crimes merited capital punishment in the eyes of the Nuremberg Tribunal can serve as a measuring stick when we review similar crimes committed by others.
During the Korean War, the US Air Force (USAF) bombed the Toksan Dam (among others) in order to flood North Korea’s rice farms. Here’s how the USAF justified this tactic: “To the Communists the smashing of the dams meant primarily the destruction of their chief sustenance—rice. The Westerner can little conceive the awesome meaning that the loss of this staple food commodity has for an Asian—starvation and slow death.”
Fast-forward to the US assault on Southeast Asia: In a now-declassified memorandum dated April 15, 1969, evangelist Billy Graham urged President Richard Nixon to blow up dikes which “could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam.” Even without Rev. Graham’s heavenly sanction, US bombing of dikes in South Vietnam was already a common and uncontroversial tactic.
The moral of this story: Attacking a dam is terrorism…except when it isn’t.
and don't forget the 170 million
This is Something to Celebrate?
The Peaceful Transfer of Violent Power
By SHELDON RICHMAN
At the risk of raining on the parade, I suggest that the inaugural festivities were not what they appeared. Barack Obama says the pomp and circumstance were not about him but were a celebration of democracy. “For the forty-third time, we will execute the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next,” he said.
He’s right, but not quite as he meant it. The peaceful transition from the Bush to the Obama regime was indeed the occasion, but let’s focus on exactly what was transferred. Despite the oratory about hope, change, and renewal, government — as someone, perhaps George Washington, said — “is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.” If that is right — and I contend it is — then in the inauguration we have the irony of a peaceful transfer of something that is anything but peaceful: the legal power to use physical force.
This is something to celebrate?
The question would be fair no matter who succeeded George W. Bush. It’s not so much the man but the office that warrants our distrust and (to use Jefferson’s term) jealousy. To modify the words of Judge Gideon Tucker: No person’s life, liberty, and property are safe as long as the occupant of the White House possesses the powers that are invested in the presidency (and government generally).
The essence of government as we know it is the power to use force against people who have never harmed anyone. The most basic power is the power to tax. Indeed, government could do nothing without it. The power to tax is the legal authority to compel people to surrender their money to the state under penalty of fine, imprisonment, and worse for refusal. Whether or not one thinks this power is good (I don’t), one cannot deny that it is based on the threat to commit violence against the nonviolent.
Thus, this week we witnessed the peaceful transfer of the authority to commit legal plunder.
Apologists for government undertake bizarre mental contortions to show that we have consented to be taxed. Balderdash. I was never asked to consent, and I’m sure you weren’t either. I refuse to accept the nonsensical argument that by not vacating the parcel of land I purchased, I have signaled my “tacit consent” to be plundered and bullied. That implies the government owns the territory it rules and therefore can set the conditions under which it is used. That sounds like feudalism. Are we merely tenants of the governmental landlord?
Built on the power to tax (legally steal) are myriad other powers that entail the threat of violence against peaceful individuals. If you wish to buy things from people outside the jurisdiction claimed by the U.S. government, you may do so only on the terms it permits under its trade laws. If you wish to invite to your home or business someone who lives outside that jurisdiction, again, you can do so only under terms laid down by the government’s immigration rules. You are not free to make your own decisions in the matter.
If you don’t want your money given to others — say, Wall Street banks, auto companies, welfare recipients, stem-cell researchers, military contractors, the Israeli air force, the Iraqi and Afghan rulers — too bad. You have no say. Correction: you have one impotent vote every four years. That’s virtually the same as no say.
If you don’t want the armed forces killing people in your name, again, too bad. No one asked you.
If you don’t want the Treasury and the Federal Reserve stealing your hard-earned money through deficits and inflation, you may as well shut up. It’s going to happen anyway.
This is the power of peaceful transfer which we celebrate.
We might wonder why inaugurations aren’t more sober affairs. Why all the hoopla? The answer is simple. Government is a horrendous and exploitative imposition on most of us. From the rulers’ perspective, there is always the danger that we may figure this out and refuse to go along. Hence the need for regular propaganda spectacles to reinforce the myth that we are the government.
The prayers of The Who’s Pete Townshend, alas, have not been answered. Most of us are getting fooled again.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of The Freeman magazine.
The Peaceful Transfer of Violent Power
By SHELDON RICHMAN
At the risk of raining on the parade, I suggest that the inaugural festivities were not what they appeared. Barack Obama says the pomp and circumstance were not about him but were a celebration of democracy. “For the forty-third time, we will execute the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next,” he said.
He’s right, but not quite as he meant it. The peaceful transition from the Bush to the Obama regime was indeed the occasion, but let’s focus on exactly what was transferred. Despite the oratory about hope, change, and renewal, government — as someone, perhaps George Washington, said — “is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.” If that is right — and I contend it is — then in the inauguration we have the irony of a peaceful transfer of something that is anything but peaceful: the legal power to use physical force.
This is something to celebrate?
The question would be fair no matter who succeeded George W. Bush. It’s not so much the man but the office that warrants our distrust and (to use Jefferson’s term) jealousy. To modify the words of Judge Gideon Tucker: No person’s life, liberty, and property are safe as long as the occupant of the White House possesses the powers that are invested in the presidency (and government generally).
The essence of government as we know it is the power to use force against people who have never harmed anyone. The most basic power is the power to tax. Indeed, government could do nothing without it. The power to tax is the legal authority to compel people to surrender their money to the state under penalty of fine, imprisonment, and worse for refusal. Whether or not one thinks this power is good (I don’t), one cannot deny that it is based on the threat to commit violence against the nonviolent.
Thus, this week we witnessed the peaceful transfer of the authority to commit legal plunder.
Apologists for government undertake bizarre mental contortions to show that we have consented to be taxed. Balderdash. I was never asked to consent, and I’m sure you weren’t either. I refuse to accept the nonsensical argument that by not vacating the parcel of land I purchased, I have signaled my “tacit consent” to be plundered and bullied. That implies the government owns the territory it rules and therefore can set the conditions under which it is used. That sounds like feudalism. Are we merely tenants of the governmental landlord?
Built on the power to tax (legally steal) are myriad other powers that entail the threat of violence against peaceful individuals. If you wish to buy things from people outside the jurisdiction claimed by the U.S. government, you may do so only on the terms it permits under its trade laws. If you wish to invite to your home or business someone who lives outside that jurisdiction, again, you can do so only under terms laid down by the government’s immigration rules. You are not free to make your own decisions in the matter.
If you don’t want your money given to others — say, Wall Street banks, auto companies, welfare recipients, stem-cell researchers, military contractors, the Israeli air force, the Iraqi and Afghan rulers — too bad. You have no say. Correction: you have one impotent vote every four years. That’s virtually the same as no say.
If you don’t want the armed forces killing people in your name, again, too bad. No one asked you.
If you don’t want the Treasury and the Federal Reserve stealing your hard-earned money through deficits and inflation, you may as well shut up. It’s going to happen anyway.
This is the power of peaceful transfer which we celebrate.
We might wonder why inaugurations aren’t more sober affairs. Why all the hoopla? The answer is simple. Government is a horrendous and exploitative imposition on most of us. From the rulers’ perspective, there is always the danger that we may figure this out and refuse to go along. Hence the need for regular propaganda spectacles to reinforce the myth that we are the government.
The prayers of The Who’s Pete Townshend, alas, have not been answered. Most of us are getting fooled again.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation and editor of The Freeman magazine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
