It began as a far-reaching war against a vague enemy. Any questions about the war were considered unpatriotic and dissenters risked being violently repressed by the government. The government helped the economic elite profit at the expense of the poor. When the regime was losing its grip on power, it turned to a conventional military war that became a disaster. This synopsis describes the Dirty War of 1976-1983 in Argentina…and the current US "War on Terror."
The Dirty War in Argentina is a complex story that can be viewed through a variety of lenses. During the six months I recently spent in Argentina, I found that the more I learned about the Dirty War, the more I was learning about the "War on Terror." To say that the current state of repression in the US is exactly like the Dirty War would be an insult to the 30,000 people who were disappeared and tortured in Argentina. The similarities between the two "wars," however, can indicate in what direction the US may be headed and how progressives can steer the country in another direction.
The Dirty War has its roots in the anti-communist sentiments generated by the US during the Cold War. After the Cuban Revolution of the 1950s, governments throughout Latin America began cracking down on leftist groups including student organizations and unions. Fearing the spread of communism, the US government actively supported this repression by training Latin American soldiers in torture techniques at the School of the Americas and refusing to criticize or sanction human rights violations committed by right-wing governments. Under the military dictatorship in Argentina of 1966-1973, some leftist groups responded to the absolute ban on political activity with armed resistance.
In 1973, the people of Argentina democratically elected Juan Peron, but when he died the following year his wife took power and her leadership was dominated by the military. On March 24, 1976, the Argentine military overthrew President Isabel Peron and remained in power until 1983. The military began its rule by restructuring the government. The local police departments were put under military control. The General Commander of the Army was placed in charge of executing military operations necessary to "neutralize and annihilate" subversive elements. The "Process of National Reorganization" announced by the military re-established the death penalty, outlawed unions and political organizations, and established military jurisdiction over civilians.
The military government detained, tortured, disappeared and killed anyone who was suspected of being subversive, including student leaders, critical journalists, and union leaders. Squads made of members of the armed forces and local police departments kidnapped suspected "subversives" from their homes, workplaces and even the streets. There were 14,000 political prisoners. Another 30,000 people were kidnapped by government agents. Because their bodies were never located and the military and police would deny that these people were in their custody, these 30,000 are considered "disappeared." Over 500 children were taken from detained parents and raised by families of members of the military. Many activists chose to flee the country. Thus, among other things, the government effectively eliminated a generation of leftist leaders.
Twenty years later, the students of the School of the Americas have become the teachers. In the current "War on Terror" Bush is using lessons learned from the Dirty War. The US government is using tactics like those used by the Argentine dictatorship, namely, waging a vast war against a vaguely defined enemy and creating a culture of fear. Likewise, the US government is using those tactics to achieve the same goals that the Argentine military dictatorship had: to consolidate state power, to suppress dissent and to mobilize economic resources to benefit the elite.
The above excerpt is from Renate Lunn's "Five Lessons Bush Learned from Argentina’s Dirty War and Five Lessons for the Rest of Us" (Toward Freedom) and was noted by Brandon who dubs it "a history lesson we need to learn."
Kayla notes Emad Mekay's "WTO-SPECIAL:Subsidies Concession Largely Symbolic, Groups Say" (IPS):
"It is very clear that if this document is going to determine the future course of the WTO, the majority of people in the world would be worse off," said Lori Wallach of the U.S.-based Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch.
The final text sets 2013 as the deadline for dismantling controversial multi-billion-dollar export subsidies given by the European Union and countries like the United States every year. However, a number of economic rights groups, including ActionAid, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development and the World Development Movement, quickly challenged the final text of the meeting and criticised the focus on the EU's offer to commit to 2013.
The international environmental group Greenpeace described the much trumpeted EU export subsidies deadline as "only a symbolic gesture, creating the illusion that the developed countries have given something in return for the concessions they have extracted from the developing countries." Watchdog organisations say the impact of the new deadline will be minimal since the meeting failed to commit the United States, Japan or the European Union to end their generous domestic farm support, running into billions of dollars annually. These subsidies disadvantage local farmers in Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America and Asia by forcing commodity prices down.
"This watered-down text leaves out the most important issues for the WTO to address -- agricultural dumping, creating employment, and promoting development," said Sophia Murphy of the U.S-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
The United States successfully resisted slashing its domestic support to cotton producers, a setback for Brazil and four West African cotton exporters which had hoped the meetings here would commit the United States, the world's largest producer and exporter of cotton, to eliminate several aspects of its support programme.
Polly notes the BBC's "Israel's Sharon suffers a stroke." (I think the headline says it all. For those who don't have time or the desire to use the link, other reports say it's a minor stroke and Ariel Sharon is expected to recover.)
Lynda e-mails to note "EU threat to axe Palestinian aid" (Al Jazeera):
The European Union has joined the United States in threats to withhold aid if Hamas participates in a Palestinian government.
Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, has said tens of millions of dollars of aid to the Palestinian Authority could be halted if the Islamist group wins elections next month and fails to renounce violence.Hamas has swept municipal elections in several West Bank cities last week, reflecting Palestinian dissatisfaction with the ruling Fatah party.The strong showing has raised the possibility that Hamas could win the Palestinian parliamentary elections on 25 January.
Pru's highlight comes last. As noted before Ireland, though not reported by the New York Times, has some serious issues with privatization and so-called free markets. Here's Unjum Mirza's "Workers' walkout in Ireland--action like this could stop Blair" (The Socialist Worker):
I was part of a delegation of British trade unionists who joined the 100,000 people marching in Dublin on Friday of last week. We were there to support workers occupying two Irish Ferries ships in Welsh ports.
There was a real sense of unity. Every section of the Irish trade union movement was there. Public sector workers united with private sector workers in solidarity with striking workers and in defence of migrant workers' rights.
The Irish Ferries dispute is a warning of what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's neo-liberal vision for workers in Britain is about. Across Europe the proposed Bolkestein directive will allow the bosses to employ workers in Britain on the worst safety regulations and least labour protection they can find in Europe.
Our government attacks pension rights, demanding that we work longer and harder to pay for our retirement. The lack of money for our pensions is in stark contrast to the bottomless pit that exists to fund the occupation of Iraq.
The scale of New Labour's assault needs the sort of response we have seen in Ireland. Mass protests and strikes would stop Brown and Blair in their tracks. Irish workers have shown that pressure can force the union leaders to take a stand and that it is possible to mobilise massive numbers into action.
We need the same determination from our union movement here.We have the power to win.
The following should be read alongside this article: » Ireland fights against the free marketeers
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Reporting from outside the US mainstream media focus on Iraq
Some of Allawi's campaign posters show himself and Safiya Al-Suhail. I can only guess Safiya being used in his campaign posters is meant as a gesture to Iraqi women who have felt more oppressed this year than ever. The problem is that if there's one woman Iraqi females can't relate to- it's Safiya Suhail. She's the daughter of some tribal leader who was assassinated abroad in the eighties or seventies- I'm not sure. She was raised in Lebanon and when she's on TV she comes across as arrogant, huffy and awkward with her Iraqi accent tainted with the Lebanese dialect.
It's a poster war. One day, you see the posters of Allawi, featuring Safiya Suhail, the next day, Allawi's big face is covered with pictures of Hakim and Sistani. Allawi's supporters have been complaining that Hakim’s supporters were sabotaging campaign posters.
[. . .]
Allawi is still an American puppet. His campaign posters, and the horrors of the last year, haven't changed that. People haven't forgotten his culpability in the whole Fallujah debacle. For some Iraqis, however, he's preferable to Hakim and Ja'affari after a year of detentions, abductions, assassinations and secret torture prisons.
There's a saying in Iraq which people are using right and left lately, and that I've used before in the blog, "Ili ishuf il mout, yirdha bil iskhuna." He who sees death, is content with a fever. Allawi et al. seem to be the fever these days…
The above is from Riverbend's "Elections..." (Baghdad Burning) and was noted by Denise who pointed out that there are women in Iraq, "regardless of whether [John F.] Burns wants to speak to them or not."
Bully Boy tried to spin tonight. Here's reality for American troops on the ground. Fatalities for the month? 42 (in eighteen days). Total since the invasion? 2155. Total of Iraqi fatalities? Unknown but the press has accepted the 30,000 figure now that the Bully Boy's used it.
Now here's image, via Kyle's highlight, "US Policies Speak Louder Than Dollars: Acehnese" (IslamOnline.net):
The image of the US in tsunami-hit parts of Asia may have enjoyed a boost thanks to its aid donations, but its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, along with its pro-Israeli stance, continue to incense Muslims across the region.
"I don't like the leader of the American people. I don't mind the people, I just don't like their leader," Yan, a 35-year-old Acehnese dried fish trader who bears deep scars on each arm from injuries sustained in the tsunami, told Agence France-Presse (AFP).
"We saw how the US is an arrogant nation. They think they are a superpower and the international police, that they rule everything," added the merchant, who lost his parents, grandparents and three brothers in the catastrophe.
"We don't hate the people -- we just don't understand the way the American government thinks."
A recent Gallup poll, conducted in 10 nations that comprise 80 percent of the world's Muslim population, found that the majority of them strongly doubt the US is trying to establish democracy in the Middle East and many think the Iraq war has done more harm than good.
A similar poll released on December 1 showed that most Arabs doubted that spreading democracy was the real US objective.
Oil, protecting Israel, dominating the region and weakening the Muslim world were seen as US goals, according to the survey, which included interviews with 800 people in each of Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates.
Here's some more reality, via DK, "US troop pullout from Iraq to take years: Powell" (China's Xinhuanet):
Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said it would take some years for the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq although the pullout could start in 2006.
"So one way or the other, I think a draw down will begin in 2006, but essentially just to walk away, to say that we're taking all of our troops out as fast as we can would be a tragic mistake. It's going to be years," Powell said in an interview with the BBC World TV Channel on Sunday.
More reality comes via Lynda's highlight, "Iraq captors free German hostage" (Al Jazeera):
Susanne Osthoff, the German woman taken hostage in Iraq, has been freed, Germany's foreign minister says.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, did not say how she was freed.
"I am glad to be able to announce to you ... that Mrs Susanne Osthoff is no longer in the hands of the kidnappers," he said on Sunday. "As of today, she is in the safety of the German Embassy in Baghdad."
Steinmeier added: "Our impression after talking to her is that she is in good physical condition."
On the CPT hostages, Anne notes "Still no word on Cdns kidnapped in Iraq" (Canada's Star Phoenix):
One week after they were threatened with death, there was no word Saturday on the fate of two Canadians being held hostage in Iraq.
A week ago, a group called the Swords of Righteousness Brigades threatened to kill James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden, along with a Briton and an American if U.S. and Iraqi authorities didn't release all Iraqi prisoners.
In Toronto on Saturday, members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams, waiting for news about their friends, tried to cope with the fact there's been no word on their fate.
"We are very concerned about our four colleagues and are working for their return," said Sheila Provencher, 33, a full-time Iraq Team member currently working out of Amman, Jordan.
In a news release Saturday night, the Christian Peacemaker Team in Iraq asked its supporters to contact President George W. Bush and ask him to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
Olive notes Reuter's "US network to appeal unfair dismissal ruling" via Australia's ABC (and note, the article is about the American ABC):
US television network ABC News will appeal a ruling by a British employment panel that found the it unfairly dismissed a London-based freelancer because he refused an assignment to Iraq.
Richard Gizbert, a long-time war correspondent, claimed he had been sacked because he refused an assignment to Iraq.
The 48-year-old Canadian had covered wars in Bosnia, Somalia and Chechnya for the network beginning in the early 1990s, but he did not want to after he had children.
Last year, the network declined to renew his contract. ABC News says it made the decision for strictly financial reasons and not for his refusal.
The panel disagreed, saying that ABC News' testimony during the case was inconsistent.
Mr Gizbert is seeking $US4 million in damages.
James in Brighton notes Jason Bennetto's "Gay couple 'threatened by troops' over civil ceremony" (The Independent of London):
A gay couple due to marry in one of Britain's first civil partnership ceremonies have received death threats claiming to be from British soldiers in Iraq.
Police are investigating the claim after a letter was sent to Gino Meriano days before the law changed to allow same-sex partners similar legal rights to married couples.
The message was written on official British Army notepaper and claimed to have been sent by members of a battalion currently serving in Iraq.
It threatened to "exterminate" Mr Meriano and his partner of seven years, Mike Ullett, if they went ahead with plans to take part in one of the first civil partnership ceremonies to be held tomorrow.
And Dominick notes "Iraq reports some violent intimidation of voters" (The Irish Examiner):
Bulgaria started withdrawing its 400-strong battalion and will transfer its military responsibilities in the city of Diwaniya to government forces. The Bulgarian defence ministry said that "with the elections conducted, Bulgaria’s infantry battalion has concluded successfully its mission in Iraq."
Finally, we note Pru's highlight, "Occupation is a disaster for the warmongers" (The Socialst Worker):
Veteran anti-war campaigner Tariq Ali gave a speech analysing the problems for the US in Iraq at last weekend's peace conference.
The war in Iraq is a complete and utter disaster. For the people of Iraq there is more suffering today than under the previous government. You have unlimited torture, the use of chemical weapons, limitless killing of civilians by the occupation forces in Iraq.
That is why it is our duty to build a peace movement that calls for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country. People ask, "If we leave, won't there be a messy civil war?" But what do they think is going on now?
Every one of the colonial occupations of the 20th century has led to a mass ethnic cleansing. When imperialists find they cannot control the situation they try to divide the population.
That is what is going on in Iraq today. Having failed to occupy the country, because of the resistance mounted inside Iraq, they have moved on to Plan B. They are now trying to divide Iraq into three bits.
But this creates massive contradictions for the US in the region. There's Turkey on one side and Iran on the other.
There will be the risk of setting off a new wave of opposition. While most of the Arab regimes are puppets that are unlikely to open their mouths, the people of the Middle East are opposed to the occupation of Iraq.
Every opinion poll in Iraq, even ones carried out by pro-imperialists, reports that 60 to 70 percent of the population are opposed to the occupation. Large swathes of Shia don’t support the politicians that speak in their name.
I have no doubt that the occupation will get messy. George Bush and Tony Blair are building military bases in Kurdish areas.
Every time politicians on either side of the Atlantic open their mouths they say they won't allow "terrorists" to change "our way of life". But all the Iraqis are saying is, "Get out of our country." It is the governments in the US and Britain that are changing the Iraqi people's way of life by creating this ugly war against them.
We need to stop these absurd laws against terrorism. The 90 day detention proposal was defeated, and thank heaven for that. But it’s not that 28 days is much better.
Why do they want to torture prisoners psychologically and physically by holding them without charge? It's to soften them up before they appear in court.
That's why it’s important to keep the peace movement and find different ways of moving to keep up pressure on our politicians, who only act when they are pressured from below.
Conferences like this are useful, but we must understand some of the complexities of the situation in Iraq.
There is no single resistance. But if we had nobody resisting then Bush and Blair would have claimed victory. If there's an anti-war movement in the US today, it's because large swathes of Iraqi people fought back.
This attempt to write off the resistance as "terrorists" is as old as imperialism itself. If they pass laws saying it is no longer legal to support the resistance we will defy these law.
But it's not going to be easy for the US. I do not believe it has the troops necessary to go to war with any other country.
This occupation cannot last. For good or bad, it’s the Iraqi people who will determine the future. I recently returned from a trip to Cuba and Venezuela. The officials there had large maps of Iraq pinned on their wall--they pointed to them and said, "They're fighting for us as well."
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
It's a poster war. One day, you see the posters of Allawi, featuring Safiya Suhail, the next day, Allawi's big face is covered with pictures of Hakim and Sistani. Allawi's supporters have been complaining that Hakim’s supporters were sabotaging campaign posters.
[. . .]
Allawi is still an American puppet. His campaign posters, and the horrors of the last year, haven't changed that. People haven't forgotten his culpability in the whole Fallujah debacle. For some Iraqis, however, he's preferable to Hakim and Ja'affari after a year of detentions, abductions, assassinations and secret torture prisons.
There's a saying in Iraq which people are using right and left lately, and that I've used before in the blog, "Ili ishuf il mout, yirdha bil iskhuna." He who sees death, is content with a fever. Allawi et al. seem to be the fever these days…
The above is from Riverbend's "Elections..." (Baghdad Burning) and was noted by Denise who pointed out that there are women in Iraq, "regardless of whether [John F.] Burns wants to speak to them or not."
Bully Boy tried to spin tonight. Here's reality for American troops on the ground. Fatalities for the month? 42 (in eighteen days). Total since the invasion? 2155. Total of Iraqi fatalities? Unknown but the press has accepted the 30,000 figure now that the Bully Boy's used it.
Now here's image, via Kyle's highlight, "US Policies Speak Louder Than Dollars: Acehnese" (IslamOnline.net):
The image of the US in tsunami-hit parts of Asia may have enjoyed a boost thanks to its aid donations, but its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, along with its pro-Israeli stance, continue to incense Muslims across the region.
"I don't like the leader of the American people. I don't mind the people, I just don't like their leader," Yan, a 35-year-old Acehnese dried fish trader who bears deep scars on each arm from injuries sustained in the tsunami, told Agence France-Presse (AFP).
"We saw how the US is an arrogant nation. They think they are a superpower and the international police, that they rule everything," added the merchant, who lost his parents, grandparents and three brothers in the catastrophe.
"We don't hate the people -- we just don't understand the way the American government thinks."
A recent Gallup poll, conducted in 10 nations that comprise 80 percent of the world's Muslim population, found that the majority of them strongly doubt the US is trying to establish democracy in the Middle East and many think the Iraq war has done more harm than good.
A similar poll released on December 1 showed that most Arabs doubted that spreading democracy was the real US objective.
Oil, protecting Israel, dominating the region and weakening the Muslim world were seen as US goals, according to the survey, which included interviews with 800 people in each of Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates.
Here's some more reality, via DK, "US troop pullout from Iraq to take years: Powell" (China's Xinhuanet):
Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said it would take some years for the United States to withdraw its troops from Iraq although the pullout could start in 2006.
"So one way or the other, I think a draw down will begin in 2006, but essentially just to walk away, to say that we're taking all of our troops out as fast as we can would be a tragic mistake. It's going to be years," Powell said in an interview with the BBC World TV Channel on Sunday.
More reality comes via Lynda's highlight, "Iraq captors free German hostage" (Al Jazeera):
Susanne Osthoff, the German woman taken hostage in Iraq, has been freed, Germany's foreign minister says.
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, did not say how she was freed.
"I am glad to be able to announce to you ... that Mrs Susanne Osthoff is no longer in the hands of the kidnappers," he said on Sunday. "As of today, she is in the safety of the German Embassy in Baghdad."
Steinmeier added: "Our impression after talking to her is that she is in good physical condition."
On the CPT hostages, Anne notes "Still no word on Cdns kidnapped in Iraq" (Canada's Star Phoenix):
One week after they were threatened with death, there was no word Saturday on the fate of two Canadians being held hostage in Iraq.
A week ago, a group called the Swords of Righteousness Brigades threatened to kill James Loney and Harmeet Singh Sooden, along with a Briton and an American if U.S. and Iraqi authorities didn't release all Iraqi prisoners.
In Toronto on Saturday, members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams, waiting for news about their friends, tried to cope with the fact there's been no word on their fate.
"We are very concerned about our four colleagues and are working for their return," said Sheila Provencher, 33, a full-time Iraq Team member currently working out of Amman, Jordan.
In a news release Saturday night, the Christian Peacemaker Team in Iraq asked its supporters to contact President George W. Bush and ask him to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
Olive notes Reuter's "US network to appeal unfair dismissal ruling" via Australia's ABC (and note, the article is about the American ABC):
US television network ABC News will appeal a ruling by a British employment panel that found the it unfairly dismissed a London-based freelancer because he refused an assignment to Iraq.
Richard Gizbert, a long-time war correspondent, claimed he had been sacked because he refused an assignment to Iraq.
The 48-year-old Canadian had covered wars in Bosnia, Somalia and Chechnya for the network beginning in the early 1990s, but he did not want to after he had children.
Last year, the network declined to renew his contract. ABC News says it made the decision for strictly financial reasons and not for his refusal.
The panel disagreed, saying that ABC News' testimony during the case was inconsistent.
Mr Gizbert is seeking $US4 million in damages.
James in Brighton notes Jason Bennetto's "Gay couple 'threatened by troops' over civil ceremony" (The Independent of London):
A gay couple due to marry in one of Britain's first civil partnership ceremonies have received death threats claiming to be from British soldiers in Iraq.
Police are investigating the claim after a letter was sent to Gino Meriano days before the law changed to allow same-sex partners similar legal rights to married couples.
The message was written on official British Army notepaper and claimed to have been sent by members of a battalion currently serving in Iraq.
It threatened to "exterminate" Mr Meriano and his partner of seven years, Mike Ullett, if they went ahead with plans to take part in one of the first civil partnership ceremonies to be held tomorrow.
And Dominick notes "Iraq reports some violent intimidation of voters" (The Irish Examiner):
Bulgaria started withdrawing its 400-strong battalion and will transfer its military responsibilities in the city of Diwaniya to government forces. The Bulgarian defence ministry said that "with the elections conducted, Bulgaria’s infantry battalion has concluded successfully its mission in Iraq."
Finally, we note Pru's highlight, "Occupation is a disaster for the warmongers" (The Socialst Worker):
Veteran anti-war campaigner Tariq Ali gave a speech analysing the problems for the US in Iraq at last weekend's peace conference.
The war in Iraq is a complete and utter disaster. For the people of Iraq there is more suffering today than under the previous government. You have unlimited torture, the use of chemical weapons, limitless killing of civilians by the occupation forces in Iraq.
That is why it is our duty to build a peace movement that calls for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country. People ask, "If we leave, won't there be a messy civil war?" But what do they think is going on now?
Every one of the colonial occupations of the 20th century has led to a mass ethnic cleansing. When imperialists find they cannot control the situation they try to divide the population.
That is what is going on in Iraq today. Having failed to occupy the country, because of the resistance mounted inside Iraq, they have moved on to Plan B. They are now trying to divide Iraq into three bits.
But this creates massive contradictions for the US in the region. There's Turkey on one side and Iran on the other.
There will be the risk of setting off a new wave of opposition. While most of the Arab regimes are puppets that are unlikely to open their mouths, the people of the Middle East are opposed to the occupation of Iraq.
Every opinion poll in Iraq, even ones carried out by pro-imperialists, reports that 60 to 70 percent of the population are opposed to the occupation. Large swathes of Shia don’t support the politicians that speak in their name.
I have no doubt that the occupation will get messy. George Bush and Tony Blair are building military bases in Kurdish areas.
Every time politicians on either side of the Atlantic open their mouths they say they won't allow "terrorists" to change "our way of life". But all the Iraqis are saying is, "Get out of our country." It is the governments in the US and Britain that are changing the Iraqi people's way of life by creating this ugly war against them.
We need to stop these absurd laws against terrorism. The 90 day detention proposal was defeated, and thank heaven for that. But it’s not that 28 days is much better.
Why do they want to torture prisoners psychologically and physically by holding them without charge? It's to soften them up before they appear in court.
That's why it’s important to keep the peace movement and find different ways of moving to keep up pressure on our politicians, who only act when they are pressured from below.
Conferences like this are useful, but we must understand some of the complexities of the situation in Iraq.
There is no single resistance. But if we had nobody resisting then Bush and Blair would have claimed victory. If there's an anti-war movement in the US today, it's because large swathes of Iraqi people fought back.
This attempt to write off the resistance as "terrorists" is as old as imperialism itself. If they pass laws saying it is no longer legal to support the resistance we will defy these law.
But it's not going to be easy for the US. I do not believe it has the troops necessary to go to war with any other country.
This occupation cannot last. For good or bad, it’s the Iraqi people who will determine the future. I recently returned from a trip to Cuba and Venezuela. The officials there had large maps of Iraq pinned on their wall--they pointed to them and said, "They're fighting for us as well."
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
NYT: Raymond Bonner on Guantanamo Detainee, Linda Greenhouse on Jose Padilla's case
How long before you'd crack? That's the question that may arise from two stories in this morning's New York Times. (Both appear on page A12.)
The first is Raymond Bonner's "Terror Suspect's Ordeal in U.S. Custody" tells the story of Muhammed Saad Iqbal who has been a detainee in one form or another for "nearly four years now." One form or another?
He wasn't take to Guantamo Bay right away. He was in Jarkata when extraordinary rendition (by our government) landed him in Egypt (the article notes 92 days in Egypt). From there it was on to Bgram in Afghanistan (the article notes a year spent there) and then finally Guantanamo. The man American "intelligence officials" expected to be "booted out of jail" quickly, the man that they concluded was "a blowhard" who "wanted us to believe he was more important than he was" appears to have cracked. One former prisoner, Mamdough Habib, notes that Iqbal "was fully crazy. He doesn't know where he is anymore." Another person, a friend of Muhammed Saad Iqbal, maintains that the Red Cross passed on that "He's gone crazy."
What was the point of detainees? Supposedly they had or might have information, valid information, that would prevent an attack. Does anyone really think, because certain American intelligence officials don't, that Iqbal can provide any reliable information?
What was the point of this? Let's note what Amy Goodman was told on Democracy Now!:
JANIS KARPINSKI: The only person that I spoke to individually after General Miller's visit – briefing, his in-brief, that initial briefing, I went to find the JAG officer, the legal officer, lawyer, who was with General Miller, and she was -- I believe she was a major and she had been working down at Guantanamo Bay. So, I asked her, I said, "What are you doing about releasing the prisoners down at Guantanamo Bay?" And she said, "Ma'am, we're not releasing prisoners. Most of those prisoners are going to spend every last day of their lives at Guantanamo Bay. They're terrorists. We're not releasing them." And I said, "Well, what are you going to do? Fly their family members over to visit them?" She said "No, these are terrorists, ma'am. They don't get visits from home." And that was -- that was absolutely shocking, thinking about the fate of these, what we believed was, several hundred prisoners down there, 680 prisoners spending every last day of their lives at Guantanamo Bay, and particularly important because that meant that military police would be guarding them for the foreseeable future.
Every last day of their lives at Guantanamo Bay? Bonner notes:
After questioning Mr. Iqbal, the intelligence officers were still not convinced he posed a threat. They thought he would be held for a few days, "then booted out of jail," said an American offical. The official said they did not even think it would be necessary to deport him.
Bonner's report also brings up the issue of hunger strikes and suicided attempts. (Which the military says are "largely theatrical events staged" by prisoners "to draw attention to their complaints.")
So how long would it take for you to crack? Not to hand over information, just to lose it completely? In May of 2006, Jose Padilla will have been held for four years. His case is the focus of Linda Greenhouse's "Justices Are Urged to Dismiss Padilla's Case." The administration, which has not charged him with the "dirty bomb" claim asserted publicly when his status was made public via a press conference by J-Ass, wants the Supreme Court to refuse to hear his "challenge to his miltary detention as an enemy combatant."
As Padilla's defense points out, the administraion still classifies Padilla as an enemy combatant and will not take a military tribunal off the table despite the fact that they now wish to prosecute Padilla in a civilian court.
At what point do you crack? At what point do you lose it?
Let's note Karpinski one more time:
JANIS KARPINSKI: When concepts such as a speedy trial fly out the window, when you can be detained indefinately, what do you hold on to?
And that was -- that was absolutely shocking, thinking about the fate of these, what we believed was, several hundred prisoners down there, 680 prisoners spending every last day of their lives at Guantanamo Bay, and particularly important because that meant that military police would be guarding them for the foreseeable future.
Lloyd notes Matthew Rothschild's "Patriots and the Patriot Act" (This Just In, The Progressive):
The Patriot Act reauthorization would have extended the most loathsome aspects of the act another four years, including giving the FBI and local law enforcement the power to obtain your library records and your bookstore purchases and allowing the Justice Department to issue National Security Letters that are like their own subpoenas and then gag you from discussing them. (For a good summary of the defects of the bill, go to the ACLU's website.)
The conference bill also contained new language that would criminalize "disruptive or potentially dangerous conduct" at Secret Service events, even when the President, Vice President, or other protectees are not in attendance. (See Section. 602 of the conference bill)
So, for instance, during the first few days of a national convention, if you’re holding a peace sign and being "disruptive," you could be arrested and face a year in prison.
Other new, punitive language in the conference bill says that if you violate the gag order on National Security Letters, you could face "five years imprisonment." (See Section 117.)
I'll note that The Third Estate Sunday Review is up and of special interest will probably be
"Hot Trend for 2005: Arresting consituents who want to express an opinion." This addresses the arrests noted in the last entry yesterday which, judging by e-mails is a topic that has outraged many members. So check that out. (And there are other features as well.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. And Mark Crispin Miller and Eleanor Clift should be guests on today's The Laura Flanders Show. A number of members from Texas pointed out that it's Kay Bailey Hutchison and not "Hutchinson." I'll try to correct that this evening. (Error in entry immediately below this one.)
the new york times
raymond bonner
muhammad saad iqbal
jose padilla
linda greenhouse
the laura flanders show
laura flanders
mark crispin miller
eleanor clift
matthew rothschild
democracy now
amy goodman
janis karpinski
the third estate sunday review
The first is Raymond Bonner's "Terror Suspect's Ordeal in U.S. Custody" tells the story of Muhammed Saad Iqbal who has been a detainee in one form or another for "nearly four years now." One form or another?
He wasn't take to Guantamo Bay right away. He was in Jarkata when extraordinary rendition (by our government) landed him in Egypt (the article notes 92 days in Egypt). From there it was on to Bgram in Afghanistan (the article notes a year spent there) and then finally Guantanamo. The man American "intelligence officials" expected to be "booted out of jail" quickly, the man that they concluded was "a blowhard" who "wanted us to believe he was more important than he was" appears to have cracked. One former prisoner, Mamdough Habib, notes that Iqbal "was fully crazy. He doesn't know where he is anymore." Another person, a friend of Muhammed Saad Iqbal, maintains that the Red Cross passed on that "He's gone crazy."
What was the point of detainees? Supposedly they had or might have information, valid information, that would prevent an attack. Does anyone really think, because certain American intelligence officials don't, that Iqbal can provide any reliable information?
What was the point of this? Let's note what Amy Goodman was told on Democracy Now!:
JANIS KARPINSKI: The only person that I spoke to individually after General Miller's visit – briefing, his in-brief, that initial briefing, I went to find the JAG officer, the legal officer, lawyer, who was with General Miller, and she was -- I believe she was a major and she had been working down at Guantanamo Bay. So, I asked her, I said, "What are you doing about releasing the prisoners down at Guantanamo Bay?" And she said, "Ma'am, we're not releasing prisoners. Most of those prisoners are going to spend every last day of their lives at Guantanamo Bay. They're terrorists. We're not releasing them." And I said, "Well, what are you going to do? Fly their family members over to visit them?" She said "No, these are terrorists, ma'am. They don't get visits from home." And that was -- that was absolutely shocking, thinking about the fate of these, what we believed was, several hundred prisoners down there, 680 prisoners spending every last day of their lives at Guantanamo Bay, and particularly important because that meant that military police would be guarding them for the foreseeable future.
Every last day of their lives at Guantanamo Bay? Bonner notes:
After questioning Mr. Iqbal, the intelligence officers were still not convinced he posed a threat. They thought he would be held for a few days, "then booted out of jail," said an American offical. The official said they did not even think it would be necessary to deport him.
Bonner's report also brings up the issue of hunger strikes and suicided attempts. (Which the military says are "largely theatrical events staged" by prisoners "to draw attention to their complaints.")
So how long would it take for you to crack? Not to hand over information, just to lose it completely? In May of 2006, Jose Padilla will have been held for four years. His case is the focus of Linda Greenhouse's "Justices Are Urged to Dismiss Padilla's Case." The administration, which has not charged him with the "dirty bomb" claim asserted publicly when his status was made public via a press conference by J-Ass, wants the Supreme Court to refuse to hear his "challenge to his miltary detention as an enemy combatant."
As Padilla's defense points out, the administraion still classifies Padilla as an enemy combatant and will not take a military tribunal off the table despite the fact that they now wish to prosecute Padilla in a civilian court.
At what point do you crack? At what point do you lose it?
Let's note Karpinski one more time:
JANIS KARPINSKI: When concepts such as a speedy trial fly out the window, when you can be detained indefinately, what do you hold on to?
And that was -- that was absolutely shocking, thinking about the fate of these, what we believed was, several hundred prisoners down there, 680 prisoners spending every last day of their lives at Guantanamo Bay, and particularly important because that meant that military police would be guarding them for the foreseeable future.
Lloyd notes Matthew Rothschild's "Patriots and the Patriot Act" (This Just In, The Progressive):
The Patriot Act reauthorization would have extended the most loathsome aspects of the act another four years, including giving the FBI and local law enforcement the power to obtain your library records and your bookstore purchases and allowing the Justice Department to issue National Security Letters that are like their own subpoenas and then gag you from discussing them. (For a good summary of the defects of the bill, go to the ACLU's website.)
The conference bill also contained new language that would criminalize "disruptive or potentially dangerous conduct" at Secret Service events, even when the President, Vice President, or other protectees are not in attendance. (See Section. 602 of the conference bill)
So, for instance, during the first few days of a national convention, if you’re holding a peace sign and being "disruptive," you could be arrested and face a year in prison.
Other new, punitive language in the conference bill says that if you violate the gag order on National Security Letters, you could face "five years imprisonment." (See Section 117.)
I'll note that The Third Estate Sunday Review is up and of special interest will probably be
"Hot Trend for 2005: Arresting consituents who want to express an opinion." This addresses the arrests noted in the last entry yesterday which, judging by e-mails is a topic that has outraged many members. So check that out. (And there are other features as well.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. And Mark Crispin Miller and Eleanor Clift should be guests on today's The Laura Flanders Show. A number of members from Texas pointed out that it's Kay Bailey Hutchison and not "Hutchinson." I'll try to correct that this evening. (Error in entry immediately below this one.)
the new york times
raymond bonner
muhammad saad iqbal
jose padilla
linda greenhouse
the laura flanders show
laura flanders
mark crispin miller
eleanor clift
matthew rothschild
democracy now
amy goodman
janis karpinski
the third estate sunday review
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)