Excerpt: we reiterate the importance of using appropriate language. Those of us with experience have a duty to mentor those who are just now contemplating acts of resistance. And when we act, we engage in civil resistance.
WE COMMIT CIVIL RESISTANCE NOT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
By Max Obuszewski | Inside the Belly of the Beltway Beast
In 2002, the Iraq Pledge of Resistance was formed to prevent a war with Iraq. While we failed, we continued to engage in nonviolent direct action to end the war and the occupation. Eventually, the group, in expanding its focus, became the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance [NCNR].
In light of the massive Capitol Climate Action on March 2nd, we would like to take the opportunity to describe what we as a campaign have committed ourselves to. We celebrate this opportunity to share our thoughts with other progressive activists.
As a group with lots of direct action experience, NCNR has consistently encouraged organizations and individuals to recognize the difference between civil disobedience and civil resistance. We see the difference as being important in the struggle for nonviolent, positive social change.
The classic definition of civil disobedience, as practiced by the civil rights movement, is the breaking of an unjust law with the intent of changing it. In Montgomery, Alabama in 1955, Rosa Parks broke an immoral law when she refused to give up her seat on a city bus to a white person.
It is rare for today's activists to do "civil disobedience," as it removes the onus from the government to prove a defendant was engaged in criminal activity. Doing CD can cause a majority of the people to plead guilty and pay a protest tax. Doing CD eliminates the argument that the government, or a corporate entity, is the lawbreaker.
Today, NCNR activists engage in civil resistance, which means taking action to uphold the law. For example, we repeatedly challenged the Bush/Cheney government which disavowed the rule of law.
Using the term civil resistance is important for several reasons. First, in every statement about an action we point out that a government, or a corporate entity, is breaking the law. Second, we stress our Nuremberg obligation to act against the government's lawbreaking. Finally, there is the matter of speaking in court after the action. A defendant who states s/he was engaged in civil disobedience not only is pleading guilty, but is letting the
government off the hook for its failure to prosecute the real criminals.
If we are arrested, we encourage participants to go to trial and then use the courtroom to state that the action was lawful since its intent was to expose actual violations of the law—starting an illegal war, torturing prisoners or destroying the environment.
In court, we point out citizens have a Nuremberg obligation. At the Nuremberg trials, the court determined that citizens must challenge the government when it breaks the law.
Using the term civil disobedience today can confuse activists new to resistance. An activist would assume first that the rationale is to get arrested in order to change the law, and second that one is guilty as charged.
Reporters and prosecutors will make the case, you wanted to get arrested. No, the intent of the person involved in civil resistance was to end torture or to close down a nuclear power plant or to uphold the Constitution. One reason a prosecutor asks such a question is that most charges have a "mens rea" [guilty mind] component to the charge. The government will argue that the defendant's intent was to get arrested. No, the intent, for example, was to try to get a meeting with a senator who voted to fund an illegal war.
On January 3, 2008 twelve activists arrested on September 15, 2007 outside the Capitol had their case dismissed. Over 180 people arrested that day plead guilty and paid a citation fee. Once the case came to court, it became evident that the police line was illegal. If possible, activists should take these "open and shut" cases to court. Not only did the Bush administration break innumerable laws, but police consistently violate First Amendment rights. Even if one is found guilty after engaging in an act of civil resistance, an absurdity can become obvious: prosecute an activist who stated the war is illegal, but ignore the criminality rampant in the Bush administration.
In closing, we reiterate the importance of using appropriate language. Those of us with experience have a duty to mentor those who are just now contemplating acts of resistance. And when we act, we engage in civil resistance.
For more on the various arguments and concerns regarding the movement to establish a Special Prosecutor for War Crime Investigation and related issues, please go here
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Father Roy Bourgeois Keynote Talk March 1, 2009 Sunday
(CNS file photo, 2004)
The Talk is to be broadcast both 3 PM and 11 PM ET on Freespeach TV:
here
Father’s blessing brings peace to Roy Bourgeois
In his own words, Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois has “poked at a lot of hornets nests” along the way from soldier in Vietnam to committed pacifist and persistent critic of U.S. military policy. He’s poked at the presumptions of major institutions and systems, including, most recently, standing in opposition to the Catholic church’s ban on ordaining women.
But for all of the heat he’s taken, for all of the scary episodes that come with bucking the status quo, one of the most emotionally wrenching moments of his life occurred just days ago in the living room of his childhood home.
There he stood, with his sisters, Ann and Janet, and his brother, Dan. They had read his response to the Vatican’s threat of excommunication if he did not recant his position supporting women’s ordination. In it he had said he could no more rescind his position on ordination of women than he could recant his opposition to the training of foreign troops at what was once called the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Ga., or his opposition to the war in Iraq.
So they all knew that his 36-year career as a priest was probably nearing an end, that after 36 years of service, work among the poor and against military violence, he would be ostracized, no longer considered a part of the church community.
They waited now to hear what 95-year-old Roy Sr., devout Catholic and daily Mass attendee, would say about this latest in a long history of controversies involving his son.
“My siblings were afraid this would break his heart. My sister Ann was the first to ask him, ‘Daddy, how do you feel about this?’ ” Bourgeois recalled in a Nov. 17 phone interview. “My dad cried. He’s a soft-hearted guy. But then he got his composure and said: ‘God brought Roy back from the war in Vietnam. God took care of Roy in his mission work in Bolivia and El Salvador, and God is going to take care of Roy now.’ Then he said, ‘Roy is doing the right thing by following his conscience, and I support him.’ ”
They all wept, said Bourgeois. It was curious, he said, because all of them had worried that the news would be terribly upsetting to his father. “But then this person of great inner strength looked at us and said, ‘God will look after the family, too.’ ”
Bourgeois, who faces almost certain excommunication, was the founder of an annual protest outside the gates of Fort Benning and what once was called the School of the Americas. This year’s protest will be held Nov. 21-23. The school’s name was changed in recent years to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
As the School of the Americas, the facility trained scores of Latin American military who can be traced to committing or overseeing some of the most horrendous human rights abuses in modern Latin American history. Troops engaged in assassinations, disappearances, torture and massacres of hundreds of thousands throughout the region. Some of the most heinous crimes occurred in El Salvador and Guatemala during periods of civil war there in the latter part of the 20th century.
Bourgeois is known primarily for his campaign against the School of the Americas and opposition to the war in Iraq as well as his advocacy of the story of Franz Jagerstatter, the Austrian farmer who was executed for refusing induction into the German military during World War II.
Increasingly in recent years, however, he has become a vocal critic of the church’s ban on women’s ordination. He said he kept meeting women who said they had a call from God for ordination. “Who are we, as men, to say their call is illegitimate,” he regularly asked.
For Bourgeois, the issue was a matter of justice, and he reached a point this past summer when he could no longer remain on the sidelines. Janice Sevre-Duszynska, a regular protester at the School of the Americas, asked Bourgeois to attend her ordination Aug. 9 in Lexington, Ky. She became the sixth woman to be ordained in the United States this year as part of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement.
The Vatican response arrived Oct. 21, threatening excommunication unless Bourgeois recanted his statements saying the church is wrong and unjust in maintaining the ban.
When he received the letter, Bourgeois, canceled all plans. He travels widely, giving talks and consulting with representatives of Latin American governments to persuade them to stop sending soldiers to the United States for training.
He decided to go into solitude for two weeks to meditate and pray and to work on his response to the Vatican. He completed the response Nov. 7, mailed it and headed off on a seven-hour drive to his childhood home in tiny Lutcher, La., where his father still lives.
He had arranged a meeting with his siblings and his father. His sisters, especially, were fearful about what the news would do to his father.
“When I received his blessing and the blessing of my family, I felt a great peace. A total peace came over me. And I’ve felt peaceful ever since I came back from Louisiana.” Nothing the Vatican does, he said, can take that peace and serenity away.
Still, he prepares for a lonely move into the unknown. Fellow priests have called and written to voice their agreement and support, but all of them say they can’t do it publicly because it would jeopardize their ministries and positions within the church. He doesn’t know what kind of association, if any, he’ll be able to maintain with Maryknoll in the future.
Bourgeois expects a final word from Rome soon. His deadline to recant is(was) Nov. 21.
Betsy Guest, Maryknoll spokesperson, said the society was led to believe that a response will be made Nov. 24. She said that unless Rome levies further penalties, such as revoking Bourgeois’ membership in the society, he can remain a member of Maryknoll, though he will be unable to function as a priest. He hopes that when the final word comes he would be given the courtesy of 15-minute visits with Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that issued the warning of excommunication.
“I am not angry,” said Bourgeois, who acknowledged early on that his attendance at the ordination could have serious consequences. “I don’t want to respond in anger. I would like to meet with them personally to explain my position and make my appeal.”
Tom Roberts is NCR editor at large.
Find Related Bourgeois articles at this same URL: here
Find plenty about Father Roy's work here
ACTION on Israeli-Palestinian Peace: FCNL
Friends Committee on National Legislation - A Quaker Lobby in the Public Interest
***Take Action: Urge Support for House Resolution Endorsing Obama Vision of Israeli-Palestinian Peace***here
***Welcome to FCNL's Greater Middle East Diplomacy Update for February 27, 2009***
"To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East… are inextricably linked." Iraq Study Group, December 2006
*Iraq: Obama Speech is Major Milestone on Road to End War in Iraq*
President Barack Obama's speech from Camp Lejune this morning marks a major milestone on the road to end the war in Iraq. The president pledged to end the U.S. combat mission and reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq to between 35,000 and 50,000 by August 2010. This is a slower drawdown than we at FCNL would like to see, but it is consistent with the president's campaign pledge and it is a step towards bringing the war to an end.
Along with the troop drawdown, the president outlined an approach to the region centered around inclusive diplomacy, including talks with Iran and Syria, which we at FCNL have long advocated. The president's policy follows almost exactly the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report issued in December 2006, which FCNL supports and which Obama introduced legislation to implement in January 2007 when serving in the Senate.
We at FCNL will be paying special attention to how well the president's policies implement the provisions of the November 2008 U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement. The agreement requires the United States to redeploy its combat troops outside Iof raq's cities, towns, and villages no later than June 30, 2009. The president's declaration today is consistent with the agreement but does not ensure that the United States will comply with the redeployment provision.
More cause for concern is the president's reference to the second withdrawal provision of the U.S.-Iraq accord, which obligates the United States to withdraw all of its armed forces from Iraq no later than December 31, 2011. The president said only that under the agreement he intends to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2011. FCNL will continue to urge Congress to assert its constitutional role in approving the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement. Congress should make clear that the December 31 deadline for complete withdrawal is a binding commitment for the United States that cannot be changed without congressional consent. [Full text of speech can be found here: here
*Israel-Palestine: Gaza Hearing, Congressional Visits, Evidence Change*
The new “pro-Israel, pro-peace” J Street lobby wrote in its most recent action alert that “momentum is building in Washington behind renewed US peace efforts in the Middle East.” Congressional and administration actions over the past two weeks suggest that this is more than communications hype. Consider the following developments.
* Ackerman and Wexler Take on Israeli Settlements: House Foreign Affairs Middle East Subcommittee Chair Gary Ackerman (NY) held a February 12 hearing on “Gaza after the War: What Can Be Built on the Wreckage?” In his opening statement Ackerman decried a “downward spiral” in Israeli-Palestinian relations caused by “terrorism and the march of settlements and outposts, from the firing of rockets and the perpetration of settler pogroms.” Since Ackerman is considered one of Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress, his references to settlements and settler pogroms drew much attention.
Subcommittee member Robert Wexler (FL) also criticized Israeli settlement expansion. “The Palestinians have enormous responsibilities,” he said, “but the notion that Israel can continue to expand settlements, whether it be through natural growth or otherwise without diminishing the capacity of a two-state solution is both unrealistic, and I would respectfully suggest hypocritical.” The Obama administration, he added, should insist that Israel fulfill its previous commitments to freeze settlement construction.
* Ellison and Baird Visit Gaza and Deplore Conditions: Over the Presidents Day recess Reps. Keith Ellison (MN) and Brian Baird (WA) became the first U.S. officials to visit the Gaza Strip since the Hamas takeover in June 2007. The two members of Congress said they visited to view firsthand the destruction from the Israeli attacks and to meet international and local relief workers.
“The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering,” Baird said in a joint press release here with Ellison. “Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, schools completely leveled, fundamental water, sewer, and electricity facilities hit and relief agencies heavily damaged. The personal stories of children being killed in their homes or schools, entire families wiped out, and relief workers prevented from evacuating the wounded are heart wrenching — what went on here, and what is continuing to go on, is shocking and troubling beyond words.”
“The stories about the children affected me the most,” Ellison said. “No parent, or anyone who cares for kids, can remain unmoved by what Brian and I saw here.”
The two concluded, “If this had happened in our own country, there would be national outrage and an appeal for urgent assistance. We are glad that the Obama administration acted quickly to send much needed funding for this effort but the arbitrary and unreasonable Israeli limitations on food and repair essentials is unacceptable and indefensible.” Ellison and Baird also visited the Israeli town of Sderot and called for an end to Hamas rocket fire on Israel as well as the lifting of the Gaza blockade.
* Kerry Breaks Israel’s Macaroni Blockade: The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (MA), also visited the Gaza Strip over the Presidents Day recess. Kerry learned from U.N. officials during his visit that Israeli authorities had refused to allow macaroni to enter Gaza. Israel, Kerry was told, did not define pasta products as part of humanitarian aid and was allowing only rice to cross the border. Kerry later met with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and questioned the logic of preventing macaroni from reaching Gaza. Israeli newspapers reported here that Kerry’s intervention prompted Israel to lift its macaroni embargo.
* Clinton and Mitchell Take on Israel’s Gaza Aid Restrictions: U.S. Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are reportedly sending Israel a series of messages [http://action.fcnl.org/r/29247/58021/0] expressing U.S. anger at obstacles Israel is putting in the way of humanitarian aid delivery to Gaza. The issue is expected to be a focus of upcoming visits to Israel by Mitchell and Clinton. Israel is allowing some 150 truckloads of supplies into Gaza every day, while U.S., European Union, and U.N. officials say 500 truckloads per day are needed to meet the minimum needs of Gaza’s 1.5 million residents.
* Israel-Palestine Peace Resolution Gains House Cosponsors: H. Res. 130, the resolution introduced February 4 by Rep. William Delahunt (MA) supporting the Mitchell peace mission and affirming that Israeli-Palestinian peace is an essential U.S. national security interest, is gaining ground. It currently has 65 cosponsors, more than any House resolution supporting Israeli-Palestinian peace has ever garnered. here
* Senate Chimes in with Feinstein Letter to Clinton: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) has circulated among her colleagues a sign-on letter to Secretary of State Clinton endorsing the Obama administration’s efforts to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace and affirming that Israeli security and Israeli-Palestinian peace are vital U.S. national security interests. Click here
These congressional and administration actions over the past two weeks reveal a growing will to take the steps needed to make progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. Grassroots support can keep that will growing.
***Afghanistan/Iran: Is the U.S. Preparing to Engage Iran on Afghanistan?***
For U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, “It is absolutely clear that Iran plays an important role in Afghanistan. They have a legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan’s neighbors.”
Holbrooke’s statement, made February 15 on his first visit to Kabul, and several other recent developments suggest that the Obama administration may be pursuing an “Afghanistan first” approach to engagement with Iran. The goals would be to enlist Iranian help in stabilizing Afghanistan and open U.S.-Iranian talks in an area where the two countries have common interests and have cooperated closely in the past.
Such a policy would follow one of the key recommendations on Afghanistan that FCNL made in its February 18 letter to President Barack Obama. “Direct U.S. engagement with Iran,” we said, “will be critical to the success” of a regional diplomatic initiative to promote peace and stability in Afghanistan “and could pave the way for broader cooperation” with Iran.
Another sign of efforts to engage Iran on Afghanistan was the Italian foreign ministry announcement on February 23 that Italy is considering inviting Iran to a June 27 meeting in Trieste to discuss ways to stabilize Afghanistan and secure the Afghan-Pakistani border area. The meeting would bring the United States and other G-8 countries together with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, India, China, and Turkey to discuss Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) has reacted cautiously but positively to including Iran in the June Trieste conference. After returning from a visit to Italy and Afghanistan this week, she said she and Italian officials had “sounded each other out” on the idea of including Iran. "Italy has a big commercial relationship with Iran, comparatively speaking,” Pelosi said, “and I think we made it clear that we thought that it would be important to use their good offices to help resolve issues that we have with Iran."
The United States has also signaled that it would accept the opening of a supply route through Iran to supply NATO forces in Afghanistan. In early February the NATO supreme commander, U.S. Gen. John Craddock, said he had no objections to NATO member states’ concluding agreements with Iran to bring in supplies through that country. "Those would be national decisions,” Craddock said. “Nations should act in a manner that is consistent with their national interest and with their ability to resupply their forces. I think it is purely up to them."
Taken together, these developments suggest that the administration is positioning itself for a diplomatic initiative that could improve both conditions in Afghanistan and U.S.-Iranian relations.
***Take Action***
If you have not yet written to your representative asking him or her to cosponsor H. Res. 130, please do so now. If you have already written, contact three friends and ask them to write. This resolution endorsing the Obama administration’s efforts to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace and asserting that ending the conflict is an essential U.S. national security interest is gaining ground. It already has more cosponsors than any previous House resolution supporting Israeli-Palestinian peace, and it is becoming an important barometer of congressional support for U.S. peacemaking efforts. Help make the barometer register record high pressure. Write and ask your friends to write now Click here
***Take Action: Urge Support for House Resolution Endorsing Obama Vision of Israeli-Palestinian Peace***here
***Welcome to FCNL's Greater Middle East Diplomacy Update for February 27, 2009***
"To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East… are inextricably linked." Iraq Study Group, December 2006
*Iraq: Obama Speech is Major Milestone on Road to End War in Iraq*
President Barack Obama's speech from Camp Lejune this morning marks a major milestone on the road to end the war in Iraq. The president pledged to end the U.S. combat mission and reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq to between 35,000 and 50,000 by August 2010. This is a slower drawdown than we at FCNL would like to see, but it is consistent with the president's campaign pledge and it is a step towards bringing the war to an end.
Along with the troop drawdown, the president outlined an approach to the region centered around inclusive diplomacy, including talks with Iran and Syria, which we at FCNL have long advocated. The president's policy follows almost exactly the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report issued in December 2006, which FCNL supports and which Obama introduced legislation to implement in January 2007 when serving in the Senate.
We at FCNL will be paying special attention to how well the president's policies implement the provisions of the November 2008 U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement. The agreement requires the United States to redeploy its combat troops outside Iof raq's cities, towns, and villages no later than June 30, 2009. The president's declaration today is consistent with the agreement but does not ensure that the United States will comply with the redeployment provision.
More cause for concern is the president's reference to the second withdrawal provision of the U.S.-Iraq accord, which obligates the United States to withdraw all of its armed forces from Iraq no later than December 31, 2011. The president said only that under the agreement he intends to withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2011. FCNL will continue to urge Congress to assert its constitutional role in approving the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement. Congress should make clear that the December 31 deadline for complete withdrawal is a binding commitment for the United States that cannot be changed without congressional consent. [Full text of speech can be found here: here
*Israel-Palestine: Gaza Hearing, Congressional Visits, Evidence Change*
The new “pro-Israel, pro-peace” J Street lobby wrote in its most recent action alert that “momentum is building in Washington behind renewed US peace efforts in the Middle East.” Congressional and administration actions over the past two weeks suggest that this is more than communications hype. Consider the following developments.
* Ackerman and Wexler Take on Israeli Settlements: House Foreign Affairs Middle East Subcommittee Chair Gary Ackerman (NY) held a February 12 hearing on “Gaza after the War: What Can Be Built on the Wreckage?” In his opening statement Ackerman decried a “downward spiral” in Israeli-Palestinian relations caused by “terrorism and the march of settlements and outposts, from the firing of rockets and the perpetration of settler pogroms.” Since Ackerman is considered one of Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress, his references to settlements and settler pogroms drew much attention.
Subcommittee member Robert Wexler (FL) also criticized Israeli settlement expansion. “The Palestinians have enormous responsibilities,” he said, “but the notion that Israel can continue to expand settlements, whether it be through natural growth or otherwise without diminishing the capacity of a two-state solution is both unrealistic, and I would respectfully suggest hypocritical.” The Obama administration, he added, should insist that Israel fulfill its previous commitments to freeze settlement construction.
* Ellison and Baird Visit Gaza and Deplore Conditions: Over the Presidents Day recess Reps. Keith Ellison (MN) and Brian Baird (WA) became the first U.S. officials to visit the Gaza Strip since the Hamas takeover in June 2007. The two members of Congress said they visited to view firsthand the destruction from the Israeli attacks and to meet international and local relief workers.
“The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering,” Baird said in a joint press release here with Ellison. “Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, schools completely leveled, fundamental water, sewer, and electricity facilities hit and relief agencies heavily damaged. The personal stories of children being killed in their homes or schools, entire families wiped out, and relief workers prevented from evacuating the wounded are heart wrenching — what went on here, and what is continuing to go on, is shocking and troubling beyond words.”
“The stories about the children affected me the most,” Ellison said. “No parent, or anyone who cares for kids, can remain unmoved by what Brian and I saw here.”
The two concluded, “If this had happened in our own country, there would be national outrage and an appeal for urgent assistance. We are glad that the Obama administration acted quickly to send much needed funding for this effort but the arbitrary and unreasonable Israeli limitations on food and repair essentials is unacceptable and indefensible.” Ellison and Baird also visited the Israeli town of Sderot and called for an end to Hamas rocket fire on Israel as well as the lifting of the Gaza blockade.
* Kerry Breaks Israel’s Macaroni Blockade: The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (MA), also visited the Gaza Strip over the Presidents Day recess. Kerry learned from U.N. officials during his visit that Israeli authorities had refused to allow macaroni to enter Gaza. Israel, Kerry was told, did not define pasta products as part of humanitarian aid and was allowing only rice to cross the border. Kerry later met with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and questioned the logic of preventing macaroni from reaching Gaza. Israeli newspapers reported here that Kerry’s intervention prompted Israel to lift its macaroni embargo.
* Clinton and Mitchell Take on Israel’s Gaza Aid Restrictions: U.S. Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are reportedly sending Israel a series of messages [http://action.fcnl.org/r/29247/58021/0] expressing U.S. anger at obstacles Israel is putting in the way of humanitarian aid delivery to Gaza. The issue is expected to be a focus of upcoming visits to Israel by Mitchell and Clinton. Israel is allowing some 150 truckloads of supplies into Gaza every day, while U.S., European Union, and U.N. officials say 500 truckloads per day are needed to meet the minimum needs of Gaza’s 1.5 million residents.
* Israel-Palestine Peace Resolution Gains House Cosponsors: H. Res. 130, the resolution introduced February 4 by Rep. William Delahunt (MA) supporting the Mitchell peace mission and affirming that Israeli-Palestinian peace is an essential U.S. national security interest, is gaining ground. It currently has 65 cosponsors, more than any House resolution supporting Israeli-Palestinian peace has ever garnered. here
* Senate Chimes in with Feinstein Letter to Clinton: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) has circulated among her colleagues a sign-on letter to Secretary of State Clinton endorsing the Obama administration’s efforts to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace and affirming that Israeli security and Israeli-Palestinian peace are vital U.S. national security interests. Click here
These congressional and administration actions over the past two weeks reveal a growing will to take the steps needed to make progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. Grassroots support can keep that will growing.
***Afghanistan/Iran: Is the U.S. Preparing to Engage Iran on Afghanistan?***
For U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, “It is absolutely clear that Iran plays an important role in Afghanistan. They have a legitimate role to play in this region, as do all of Afghanistan’s neighbors.”
Holbrooke’s statement, made February 15 on his first visit to Kabul, and several other recent developments suggest that the Obama administration may be pursuing an “Afghanistan first” approach to engagement with Iran. The goals would be to enlist Iranian help in stabilizing Afghanistan and open U.S.-Iranian talks in an area where the two countries have common interests and have cooperated closely in the past.
Such a policy would follow one of the key recommendations on Afghanistan that FCNL made in its February 18 letter to President Barack Obama. “Direct U.S. engagement with Iran,” we said, “will be critical to the success” of a regional diplomatic initiative to promote peace and stability in Afghanistan “and could pave the way for broader cooperation” with Iran.
Another sign of efforts to engage Iran on Afghanistan was the Italian foreign ministry announcement on February 23 that Italy is considering inviting Iran to a June 27 meeting in Trieste to discuss ways to stabilize Afghanistan and secure the Afghan-Pakistani border area. The meeting would bring the United States and other G-8 countries together with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, India, China, and Turkey to discuss Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA) has reacted cautiously but positively to including Iran in the June Trieste conference. After returning from a visit to Italy and Afghanistan this week, she said she and Italian officials had “sounded each other out” on the idea of including Iran. "Italy has a big commercial relationship with Iran, comparatively speaking,” Pelosi said, “and I think we made it clear that we thought that it would be important to use their good offices to help resolve issues that we have with Iran."
The United States has also signaled that it would accept the opening of a supply route through Iran to supply NATO forces in Afghanistan. In early February the NATO supreme commander, U.S. Gen. John Craddock, said he had no objections to NATO member states’ concluding agreements with Iran to bring in supplies through that country. "Those would be national decisions,” Craddock said. “Nations should act in a manner that is consistent with their national interest and with their ability to resupply their forces. I think it is purely up to them."
Taken together, these developments suggest that the administration is positioning itself for a diplomatic initiative that could improve both conditions in Afghanistan and U.S.-Iranian relations.
***Take Action***
If you have not yet written to your representative asking him or her to cosponsor H. Res. 130, please do so now. If you have already written, contact three friends and ask them to write. This resolution endorsing the Obama administration’s efforts to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace and asserting that ending the conflict is an essential U.S. national security interest is gaining ground. It already has more cosponsors than any previous House resolution supporting Israeli-Palestinian peace, and it is becoming an important barometer of congressional support for U.S. peacemaking efforts. Help make the barometer register record high pressure. Write and ask your friends to write now Click here
Rights News includes: Detainee Items & Shaker Aamer: The Forgotten Prisoner by Moazzam Begg
Find all of the following at Bill of Rights Defense Committee: here
2/27, Ian Wilhelm, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Nonprofit Coalition Argues Antiterrorism Efforts Hurt Charities
2/27, Karen DeYoung and Del Quentin Wilber, Washington Post, Britain Acknowledges 2 Detainees Are in U.S. Prison in Afghanistan
2/27, Bobby Ghosh, Time, What To Do With Gitmo Detainees: No Easy Solutions
2/27, Devlin Barrett, Associated Press, Enemy combatant case moved into civilian courts
2/27, Daphne Eviatar, Washington Independent, Glimmers of Bush: Does National Security Trump the Law?
2/27, Agence France-Presse, Lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners urge release
Grassroots News:
2/23, Manuel Valdez, Associated Press, Wash. activist fights immigrant detention center
1/21, Raleigh News & Observer (NC), Activists to discuss immigration program
1/13, Washington Post, ACLU Will Push For Police Surveillance Limits
1/9, Ian Demsky, The News Tribune, Detention center cleanup on Tideflats due again
1/6, Edward Sieger, The Express-Times (Easton, PA), We're watching ... er, uh ... listening
12/16, Pamela Lehman, Morning Call, Bethlehem's candid cameras make a splash
Excerpt: Aamer should be sent to since he was cleared for release and transfer over a year ago.
here
_________
Guantánamo: The Forgotten Prisoner
28/02/2009
Finally, Binyam Mohamed is coming home. But Shaker Aamer is also a British resident – don't abandon this gentle family man
By Moazzam Begg
Perhaps the most heart-breaking thing a child whose father is in prison will ever have to do is to explain to his – or her – classmates why daddy never comes to collect him from school. The very mention that daddy is in jail will, at least in some cases, elicit the puerile jeering and mockery expected in any school playground. Society – schools included – tells us that people in prison must be bad. That may be the case for those found guilty of heinous crimes. But, how does a seven-year-old – who has never seen his father, except through old photographs his tormented mother shows him – explain to his peers the iniquitous nature of the removal of habeas corpus? How does he argue his father's case when he doesn't even know what a father is? How will he explain all this to his classmates when we cannot even explain it to adults? This – and much more – is what one chid and his three older siblings in London have experienced daily since the incarceration of their father more than seven years ago.
Since the early 90s, Shaker Aamer had resided in the UK, where he worked as a translator at a legal firm and later met his wife. In the summer of 2001, Aamer made the decision to live and work in Pakistan and Afghanistan, along with his wife and children, to undertake projects to support a girls' school and build wells. Shortly after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, Aamer, it is believed, like hundreds of others, was sold for a bounty of $5,000 by tribal warlords eager to receive the lucrative rewards offered for foreign Muslims by the US military. His family managed to return safely to the UK, but Aamer was sent to a series of secret prisons and eventually to Guantánamo Bay.
Guantánamo has become a major embarrassment for the US administration, and President Barack Obama's call to close the place – along with the CIA detention sites – is welcome. We have already seen how the torture meted out before and during our incarceration in Guantánamo has become a source of altercation and unease between two of the world's closest allies, especially through the case of Binyam Mohamed, who is now finally being returned to his place of residence in the UK. Having been subjected to some truly horrific torture, Mohamed undoubtedly deserves to be afforded the dignity of rehabilitation and reintegration into normal life. If this is true in the case of Mohamed, then it is even more so in the case of Aamer and his family.
Aamer was a very well-known and liked person among his community; he left an indelible impression on most of the people who met and conversed with him. He is faithful, brave, charismatic, kind, polite and full of life. All of us in Guantánamo knew his qualities, including the men guarding us.
Terry Holdbrooks, one of Aamer's guards, serving in a military police unit from 2003-04 in Guantánamo, said about him: "He's a wonderful character – unbelievably intelligent, very polite, very well-mannered, great etiquette … no matter whom the guard was he was working with – whether it was a very ignorant uncaring American with no recognition for his situation or me … He was a wonderful person – I absolutely enjoyed spending time with him."
There has been some confusion as to where Aamer should be sent to since he was cleared for release and transfer over a year ago. The Americans wanted to send him to Saudi Arabia, since he is a citizen of that country, but he has leave to remain in the UK and his family are all here. His UK lawyer, Gareth Peirce, commented: "He's not charged with anything. Where is the problem? His family's all in the UK and the UK has accepted that it has called for his return here. The new US administration wants to close down Guantánamo. Bringing Aamer home tomorrow wouldn't be soon enough."
Aamer has never been designated for trial by military commission and there is no intention to prosecute him. He has lost more than half his body weight due to several hunger strikes he has participated in, agitating for better conditions and the right to be charged and tried – or released. But ultimately, Aamer is a father and a husband who simply wants to come home. Zachary Katznelson from Reprieve, on organisation that legally represents a large number of the men still in Guantánamo said: "Shaker's primal concern has always been about his family: how he could return to being a father again, how he could return to being a husband again."
Aamer's wife has been hospitalised a number of times due to the terrible strain his absence has placed upon her and her children. Her words haunt all who know his case:
Your disappearance isn't natural
Is that what was written in my fate?
What kind of departure was it?
Your commemoration in my mind
Faaris Aamer, the child who has yet to meet his father, still patiently awaits the day that the man in the photographs he sees holding his older sister and brothers – Juhayna (12), Mish'al (10) and Abdur-Rahman (9) – all those years ago, walks through the door and finally says, "As-salaamu alaikum kids – I'm your father. I'm home."
It is high time Aamer came home.
On behalf of the family of Shaker Aamer and former Guantánamo prisoners: Shafiq Rasul, Ruhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal, Tarek Dergoul, Jamal al-Harith, Richard Belmar, Martin Mubanga, Feroz Abbassi, Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil Elbanna, Omar Deghayes and Abdenour Sameur
SOURCE: The Guardian
_________
For an earlier piece at Reprieve: here I can't figure out the date?
You will also find items on al-Marri at Andy Worthington's website
There are some troubling much older items at Wikipedia...however, with Bounty and Torture Interrogations involved...it's extremely hard to know how to sift out fact from fiction??
2/27, Ian Wilhelm, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Nonprofit Coalition Argues Antiterrorism Efforts Hurt Charities
2/27, Karen DeYoung and Del Quentin Wilber, Washington Post, Britain Acknowledges 2 Detainees Are in U.S. Prison in Afghanistan
2/27, Bobby Ghosh, Time, What To Do With Gitmo Detainees: No Easy Solutions
2/27, Devlin Barrett, Associated Press, Enemy combatant case moved into civilian courts
2/27, Daphne Eviatar, Washington Independent, Glimmers of Bush: Does National Security Trump the Law?
2/27, Agence France-Presse, Lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners urge release
Grassroots News:
2/23, Manuel Valdez, Associated Press, Wash. activist fights immigrant detention center
1/21, Raleigh News & Observer (NC), Activists to discuss immigration program
1/13, Washington Post, ACLU Will Push For Police Surveillance Limits
1/9, Ian Demsky, The News Tribune, Detention center cleanup on Tideflats due again
1/6, Edward Sieger, The Express-Times (Easton, PA), We're watching ... er, uh ... listening
12/16, Pamela Lehman, Morning Call, Bethlehem's candid cameras make a splash
Excerpt: Aamer should be sent to since he was cleared for release and transfer over a year ago.
here
_________
Guantánamo: The Forgotten Prisoner
28/02/2009
Finally, Binyam Mohamed is coming home. But Shaker Aamer is also a British resident – don't abandon this gentle family man
By Moazzam Begg
Perhaps the most heart-breaking thing a child whose father is in prison will ever have to do is to explain to his – or her – classmates why daddy never comes to collect him from school. The very mention that daddy is in jail will, at least in some cases, elicit the puerile jeering and mockery expected in any school playground. Society – schools included – tells us that people in prison must be bad. That may be the case for those found guilty of heinous crimes. But, how does a seven-year-old – who has never seen his father, except through old photographs his tormented mother shows him – explain to his peers the iniquitous nature of the removal of habeas corpus? How does he argue his father's case when he doesn't even know what a father is? How will he explain all this to his classmates when we cannot even explain it to adults? This – and much more – is what one chid and his three older siblings in London have experienced daily since the incarceration of their father more than seven years ago.
Since the early 90s, Shaker Aamer had resided in the UK, where he worked as a translator at a legal firm and later met his wife. In the summer of 2001, Aamer made the decision to live and work in Pakistan and Afghanistan, along with his wife and children, to undertake projects to support a girls' school and build wells. Shortly after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, Aamer, it is believed, like hundreds of others, was sold for a bounty of $5,000 by tribal warlords eager to receive the lucrative rewards offered for foreign Muslims by the US military. His family managed to return safely to the UK, but Aamer was sent to a series of secret prisons and eventually to Guantánamo Bay.
Guantánamo has become a major embarrassment for the US administration, and President Barack Obama's call to close the place – along with the CIA detention sites – is welcome. We have already seen how the torture meted out before and during our incarceration in Guantánamo has become a source of altercation and unease between two of the world's closest allies, especially through the case of Binyam Mohamed, who is now finally being returned to his place of residence in the UK. Having been subjected to some truly horrific torture, Mohamed undoubtedly deserves to be afforded the dignity of rehabilitation and reintegration into normal life. If this is true in the case of Mohamed, then it is even more so in the case of Aamer and his family.
Aamer was a very well-known and liked person among his community; he left an indelible impression on most of the people who met and conversed with him. He is faithful, brave, charismatic, kind, polite and full of life. All of us in Guantánamo knew his qualities, including the men guarding us.
Terry Holdbrooks, one of Aamer's guards, serving in a military police unit from 2003-04 in Guantánamo, said about him: "He's a wonderful character – unbelievably intelligent, very polite, very well-mannered, great etiquette … no matter whom the guard was he was working with – whether it was a very ignorant uncaring American with no recognition for his situation or me … He was a wonderful person – I absolutely enjoyed spending time with him."
There has been some confusion as to where Aamer should be sent to since he was cleared for release and transfer over a year ago. The Americans wanted to send him to Saudi Arabia, since he is a citizen of that country, but he has leave to remain in the UK and his family are all here. His UK lawyer, Gareth Peirce, commented: "He's not charged with anything. Where is the problem? His family's all in the UK and the UK has accepted that it has called for his return here. The new US administration wants to close down Guantánamo. Bringing Aamer home tomorrow wouldn't be soon enough."
Aamer has never been designated for trial by military commission and there is no intention to prosecute him. He has lost more than half his body weight due to several hunger strikes he has participated in, agitating for better conditions and the right to be charged and tried – or released. But ultimately, Aamer is a father and a husband who simply wants to come home. Zachary Katznelson from Reprieve, on organisation that legally represents a large number of the men still in Guantánamo said: "Shaker's primal concern has always been about his family: how he could return to being a father again, how he could return to being a husband again."
Aamer's wife has been hospitalised a number of times due to the terrible strain his absence has placed upon her and her children. Her words haunt all who know his case:
Your disappearance isn't natural
Is that what was written in my fate?
What kind of departure was it?
Your commemoration in my mind
Faaris Aamer, the child who has yet to meet his father, still patiently awaits the day that the man in the photographs he sees holding his older sister and brothers – Juhayna (12), Mish'al (10) and Abdur-Rahman (9) – all those years ago, walks through the door and finally says, "As-salaamu alaikum kids – I'm your father. I'm home."
It is high time Aamer came home.
On behalf of the family of Shaker Aamer and former Guantánamo prisoners: Shafiq Rasul, Ruhel Ahmed, Asif Iqbal, Tarek Dergoul, Jamal al-Harith, Richard Belmar, Martin Mubanga, Feroz Abbassi, Bisher al-Rawi, Jamil Elbanna, Omar Deghayes and Abdenour Sameur
SOURCE: The Guardian
_________
For an earlier piece at Reprieve: here I can't figure out the date?
You will also find items on al-Marri at Andy Worthington's website
There are some troubling much older items at Wikipedia...however, with Bounty and Torture Interrogations involved...it's extremely hard to know how to sift out fact from fiction??
UPDATED! UK Home Secretary ignores Court decision, kidnaps bailed men and imprisons them in Belmarsh
The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, appears to have declared war on the government’s own secret terror court, overruling decisions made by judges in the Special Immigration Appeals Court (SIAC) yesterday, and — in what can only be described as an act of executive fiat — unilaterally revoking their bail, kidnapping them on their way home...
More here
Be sure to keep going back to the article and other items you'll find at the links above and below some mind-boggling UPDATES & comments! Also notice the new date set in the UK for a court event March 11th!
here
More here
Be sure to keep going back to the article and other items you'll find at the links above and below some mind-boggling UPDATES & comments! Also notice the new date set in the UK for a court event March 11th!
here
Enemy Combatant, Ali al-Marri, To Move To Civilian Court
SEE ALSO: The Hard Cases article in the Feb 23 '09 in The New Yorker by Jane Mayer
hereand the Terry Gross interview here Mayer calls this case a "legal guinea pig". Also find several other background items on al-Marri on Andy Worthingon's site: here
Long Summary: Al-Marri's transfer is the first signal of how the Obama administration is likely to handle accused terrorists, a significant shift from the strategy of the Bush administration -from The Associated Press: An accused al-Qaida sleeper agent held for 5-1/2 years at a Navy brig in South Carolina will soon be sent to Illinois for trial in civilian court, a move the government has fought for years saying terror suspects caught in the U.S. could be held indefinitely without charges-The transfer could avert a Supreme Court hearing in April and a subsequent ruling that would govern other cases against accused terrorists-Since shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, government lawyers argued that the president has the wartime authority to send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen — or legal resident like al-Marri — and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely-The decision on al-Marri was reported separately Thursday by the Web sites of The Washington Post and The New Yorker magazine - al-Marri was the subject of one of President Barack Obama's first official acts, signing an executive order for "a prompt and thorough" review -
This resulted in a decision to put him back into the civilian court system -"If this is true, it's an important step," said Jonathan Hafetz, one of al-Marri's lawyers. "This is what should have happened seven years ago. Indefinite military detention, without charge, of people with legal residence in America is illegal."-The new administration is facing a March deadline to file papers in the al-Marri case before the court, and transferring him to a criminal courtroom may enable the administration to avoid taking a clear position on enemy combatants. - "It's vital for the Supreme Court to review the case and make that clear once and for all," said Hafetz. "Otherwise the government will be free to do the same thing again."
al-Marri's case before the high court hinges on whether the president has the authority to detain as enemy combatants people who are in the United States legally, a question that could apply to a U.S. citizen as well as a foreigner.-The new administration might not want to force the court to decide that issue, thereby preserving the possibility that Obama or future presidents could exercise that power.- A legal U.S. resident, al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement at the brig since 2003.He was arrested in late 2001 as part of the FBI's investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. Prosecutors indicted him on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI, not terror charges. (See more references at the bottom of the report.
REPORT IN GREATER DETAIL HERE: Shapiro/Montagne/AP NOTE: the audio listed for this Feb 27 '09 Early Edition segment on NPR.org appears to be ill-matched - yet perhaps it will be corrected soon. However, here's the written report. I always try to pay attention if Ari Shapiro is discussing justice!
Legal Affairs
Enemy Combatant To Move To Civilian Court
by Ari Shapiro and Renee Montagne
Morning Edition, February 27, 2009 · An accused enemy combatant, who has been held for more than five years at a Navy brig in South Carolina, is expected to be sent to Illinois to stand trial in a civilian courtroom. The Justice Department has not yet announced charges against Ali al-Marri. The Bush administration had claimed terror suspects caught in the U.S. could be held indefinitely without charges.
Sources: Feds moving enemy combatant to Ill. court
from The Associated Press: An accused al-Qaida sleeper agent held for 5-1/2 years at a Navy brig in South Carolina will soon be sent to Illinois for trial in civilian court, a move the government has fought for years saying terror suspects caught in the U.S. could be held indefinitely without charges.
Two people familiar with the case of Qatar native Ali al-Marri said Thursday the government plans to transfer him to the civilian court system. One of them said he would be charged with providing support to terrorists. The two people spoke on condition of anonymity because it's a pending criminal case.
The transfer could avert a Supreme Court hearing in April and a subsequent ruling that would govern other cases against accused terrorists. Al-Marri's transfer is the first signal of how the Obama administration is likely to handle accused terrorists, a significant shift from the strategy of the Bush administration.
Since shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, government lawyers argued that the president has the wartime authority to send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen — or legal resident like al-Marri — and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
Putting al-Marri into the federal court system follows a similar move made by the Bush administration with another enemy combatant, Jose Padilla. Padilla, once held at the same brig as al-Marri, was eventually convicted of terror-related charges in federal court in Florida.
The decision on al-Marri was reported separately Thursday by the Web sites of The Washington Post and The New Yorker magazine.
Al-Marri was the subject of one of President Barack Obama's first official acts, signing an executive order for "a prompt and thorough" review of al-Marri's continued detention.
Now, according to those familiar with the case, that review has resulted in a decision to put him back into the civilian court system.
Justice Dept. spokesman Dean Boyd declined to comment on the plans for al-Marri.
"If this is true, it's an important step," said Jonathan Hafetz, one of al-Marri's lawyers. "This is what should have happened seven years ago. Indefinite military detention, without charge, of people with legal residence in America is illegal."
Yet such a move may derail the legal challenge Hafetz and the American Civil Liberties Union have brought to the Supreme Court.
The new administration is facing a March deadline to file papers in the al-Marri case before the court, and transferring him to a criminal courtroom may enable the administration to avoid taking a clear position on enemy combatants.
"It's vital for the Supreme Court to review the case and make that clear once and for all," said Hafetz. "Otherwise the government will be free to do the same thing again."
Al-Marri's case before the high court hinges on whether the president has the authority to detain as enemy combatants people who are in the United States legally, a question that could apply to a U.S. citizen as well as a foreigner.
The new administration might not want to force the court to decide that issue, thereby preserving the possibility that Obama or future presidents could exercise that power.
The government says al-Marri is an al-Qaida sleeper agent who has met Osama bin Laden and spent time at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.
A legal U.S. resident, al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement at the brig since 2003.
Al-Marri was arrested in late 2001 as part of the FBI's investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. Prosecutors indicted him on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI, not terror charges.
In June 2003, Bush said al-Marri had vital information about terror plots, declared him an enemy combatant and ordered him transferred to military custody.
In court documents, the government contends that al-Marri met with bin Laden in the summer of 2001 and "offered to be an al-Qaida martyr or to do anything else that al-Qaida requested."
A government summary of the case — declassified in 2006 — indicated al-Marri was closely tied with senior al-Qaida leadership, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Al-Marri's brother was also seized by U.S. officials and sent to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
"Al-Qaida sent al-Marri to the United States to facilitate other al-Qaida operatives in carrying out post-Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks," the government contended.
—————
Associated Press writer Matt Apuzzo contributed to this report.
_____
More references to come soon on this particular post.
hereand the Terry Gross interview here Mayer calls this case a "legal guinea pig". Also find several other background items on al-Marri on Andy Worthingon's site: here
Long Summary: Al-Marri's transfer is the first signal of how the Obama administration is likely to handle accused terrorists, a significant shift from the strategy of the Bush administration -from The Associated Press: An accused al-Qaida sleeper agent held for 5-1/2 years at a Navy brig in South Carolina will soon be sent to Illinois for trial in civilian court, a move the government has fought for years saying terror suspects caught in the U.S. could be held indefinitely without charges-The transfer could avert a Supreme Court hearing in April and a subsequent ruling that would govern other cases against accused terrorists-Since shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, government lawyers argued that the president has the wartime authority to send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen — or legal resident like al-Marri — and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely-The decision on al-Marri was reported separately Thursday by the Web sites of The Washington Post and The New Yorker magazine - al-Marri was the subject of one of President Barack Obama's first official acts, signing an executive order for "a prompt and thorough" review -
This resulted in a decision to put him back into the civilian court system -"If this is true, it's an important step," said Jonathan Hafetz, one of al-Marri's lawyers. "This is what should have happened seven years ago. Indefinite military detention, without charge, of people with legal residence in America is illegal."-The new administration is facing a March deadline to file papers in the al-Marri case before the court, and transferring him to a criminal courtroom may enable the administration to avoid taking a clear position on enemy combatants. - "It's vital for the Supreme Court to review the case and make that clear once and for all," said Hafetz. "Otherwise the government will be free to do the same thing again."
al-Marri's case before the high court hinges on whether the president has the authority to detain as enemy combatants people who are in the United States legally, a question that could apply to a U.S. citizen as well as a foreigner.-The new administration might not want to force the court to decide that issue, thereby preserving the possibility that Obama or future presidents could exercise that power.- A legal U.S. resident, al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement at the brig since 2003.He was arrested in late 2001 as part of the FBI's investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. Prosecutors indicted him on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI, not terror charges. (See more references at the bottom of the report.
REPORT IN GREATER DETAIL HERE: Shapiro/Montagne/AP NOTE: the audio listed for this Feb 27 '09 Early Edition segment on NPR.org appears to be ill-matched - yet perhaps it will be corrected soon. However, here's the written report. I always try to pay attention if Ari Shapiro is discussing justice!
Legal Affairs
Enemy Combatant To Move To Civilian Court
by Ari Shapiro and Renee Montagne
Morning Edition, February 27, 2009 · An accused enemy combatant, who has been held for more than five years at a Navy brig in South Carolina, is expected to be sent to Illinois to stand trial in a civilian courtroom. The Justice Department has not yet announced charges against Ali al-Marri. The Bush administration had claimed terror suspects caught in the U.S. could be held indefinitely without charges.
Sources: Feds moving enemy combatant to Ill. court
from The Associated Press: An accused al-Qaida sleeper agent held for 5-1/2 years at a Navy brig in South Carolina will soon be sent to Illinois for trial in civilian court, a move the government has fought for years saying terror suspects caught in the U.S. could be held indefinitely without charges.
Two people familiar with the case of Qatar native Ali al-Marri said Thursday the government plans to transfer him to the civilian court system. One of them said he would be charged with providing support to terrorists. The two people spoke on condition of anonymity because it's a pending criminal case.
The transfer could avert a Supreme Court hearing in April and a subsequent ruling that would govern other cases against accused terrorists. Al-Marri's transfer is the first signal of how the Obama administration is likely to handle accused terrorists, a significant shift from the strategy of the Bush administration.
Since shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, government lawyers argued that the president has the wartime authority to send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen — or legal resident like al-Marri — and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.
Putting al-Marri into the federal court system follows a similar move made by the Bush administration with another enemy combatant, Jose Padilla. Padilla, once held at the same brig as al-Marri, was eventually convicted of terror-related charges in federal court in Florida.
The decision on al-Marri was reported separately Thursday by the Web sites of The Washington Post and The New Yorker magazine.
Al-Marri was the subject of one of President Barack Obama's first official acts, signing an executive order for "a prompt and thorough" review of al-Marri's continued detention.
Now, according to those familiar with the case, that review has resulted in a decision to put him back into the civilian court system.
Justice Dept. spokesman Dean Boyd declined to comment on the plans for al-Marri.
"If this is true, it's an important step," said Jonathan Hafetz, one of al-Marri's lawyers. "This is what should have happened seven years ago. Indefinite military detention, without charge, of people with legal residence in America is illegal."
Yet such a move may derail the legal challenge Hafetz and the American Civil Liberties Union have brought to the Supreme Court.
The new administration is facing a March deadline to file papers in the al-Marri case before the court, and transferring him to a criminal courtroom may enable the administration to avoid taking a clear position on enemy combatants.
"It's vital for the Supreme Court to review the case and make that clear once and for all," said Hafetz. "Otherwise the government will be free to do the same thing again."
Al-Marri's case before the high court hinges on whether the president has the authority to detain as enemy combatants people who are in the United States legally, a question that could apply to a U.S. citizen as well as a foreigner.
The new administration might not want to force the court to decide that issue, thereby preserving the possibility that Obama or future presidents could exercise that power.
The government says al-Marri is an al-Qaida sleeper agent who has met Osama bin Laden and spent time at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.
A legal U.S. resident, al-Marri has been held in solitary confinement at the brig since 2003.
Al-Marri was arrested in late 2001 as part of the FBI's investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. Prosecutors indicted him on charges of credit card fraud and lying to the FBI, not terror charges.
In June 2003, Bush said al-Marri had vital information about terror plots, declared him an enemy combatant and ordered him transferred to military custody.
In court documents, the government contends that al-Marri met with bin Laden in the summer of 2001 and "offered to be an al-Qaida martyr or to do anything else that al-Qaida requested."
A government summary of the case — declassified in 2006 — indicated al-Marri was closely tied with senior al-Qaida leadership, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. Al-Marri's brother was also seized by U.S. officials and sent to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
"Al-Qaida sent al-Marri to the United States to facilitate other al-Qaida operatives in carrying out post-Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks," the government contended.
—————
Associated Press writer Matt Apuzzo contributed to this report.
_____
More references to come soon on this particular post.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Ex-Guantánamo prisoner Omar Deghayes talks about British agents’ visits in Islamabad and Bagram prisons (video)
This photo was taken when Mr. Deghayes spoke for a series of events arranged by Cage Prisoners.Find this important video and much more on Mr. Deghayes at Andy Worthington's Site: here
Or just in case the above isn't working well, try here
Find more background material here
AND
here
At this wikipedia site, the following means of torture were noted or experienced by Omar. Note the description of his eye going blind perhaps in part through the overuse of the pepper spray.
If you are unfamiliar with his mild accent which may be different from your own - try to find a quiet place, turn up the volume and allow special uninterrupted time.
Also Go here
and find much more about other US detainees and extraordinary renditions at Cage Prisoners here
AND Andy Worthington's website: here
Re-establishing The Rule of Law in regards to Torture: USA
There is precedent for holding lawyers criminally liable for giving legally erroneous advice that resulted in great physical or mental harm or death. In U.S. v. Altstoetter, Nazi lawyers were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity for advising Hitler on how to “legally” disappear political suspects to special detention camps. - Marjorie Cohn
SOURCES:
Source and paraphrases are largely from: Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Marjorie Cohn (President of the National Lawyers Guild). I will also soon be adding information from Andy Worthington (The Torture Files & ongoing website work),Stephen Grey (Ghost Plane & website),Philippe Sands (The Torture Team and interview with Bill Moyers),Center for Constitutional Rights and their call for a Special Prosecutor,Jane Mayer (The Dark Side, Recent articles & interviews), ABC, Newsweek and others.
CALL FOR A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (and why a Truth and Reconciliation Commission - T&RC -is not strong enough):
In the short month since he took office, President Obama has instituted many changes that break with the policies of the Bush administration: that no government agency will be allowed to torture, that the U.S. prison at Guantánamo will be shuttered, that the CIA’s secret black sites will be closed down. However, among some concerns among human rights and constitutionally-concerned groups is that the new president, when asked whether he will investigate and seek prosecution of officials who broke the law, states:
“My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen,” Obama said. “But,” he added, “generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.”
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has a drafted report that apparently excoriates former Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, authors of the infamous torture memos. OPR can report these lawyers to their state bar associations for possible discipline and may refer them for criminal investigation. Obama doesn’t need initiate investigations; the OPR already has - on Bush’s watch.
If the president and vice president told the "torture memo" lawyers to manipulate the law to permit torture - the question is, what is in law to defend them?
A Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that “senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”
Cheney finally admitted to authorizing waterboarding, which has long been considered torture under U.S. law. Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, Colin Powell, and John Ashcroft met with Cheney in the White House basement and authorized this and other harsh interrogation techniques, ABC News report. When asked, Bush said he knew about it and approved.
A representative of the Justice Department promised that OPR’s report would be released sometime last November. But Bush's attorney general Michael Mukasey objected to the draft. A final version has or will soon be presented to Attorney General Eric Holder. The administration will then have to decide whether to make it, and other items public.
Yoo redefined torture much more narrowly than U.S. law provides, and counseled the White House that it could evade prosecution under the War Crimes Act by claiming self-defense or necessity. He claimed in the Wall Street Journal that Bush “could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.”
Yoo knew or should have known of the Torture Convention’s absolute prohibition of torture. Yet, when the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture, we promised to extradite or prosecute those who commit, or are complicit in the commission, of torture.
We have two federal criminal statutes for torture prosecutions – the Torture Statute and the War Crimes Act (torture is considered a war crime under U.S. law). The Torture Convention is unequivocal: nothing, including a state of war, can be invoked as a justification for torture.
Almost two-thirds of respondents to a USA Today/Gallup Poll favor investigations of the Bush team for torture and warrantless wiretapping. Nearly four in 10 favor criminal investigations. Rep. John Conyers has introduced legislation to establish a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties. Sen. Patrick Leahy is calling for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
All that is good as far as it goes - yet is insufficient. TRC’s, according to Prof. Marjorie Cohn, are used for nascent democracies in transition. By giving immunity to those who testify before them, it would ensure that those responsible for torture, abuse and illegal spying will never be brought to justice. Cohn,
are calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute high Bush officials including the lawyers who gave them “legal” cover.
Obama is correct to say that no one is above the law. Accountability is critical to ensuring that our leaders never again torture and abuse people.
RENDITIONS, THE SUIT OF JEPPESEN AND THE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE
Four victims of extraordinary rendition, the practice of secretly transporting terrorism suspects to countries that allow torture for questioning, have sued Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc., the California company that flew them out of U.S. jurisdiction for interrogation. Last year, the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege and had the case thrown out of court.
In spite of pressure to reverse this "state secrets privilege" by the ACLU, which brought the suit as well as the editorial boards of The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times - the case is evidently to be dismissed - at this last look, February 25, 2009.
That this case was dismissed causes a redoubling of expert as well as grassroots efforts. The public simply can't expect the President alone to guard citizens rights and those of others with whom our nation interacts legally or illegally.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Branch (with strong expectations and demands from the citizens, leaders and legal professionals) to weigh the administration’s claims of state secrets against the value of holding responsible those who participated in any way with the torture or supposed "terrorists".
Congress is responsibile to create laws that check the power of the Executive Branch so that the state secrets privilege will not be allowed to cover up illegal and inhumane acts. Let the fact be known that we have signed on to laws such as the Geneva Conventions against torture which are as binding to us as any other law we have created solely within the US. And of course there are other rulings which apply as well - such as the Army Field Manual.
Finally, the citizenry are accountable for monitoring the workings of all three branches of government. We the people are responsible to speak out when the rights of citizens (and others) are imperiled. Persistent, educated advocacy is the key to the preservation of both our civil liberties and our reputation around the world.
Let's call on our congressional representatives to fulfill their responsibilities. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) have introduced the State Secrets Protection Act (S.417 and H.R.984). The bill is currently in committee. There are six co-sponsors in each house who've signed on (maybe more by now?)
This bill is to provide guidance to courts on cases in which the government claims national security will be endangered by allowing the suit to go forward. The bill would keep courts from dismissing cases solely because the state secrets privilege has been invoked. Judges would still be empowered to do so after reviewing the information behind the claim and allowing the defense to make a counter-claim. The bill would also establish new safeguards for protecting classified information. Finally, this urgently needed bill would provide a way for judges to report on such cases to Congress.
Use all your networks to alert your contacts and to encourage your senators and representatives to support this bill.
SIGN THE PETITION to call for a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: Go to Dems dot com and click on What's Hot - upper right column
Also, for more verification that this approach is the best way for the US, there's quite a bit at After Downing Street dot org such as the following from the left-hand column:
Investigations substituted for impeachment for two full years. A "truth and reconciliation" commission as a substitute for prosecution would be counterproductive, as argued by Jonathan Turley, Peter Dyer, David Swanson, and Bob Fertik. The Justice Department itself has argued for "state secrets" blocks on prosecutions on the grounds that commissions can substitute for enforcing laws. The American public prefers criminal prosecutions to commission investigations.
CONDITIONS AT GUANTANAMO & ACTIONS:
here
------------------------
CAMPAIGNS:
Organize local events AS RECOMMENDED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS DEFENSE COMMITTEE for Sunshine Week (March 15-21) to put pressure on Congress and the President to uphold their oaths to “protect and defend the Constitution.” There is still much work to do; the time for grassroots action is now.
------------------------
While our legislators may often trouble us on some issues, we may still encourage one another to thank them on others. For example, here is a letter sent by Rep. Heath Shuler of NC on torture:
here
SOURCES:
Source and paraphrases are largely from: Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Marjorie Cohn (President of the National Lawyers Guild). I will also soon be adding information from Andy Worthington (The Torture Files & ongoing website work),Stephen Grey (Ghost Plane & website),Philippe Sands (The Torture Team and interview with Bill Moyers),Center for Constitutional Rights and their call for a Special Prosecutor,Jane Mayer (The Dark Side, Recent articles & interviews), ABC, Newsweek and others.
CALL FOR A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR (and why a Truth and Reconciliation Commission - T&RC -is not strong enough):
In the short month since he took office, President Obama has instituted many changes that break with the policies of the Bush administration: that no government agency will be allowed to torture, that the U.S. prison at Guantánamo will be shuttered, that the CIA’s secret black sites will be closed down. However, among some concerns among human rights and constitutionally-concerned groups is that the new president, when asked whether he will investigate and seek prosecution of officials who broke the law, states:
“My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen,” Obama said. “But,” he added, “generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards.”
The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has a drafted report that apparently excoriates former Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, authors of the infamous torture memos. OPR can report these lawyers to their state bar associations for possible discipline and may refer them for criminal investigation. Obama doesn’t need initiate investigations; the OPR already has - on Bush’s watch.
If the president and vice president told the "torture memo" lawyers to manipulate the law to permit torture - the question is, what is in law to defend them?
A Senate Armed Services Committee report stated that “senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”
Cheney finally admitted to authorizing waterboarding, which has long been considered torture under U.S. law. Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, Colin Powell, and John Ashcroft met with Cheney in the White House basement and authorized this and other harsh interrogation techniques, ABC News report. When asked, Bush said he knew about it and approved.
A representative of the Justice Department promised that OPR’s report would be released sometime last November. But Bush's attorney general Michael Mukasey objected to the draft. A final version has or will soon be presented to Attorney General Eric Holder. The administration will then have to decide whether to make it, and other items public.
Yoo redefined torture much more narrowly than U.S. law provides, and counseled the White House that it could evade prosecution under the War Crimes Act by claiming self-defense or necessity. He claimed in the Wall Street Journal that Bush “could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.”
Yoo knew or should have known of the Torture Convention’s absolute prohibition of torture. Yet, when the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture, we promised to extradite or prosecute those who commit, or are complicit in the commission, of torture.
We have two federal criminal statutes for torture prosecutions – the Torture Statute and the War Crimes Act (torture is considered a war crime under U.S. law). The Torture Convention is unequivocal: nothing, including a state of war, can be invoked as a justification for torture.
Almost two-thirds of respondents to a USA Today/Gallup Poll favor investigations of the Bush team for torture and warrantless wiretapping. Nearly four in 10 favor criminal investigations. Rep. John Conyers has introduced legislation to establish a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties. Sen. Patrick Leahy is calling for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
All that is good as far as it goes - yet is insufficient. TRC’s, according to Prof. Marjorie Cohn, are used for nascent democracies in transition. By giving immunity to those who testify before them, it would ensure that those responsible for torture, abuse and illegal spying will never be brought to justice. Cohn,
are calling on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute high Bush officials including the lawyers who gave them “legal” cover.
Obama is correct to say that no one is above the law. Accountability is critical to ensuring that our leaders never again torture and abuse people.
RENDITIONS, THE SUIT OF JEPPESEN AND THE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE
Four victims of extraordinary rendition, the practice of secretly transporting terrorism suspects to countries that allow torture for questioning, have sued Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc., the California company that flew them out of U.S. jurisdiction for interrogation. Last year, the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege and had the case thrown out of court.
In spite of pressure to reverse this "state secrets privilege" by the ACLU, which brought the suit as well as the editorial boards of The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times - the case is evidently to be dismissed - at this last look, February 25, 2009.
That this case was dismissed causes a redoubling of expert as well as grassroots efforts. The public simply can't expect the President alone to guard citizens rights and those of others with whom our nation interacts legally or illegally.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Judicial Branch (with strong expectations and demands from the citizens, leaders and legal professionals) to weigh the administration’s claims of state secrets against the value of holding responsible those who participated in any way with the torture or supposed "terrorists".
Congress is responsibile to create laws that check the power of the Executive Branch so that the state secrets privilege will not be allowed to cover up illegal and inhumane acts. Let the fact be known that we have signed on to laws such as the Geneva Conventions against torture which are as binding to us as any other law we have created solely within the US. And of course there are other rulings which apply as well - such as the Army Field Manual.
Finally, the citizenry are accountable for monitoring the workings of all three branches of government. We the people are responsible to speak out when the rights of citizens (and others) are imperiled. Persistent, educated advocacy is the key to the preservation of both our civil liberties and our reputation around the world.
Let's call on our congressional representatives to fulfill their responsibilities. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) have introduced the State Secrets Protection Act (S.417 and H.R.984). The bill is currently in committee. There are six co-sponsors in each house who've signed on (maybe more by now?)
This bill is to provide guidance to courts on cases in which the government claims national security will be endangered by allowing the suit to go forward. The bill would keep courts from dismissing cases solely because the state secrets privilege has been invoked. Judges would still be empowered to do so after reviewing the information behind the claim and allowing the defense to make a counter-claim. The bill would also establish new safeguards for protecting classified information. Finally, this urgently needed bill would provide a way for judges to report on such cases to Congress.
Use all your networks to alert your contacts and to encourage your senators and representatives to support this bill.
SIGN THE PETITION to call for a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR: Go to Dems dot com and click on What's Hot - upper right column
Also, for more verification that this approach is the best way for the US, there's quite a bit at After Downing Street dot org such as the following from the left-hand column:
Investigations substituted for impeachment for two full years. A "truth and reconciliation" commission as a substitute for prosecution would be counterproductive, as argued by Jonathan Turley, Peter Dyer, David Swanson, and Bob Fertik. The Justice Department itself has argued for "state secrets" blocks on prosecutions on the grounds that commissions can substitute for enforcing laws. The American public prefers criminal prosecutions to commission investigations.
CONDITIONS AT GUANTANAMO & ACTIONS:
here
------------------------
CAMPAIGNS:
Organize local events AS RECOMMENDED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS DEFENSE COMMITTEE for Sunshine Week (March 15-21) to put pressure on Congress and the President to uphold their oaths to “protect and defend the Constitution.” There is still much work to do; the time for grassroots action is now.
------------------------
While our legislators may often trouble us on some issues, we may still encourage one another to thank them on others. For example, here is a letter sent by Rep. Heath Shuler of NC on torture:
here
Book Review-The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days
Karen Greenberg’s The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo’s First 100 Days provides an excellent and engaging analysis of Guantánamo Bay’s transformation after 9/11. The book centers around General Michael Lehnert, the man initially selected to run the renovated detention facility. Though the book does not justify or apologize for Guantánamo’s abuses, it provides insight into the mentalities of the guards and the leadership. Greenberg reminds us that after September 11, 2001, the military, like the rest of America, was scared. She reminds us that Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo, and others higher in the chain of command were responsible for orchestrating policies of lawlessness and torture.
General Lehnert is portrayed as a hero, the man who aims to understand rather than simply punish the detainees, who insists on following the Geneva Conventions in spite of Rumsfeld’s contention that they do not apply, and who treats the detention center more like a refugee camp. The Least Worst Place allows us to watch Guantánamo’s chilling evolution unfold as, one step at a time, the highest-level officials of the Bush administration carefully calculate Guantánamo’s tragic course, keeping the media, the public, and even the general in the dark. Greenberg skillfully interweaves her text with quotes from news articles, memos, and interviews, giving the book a narrative quality without fictionalizing the events. Pages of endnotes offer accessible sources of often disturbing accounts and provide Greenberg’s text with academic credibility. The Least Worst Place is a must-read for anyone interested in learning about the early days of Guantánamo, a story the public has not heard until now.
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BORDC News
Attorney Sabin Willett Speaks on Closing Guantánamo
On February 12, attorney Sabin Willett spoke to an audience at Smith College’s Helen Hills Hills Chapel on "Closing Guantánamo: Can President Obama Repair Torture's Wreckage?" Attorney Willett is known for his defense of several Uighurs, Chinese separatists who have been held for seven years, without charge, at Guantánamo Bay Detention Center. During his hour-long speech, Willett described in chilling detail the gross mistreatment of prisoners, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and incompatibility with the American justice system that plague Guantánamo Bay. He outlined a simple plan for ushering in a new era of transparency and human rights, and for rejecting America’s plunge into moral ambiguity. Willett began by insisting that the United States government denounce cruelty as a policy. It is unacceptable that powerful American leaders in international politics, such as former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, effectively employed Afghani bounty hunters to sell prisoners to the United States. The policies that followed represent some of the worst aspects of a government that condones cruelty: the Military Commissions Act, which denied “enemy combatants” habeas corpus rights (though this section was later struck down by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush); extraordinary renditions of prisoners to nations that engage in torture; and the continued detention and mistreatment of prisoners cleared for release. If we are to restore the justice system to one that values human rights and dignity, the next logical step (and the second part of Willett’s plan) is to close Guantánamo Bay as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Willett concluded with a warning that Americans must become shrewder citizens. He examined the danger of “common nouns” infiltrating think tanks and foreign policy debates, and insisted that “when in doubt, demand a proper noun.” Allow each detainee his name, his proper noun, to avoid generalizations such as “too dangerous to release but unable to try.” Sabin Willett’s address was a powerful reminder to the American citizenry to fulfill its obligation to hold the government accountable for making policy decisions that represent the will of the people.
The event was presented by Smith College under the sponsorship of the Pioneer Valley Coalition Against Secrecy and Torture and more than 20 other local, state, and national organizations, including the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Amy Ferrer, Web & Publications Coordinator
Managing Editor: Barbara Haugen, Administrator
Contributing Writer: Emma Roderick, Grassroots Campaign Coordinator; Bethany Singer-Baefsky, Smith College Intern
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
8 Bridge St., Suite A
Northampton, MA 01060
Email: info (at) bordc.org
Telephone: 413-582-0110
Fax: 413-582-0116
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Lehnert is portrayed as a hero, the man who aims to understand rather than simply punish the detainees, who insists on following the Geneva Conventions in spite of Rumsfeld’s contention that they do not apply, and who treats the detention center more like a refugee camp. The Least Worst Place allows us to watch Guantánamo’s chilling evolution unfold as, one step at a time, the highest-level officials of the Bush administration carefully calculate Guantánamo’s tragic course, keeping the media, the public, and even the general in the dark. Greenberg skillfully interweaves her text with quotes from news articles, memos, and interviews, giving the book a narrative quality without fictionalizing the events. Pages of endnotes offer accessible sources of often disturbing accounts and provide Greenberg’s text with academic credibility. The Least Worst Place is a must-read for anyone interested in learning about the early days of Guantánamo, a story the public has not heard until now.
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BORDC News
Attorney Sabin Willett Speaks on Closing Guantánamo
On February 12, attorney Sabin Willett spoke to an audience at Smith College’s Helen Hills Hills Chapel on "Closing Guantánamo: Can President Obama Repair Torture's Wreckage?" Attorney Willett is known for his defense of several Uighurs, Chinese separatists who have been held for seven years, without charge, at Guantánamo Bay Detention Center. During his hour-long speech, Willett described in chilling detail the gross mistreatment of prisoners, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and incompatibility with the American justice system that plague Guantánamo Bay. He outlined a simple plan for ushering in a new era of transparency and human rights, and for rejecting America’s plunge into moral ambiguity. Willett began by insisting that the United States government denounce cruelty as a policy. It is unacceptable that powerful American leaders in international politics, such as former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, effectively employed Afghani bounty hunters to sell prisoners to the United States. The policies that followed represent some of the worst aspects of a government that condones cruelty: the Military Commissions Act, which denied “enemy combatants” habeas corpus rights (though this section was later struck down by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush); extraordinary renditions of prisoners to nations that engage in torture; and the continued detention and mistreatment of prisoners cleared for release. If we are to restore the justice system to one that values human rights and dignity, the next logical step (and the second part of Willett’s plan) is to close Guantánamo Bay as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Willett concluded with a warning that Americans must become shrewder citizens. He examined the danger of “common nouns” infiltrating think tanks and foreign policy debates, and insisted that “when in doubt, demand a proper noun.” Allow each detainee his name, his proper noun, to avoid generalizations such as “too dangerous to release but unable to try.” Sabin Willett’s address was a powerful reminder to the American citizenry to fulfill its obligation to hold the government accountable for making policy decisions that represent the will of the people.
The event was presented by Smith College under the sponsorship of the Pioneer Valley Coalition Against Secrecy and Torture and more than 20 other local, state, and national organizations, including the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Amy Ferrer, Web & Publications Coordinator
Managing Editor: Barbara Haugen, Administrator
Contributing Writer: Emma Roderick, Grassroots Campaign Coordinator; Bethany Singer-Baefsky, Smith College Intern
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
8 Bridge St., Suite A
Northampton, MA 01060
Email: info (at) bordc.org
Telephone: 413-582-0110
Fax: 413-582-0116
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GTMO Testimonials & Related People & Sites to Watch
The GTMO Testimonials here
Center for Constitutional Rights:
here
Andy Worthington, Author or The Guantanamo Files: here
President of the National Lawyers Guild: Marjorie Cohn: here
# War Criminals, Including Their Lawyers, Must Be Prosecuted
# A Call to End All Renditions
# Israel’s Collective Punishment of Gaza
# Cheney Throws Down Gauntlet, Defies Prosecution...
# Obama: Ratify the Women’s Convention Soon
# Guantánamo Justice Delayed Seven Years
# NLG Calls on President-elect Obama to Close GTMO
# Obama Spells New Hope for Human Rights
# What About Constitutional Powers?
Bill of Rights Defense Committee: Today's News: here
2/26, Paisley Dodds, Associated Press, Britain in fresh row over renditions
2/26, William Fisher, Public Record, UK Minister Hutton Apologies for Aiding U.S. in Renditions
2/25, Mike McNerney, Jurist, GUANTANAMO: Challenge and Change Require EU Response
2/25, Toronto Star, Khadr's legal team investigated
FIND ACTIONS also at here
Center for Constitutional Rights:
here
Andy Worthington, Author or The Guantanamo Files: here
President of the National Lawyers Guild: Marjorie Cohn: here
# War Criminals, Including Their Lawyers, Must Be Prosecuted
# A Call to End All Renditions
# Israel’s Collective Punishment of Gaza
# Cheney Throws Down Gauntlet, Defies Prosecution...
# Obama: Ratify the Women’s Convention Soon
# Guantánamo Justice Delayed Seven Years
# NLG Calls on President-elect Obama to Close GTMO
# Obama Spells New Hope for Human Rights
# What About Constitutional Powers?
Bill of Rights Defense Committee: Today's News: here
2/26, Paisley Dodds, Associated Press, Britain in fresh row over renditions
2/26, William Fisher, Public Record, UK Minister Hutton Apologies for Aiding U.S. in Renditions
2/25, Mike McNerney, Jurist, GUANTANAMO: Challenge and Change Require EU Response
2/25, Toronto Star, Khadr's legal team investigated
FIND ACTIONS also at here
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
I'm on a radio show tonight!
U may want to hear the interview with me on the Vets for Peace Radio Show tonight Wednesday Feb 25th or download archive soon? (it's only there for a week!)
WPVM LP, 103.5FM. The Veterans' Voices program is aired & streamed on the internet @ here on Wednesdays @1700 hrs.(6 PM ET) & archived @ the WPVM homepage for a week after airing.
This is from the folk who do the show: We record the show on Tuesdays @ 1800 hrs just after the Peace Vigil held in Pack Square in downtown Asheville. (4:30 -6 PM) (Wonderful, experienced, dedicated community of folk who are Vets from Vietnam and Iraq as well as their supporters! All who want a world with no more war.) Ron, continues here: We have been reading a news item & talking about it, then moving on to the next item so we have as yet been able to present each item submitted.
You are encouraged to make a comment about any of the items being submitted, or any topic concerning veterans, service members or their families, for any of the Veterans' Voice - a radio shows, please do so by emailing vetsvoices@yahoo.com. The name of this program is “Veterans’ Voices” & here’s your chance to have your veteran’s voice heard.
Go here for WINTER SOLDIER BLACKOUT ((For folk very connected with our local Vets for Peace)
here
WPVM LP, 103.5FM. The Veterans' Voices program is aired & streamed on the internet @ here on Wednesdays @1700 hrs.(6 PM ET) & archived @ the WPVM homepage for a week after airing.
This is from the folk who do the show: We record the show on Tuesdays @ 1800 hrs just after the Peace Vigil held in Pack Square in downtown Asheville. (4:30 -6 PM) (Wonderful, experienced, dedicated community of folk who are Vets from Vietnam and Iraq as well as their supporters! All who want a world with no more war.) Ron, continues here: We have been reading a news item & talking about it, then moving on to the next item so we have as yet been able to present each item submitted.
You are encouraged to make a comment about any of the items being submitted, or any topic concerning veterans, service members or their families, for any of the Veterans' Voice - a radio shows, please do so by emailing vetsvoices@yahoo.com. The name of this program is “Veterans’ Voices” & here’s your chance to have your veteran’s voice heard.
Go here for WINTER SOLDIER BLACKOUT ((For folk very connected with our local Vets for Peace)
here
Daniel Ellsberg Does Kissinger/Nixon (from 1972)
What these empire-wanting White House folk said to each other during a close call not long after Ellsberg's Pentagon papers came out (1971)
here
here
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Just Foreign Policy News February 24, 2009
Just Foreign Policy News
February 24, 2009
Just Foreign Policy News on the Web
If you're having trouble reading the email version, try the web version:
here
Guadeloupe Strikes: A Warning to Obama?
DNI Blair said the global economic crisis was the most serious security challenge facing the U.S. A week later, the French government was sending police reinforcements to Guadeloupe after a month of strikes and protests over low pay and high prices followed by clashes between police and protesters. But reportedly the Administration plans to cut the deficit by "scaling back" Obama's promise to double foreign aid. Rep.Frank wants to cut the military budget by 25%; a mere 4% cut in the military budget would pay for the entire increase in foreign aid Obama promised, and the money would then address "the most serious security challenge facing the U.S." instead of being used for corporate welfare for military contractors.
here
Help us build for a Just Foreign Policy
Your financial contributions to Just Foreign Policy allow us to continue helping Americans to advocate for a just foreign policy.
here
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) Amnesty International called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups, the Guardian reports. Amnesty called on the Obama administration to suspend military aid to Israel. "To a large extent, Israel's military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers' money," Amnesty said.
2) Monday's call by Sen. Lugar for a re-assessment of Washington's effort to isolate Cuba increases the likelihood Obama will make substantial changes in policy toward Havana beyond those he promised, writes Jim Lobe for Inter Press Service. A staff report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called for the resumption of bilateral talks on drug interdiction and migration, enhanced cooperation on alternative energy development, and easing restrictions on travel and trade. It also urged Havana's re-integration into the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. In the last several weeks, lawmakers have introduced bills that would lift all travel restrictions on trips to Cuba by U.S. citizens.
3) Democrats controlling Congress are loosening restrictions on allowing people of Cuban descent to visit their relatives on the island, AP reports. A bill wrapping up last year's budget would block enforcement of restrictions imposed by Bush on family travel to Cuba. Once signed by Obama, the legislation would allow Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba once a year to visit relatives, spend up to $170 a day and visit for an unlimited duration. The legislation would also expand the definition of family to include first cousins, aunts and uncles rather than parents, siblings and grandparents, allowing more people to travel under looser rules.
4) Americans by 2-1 approve of President Obama's decision to send 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, USA Today reports. Half of those surveyed say they'd support a decision to send another 13,000 troops. One of four Americans says Obama should reduce the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or withdraw them entirely. 49% say the US will be able to establish a stable enough situation in Afghanistan within the next three years to allow most U.S. troops to be withdrawn; 46% say they won't.
Afghanistan
5) There was more to the Iraq surge than additional troops, and it is those elements - changing the troops' mission from offense to defense, increasing support for indigenous forces, and stepping up diplomacy within the nation and among its neighbors - that analysts say could be most relevant for Afghanistan, the San Franscisco Chronicle reports. Analysts say the mission of troops should shift from hunting down insurgents to protecting civilians, and focus money on Afghan rather than US troops. "You can get 70 Afghan soldiers for the price of one American soldier deployed to Afghanistan," noted one analyst. Empowering local leaders may require some political reforms - such as allowing governors to be elected locally instead of appointed by Kabul.
Iran
6) If Obama really wants to improve relations with Tehran, working with Ahmadinejad may be his best bet, argues Ali Reza Eshraghi in the New York Times. Ahmadinejad may be the most capable of standing up to Tehran's hard-liners. Khatami may not have the clout among conservatives to take the same kinds of risks.
7) U.N. officials said Iran appears to be putting the brakes on key aspects of its controversial nuclear program, the Washington Post reports. Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran has slowed the expansion of the underground centrifuge facility where it makes enriched uranium. "They haven't really been adding centrifuges, which is a good thing," IAEA chief ElBaradei said. "Our assessment is that it's a political decision."
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Suspend military aid to Israel, Amnesty urges Obama after detailing US weapons used in Gaza
White phosphorus shells traced back to America
Activists call for arms embargoes on both sides
Rory McCarthy, The Guardian, Monday 23 February 2009
here
Detailed evidence has emerged of Israel's extensive use of US-made weaponry during its war in Gaza last month, including white phosphorus artillery shells, 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles.
In a report released today, Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups. It called on the Obama administration to suspend military aid to Israel.
The human rights group said that those arming both sides in the conflict "will have been well aware of a pattern of repeated misuse of weapons by both parties and must therefore take responsibility for the violations perpetrated".
The US has long been the largest arms supplier to Israel; under a current 10-year agreement negotiated by the Bush administration the US will provide $30bn in military aid to Israel.
"As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the USA has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa programme director. "To a large extent, Israel's military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers' money."
2) Lugar Report Gives Momentum to Anti-Embargo Push
Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, Feb 23
here
Monday's call by Sen. Richard Lugar for a major re-assessment of Washington's nearly half-century effort to isolate Cuba increases the likelihood that U.S. President Barack Obama will make substantial changes in policy toward Havana beyond those he promised during his election campaign, according to experts here.
"What's significant is that this is the senior statesman for foreign policy in the Republican Party, someone who doesn't have a long track record of advocating for changes in Cuba policy, who has decided to come out and really put his stamp on this issue by saying that the U.S. embargo doesn't favour our national interest," said Daniel Erickson, a Cuba specialist at the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank here.
"The fact is that Lugar has pre-empted Obama with his own proposals for changing the policy and in so doing creates a context that is much more favourable to changing the policy beyond the narrow of issue of lifting restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances" to the island, added Erickson, author of 'The Cuba Wars,' a recently published book on U.S.-Cuban relations.
"What you are seeing is momentum-building," agreed Geoff Thale, a Cuba specialist at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a human rights group that has long opposed the trade embargo. "With the policy already under review by the administration, Lugar is creating political space for Obama to take stronger action than he otherwise might."
In an introduction to a staff report he released Monday, Lugar, the ranking Republican and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Washington "must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests."
"After 47 years... the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of 'bringing democracy to the Cuban people'," Lugar wrote, "while it may have been used as a foil by the regime to demand further sacrifices from Cuba's impoverished population," he noted, adding that the report, entitled 'Changing Cuba Policy - In the United States National Interest', "provides significant insight and a number of important recommendations to advance U.S. interests with Cuba."
The report itself, published on the first anniversary of the transfer of power from former President Fidel Castro to his brother, Raul, and based in part on four-day trip to Cuba by a staff delegation last month, called for the resumption of bilateral talks on drug interdiction and migration, enhanced cooperation on alternative energy development, and easing restrictions on travel and trade.
It also urged Havana's re-integration into western-dominated international institutions, such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, among other steps Washington could take as part of process of "sequenced engagement" designed to "develop trust" between the two nations.
...
"I think he will go beyond the Cuban-American curbs and at least go back to the circumstances (that prevailed) at least at the end of the (Bill) Clinton administration," said William LeoGrande, a Cuba specialist and dean of the School of Government at American University. "Remember, it was a Republican-controlled Senate that approved the sale of food and medicine to Cuba back in 2000, so I don't think there is significant political risk."
In the last several weeks, lawmakers, including Lugar in the Senate, have quietly introduced bills that, if passed, would lift all travel restrictions on trips to Cuba by U.S. citizens, a step that could inflict a decisive blow against the embargo. Such legislation passed in both the House of Representatives and Senate in 2003 and 2004 but was dropped when Bush threatened to veto the bills.
3) US Congress Easing Restrictions on Cuba Travel
AP, February 23, 2009
here
Democrats controlling Congress are loosening restrictions on allowing people of Cuban descent to visit their relatives on the island.
A huge bill wrapping up last year's budget would block enforcement of restrictions imposed by President Bush in 2004 on family travel to Cuba. The Bush rules limit family visits to once every three years for no more than 14 days. Travel spending is now capped at $50 per day.
Once signed by Obama, the legislation would allow Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba once a year to visit relatives, spend up to $170 a day and visit for an unlimited duration.
The legislation would also expand the definition of family to include first cousins, aunts and uncles rather than parents, siblings and grandparents. That would allow many more people to travel to the island under the looser rules that apply to Cuban-Americans and legal immigrants.
4) Poll: Most Back Obama's Troop Plan For Afghanistan
Susan Page, USA Today, February 23, 2009
here
Americans by 2-1 approve of President Obama's decision to send 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan despite skepticism over whether they can succeed in stabilizing the security situation there within the next few years.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday shows a reservoir of support for Obama's first major military decision as president. Two-thirds express approval of his order to expand the U.S. deployment to Afghanistan by 50%; one third disapprove.
Half of those surveyed say they'd support a decision to send another 13,000 troops, which would fulfill the request by U.S. commanders to nearly double the U.S. force in Afghanistan even as troops are being withdrawn from Iraq.
Even so, there is measurable opposition. One of four Americans says Obama should reduce the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or withdraw them entirely. That opposition is stronger among Obama's fellow Democrats than among Republicans: 29% of Democrats, compared to 17% of Republicans.
...
Americans are split over whether the United States will be able to establish a stable enough situation in Afghanistan within the next three years to allow most U.S. troops to be withdrawn. While 49% say they will, another 46% say they won't. Most of those predict a stalemate between the United States and the Taliban.
Afghanistan
5) Applying Iraq's Broader Lessons In Afghanistan
Matthew B. Stannard, San Fransicso Chronicle, Tuesday, February 24, 2009
here
As the United States and NATO craft a new strategy for Afghanistan, they are likely to apply counterinsurgency lessons learned at great cost during the war in Iraq. Last week, President Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, prompting comparisons to the "surge" strategy in Iraq.
But there was more to the surge than just additional troops, and it is those elements - changing the troops' mission from offense to defense, increasing support for indigenous forces, and stepping up diplomacy within the nation and among its neighbors - that analysts say could be most relevant for Afghanistan.
...
First, many analysts say, the mission of U.S. and NATO troops should shift from hunting down insurgents to protecting civilians. "The biggest lesson from Iraq - and it holds true in Afghanistan - is the center of gravity is the population, and the security of the population, in a counterinsurgency," Johnson said.
...
A more fundamental problem, Nagl said, is that the size of the Afghan force has been defined by what Afghanistan can afford, a problem he suggested the international community should address with money, not military. "You can get 70 Afghan soldiers for the price of one American soldier deployed to Afghanistan. Just on a pure pocketbook issue, this is the way to win this war," he said.
Reaching out to other nations - friendly and otherwise - is another component many analysts hope to see in a new Afghanistan strategy. Afghanistan is within the spheres of influence of Iran, China, Russia, India and Pakistan, home of the restive tribal areas where Afghanistan's insurgents find safe haven.
...
Diplomatic hands must also be extended to the Afghans themselves - another lesson from the surge in Iraq, during which local militias and leaders were given financial and political incentive to cooperate.
"The biggest thing we're learning from Iraq is the Tip O'Neill thing, which is 'All politics are local,'" Barfield said. "The biggest thing we did was in Iraq was we sat down ... with people and said, 'What are our common interests?' "
The same thing is needed in Afghanistan, Johnson said, but using methods that reflect the diffused village culture of the rural insurgency.
So far, he said, the United States has focused on supporting the central government. Instead, Johnson envisions the deployment of perhaps 200 teams combining U.S. and Afghan troops and civilian specialists in subjects such as agriculture and hydrology.
...
Empowering local leaders may require some political reforms - such as allowing governors to be elected locally instead of appointed by Kabul - and risks reawakening warlordism if it is not handled with care, analysts warn.
It also could mean abandoning the quest for a Western-style centralized democratic government in Afghanistan, and instead focusing on simpler ambitions, Nagl said: preventing the country from becoming a terrorist sanctuary or triggering a regional crisis, and helping the Afghan people build a sustainable government of their own design.
Iran
6) Our Friend In Tehran
Ali Reza Eshraghi, New York Times, February 23, 2009
here
[Eshraghi, former newspaper editor in Iran, is visiting scholar at the University of California.]
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - the Iranian leader Washington loves to hate - has only a few more months left in his presidential term. But this is not cause for celebration. If President Barack Obama really wants to improve relations with Tehran, working with Ahmadinejad may be his best bet. In a speech earlier this month commemorating the Islamic revolution's anniversary, an event normally reserved for anti-American rhetoric, Ahmadinejad declared Iran's readiness to talk to the United States. The election of a new president in June could slam shut a rare window of opportunity.
Obama seems to understand this. He recently said that he will be looking for "openings" in the months ahead for face-to-face talks with Iran. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France cautioned that it would be wiser to hold off on talks until after the Iranian presidential elections. But this would be a bad idea. While it is too early to predict the elections' outcome, Ahmadinejad is hardly guaranteed to win. Perhaps Sarkozy believes that the victory of a more moderate president, like Mohammad Khatami, would set the stage for more productive talks with Iran. In reality, Ahmadinejad may be the most capable of standing up to Tehran's hard-liners. Khatami may not have the courage - or the clout among conservatives - to take the same kinds of risks.
...
But Ahmadinejad's boldest moves have been toward the United States. Shortly after the American presidential election, Ahmadinejad wrote a letter to Obama congratulating him on his historic victory. This marked the first time, at least since the revolution, that an Iranian leader congratulated the winner of an election in the United States. To be sure, some wonder if this friendly gesture reflected official sentiment in Tehran. Ahmadinejad is, after all, not the most powerful or influential person in his country. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei basically steers Iran's foreign policy. But it is foolish to believe that Ahmadinejad was truly acting alone. He could not have sent a congratulatory letter to Obama without at least the tacit permission of the supreme leader.
...
Obama has expressed interest in engaging in dialogue with Iran, and there is no time to waste. Over the next few months he should initiate negotiations without preconditions and establish formal diplomatic ties with Iran. Ahmadinejad, for all his faults, has taken unprecedented steps to reach out to the United States. Iran's next leader may not be able to do the same. Obama must seize the opportunity to shake the Iranian president's outstretched hand.
7) Iran Easing Aspects Of Nuclear Program
Report Cites Lag at Centrifuge Facility
Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Friday, February 20, 2009; A14
here
Iran appears to be putting the brakes on key aspects of its controversial nuclear program, U.N. officials said yesterday in a report that nonetheless showed Tehran edging closer to nuclear-weapons capability.
Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran has slowed the expansion of the underground centrifuge facility where it makes enriched uranium, a key ingredient in nuclear bombs, according to the agency's report. The slower pace was interpreted by some U.N. officials as a conciliatory gesture in advance of any diplomatic overtures by the Obama administration.
"The pace of installing and bringing centrifuges into operation has slowed quite considerably since August," a senior U.N. official said in briefing journalists on the new IAEA inspection report. The official, speaking on the condition that he remain anonymous, said the agency "has no information" to explain the slowdown.
Yet, the official said, while curtailing growth in some areas, Iran continues to amass enriched uranium and, in theory, may have already acquired enough to make a nuclear bomb. Such a move would require months or years of additional work, after Iran first expelled U.N. inspectors from the country, he said.
IAEA inspectors have seen no evidence that Iran is preparing to take such a step, and the agency is confident that none of Iran's enriched uranium is being secretly removed for weapons work. "All the material is under containment and surveillance," the U.N. official said.
The new details were contained in a pair of IAEA inspection reports prepared by the nuclear watchdog in advance of a meeting of IAEA member states next month. On Tuesday, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei hinted at the report's findings at a news conference and suggested that Iran may be attempting to send a positive message to President Obama. "They haven't really been adding centrifuges, which is a good thing," ElBaradei said. "Our assessment is that it's a political decision."
-
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans.
February 24, 2009
Just Foreign Policy News on the Web
If you're having trouble reading the email version, try the web version:
here
Guadeloupe Strikes: A Warning to Obama?
DNI Blair said the global economic crisis was the most serious security challenge facing the U.S. A week later, the French government was sending police reinforcements to Guadeloupe after a month of strikes and protests over low pay and high prices followed by clashes between police and protesters. But reportedly the Administration plans to cut the deficit by "scaling back" Obama's promise to double foreign aid. Rep.Frank wants to cut the military budget by 25%; a mere 4% cut in the military budget would pay for the entire increase in foreign aid Obama promised, and the money would then address "the most serious security challenge facing the U.S." instead of being used for corporate welfare for military contractors.
here
Help us build for a Just Foreign Policy
Your financial contributions to Just Foreign Policy allow us to continue helping Americans to advocate for a just foreign policy.
here
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) Amnesty International called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups, the Guardian reports. Amnesty called on the Obama administration to suspend military aid to Israel. "To a large extent, Israel's military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers' money," Amnesty said.
2) Monday's call by Sen. Lugar for a re-assessment of Washington's effort to isolate Cuba increases the likelihood Obama will make substantial changes in policy toward Havana beyond those he promised, writes Jim Lobe for Inter Press Service. A staff report of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called for the resumption of bilateral talks on drug interdiction and migration, enhanced cooperation on alternative energy development, and easing restrictions on travel and trade. It also urged Havana's re-integration into the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. In the last several weeks, lawmakers have introduced bills that would lift all travel restrictions on trips to Cuba by U.S. citizens.
3) Democrats controlling Congress are loosening restrictions on allowing people of Cuban descent to visit their relatives on the island, AP reports. A bill wrapping up last year's budget would block enforcement of restrictions imposed by Bush on family travel to Cuba. Once signed by Obama, the legislation would allow Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba once a year to visit relatives, spend up to $170 a day and visit for an unlimited duration. The legislation would also expand the definition of family to include first cousins, aunts and uncles rather than parents, siblings and grandparents, allowing more people to travel under looser rules.
4) Americans by 2-1 approve of President Obama's decision to send 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, USA Today reports. Half of those surveyed say they'd support a decision to send another 13,000 troops. One of four Americans says Obama should reduce the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or withdraw them entirely. 49% say the US will be able to establish a stable enough situation in Afghanistan within the next three years to allow most U.S. troops to be withdrawn; 46% say they won't.
Afghanistan
5) There was more to the Iraq surge than additional troops, and it is those elements - changing the troops' mission from offense to defense, increasing support for indigenous forces, and stepping up diplomacy within the nation and among its neighbors - that analysts say could be most relevant for Afghanistan, the San Franscisco Chronicle reports. Analysts say the mission of troops should shift from hunting down insurgents to protecting civilians, and focus money on Afghan rather than US troops. "You can get 70 Afghan soldiers for the price of one American soldier deployed to Afghanistan," noted one analyst. Empowering local leaders may require some political reforms - such as allowing governors to be elected locally instead of appointed by Kabul.
Iran
6) If Obama really wants to improve relations with Tehran, working with Ahmadinejad may be his best bet, argues Ali Reza Eshraghi in the New York Times. Ahmadinejad may be the most capable of standing up to Tehran's hard-liners. Khatami may not have the clout among conservatives to take the same kinds of risks.
7) U.N. officials said Iran appears to be putting the brakes on key aspects of its controversial nuclear program, the Washington Post reports. Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran has slowed the expansion of the underground centrifuge facility where it makes enriched uranium. "They haven't really been adding centrifuges, which is a good thing," IAEA chief ElBaradei said. "Our assessment is that it's a political decision."
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Suspend military aid to Israel, Amnesty urges Obama after detailing US weapons used in Gaza
White phosphorus shells traced back to America
Activists call for arms embargoes on both sides
Rory McCarthy, The Guardian, Monday 23 February 2009
here
Detailed evidence has emerged of Israel's extensive use of US-made weaponry during its war in Gaza last month, including white phosphorus artillery shells, 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles.
In a report released today, Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups. It called on the Obama administration to suspend military aid to Israel.
The human rights group said that those arming both sides in the conflict "will have been well aware of a pattern of repeated misuse of weapons by both parties and must therefore take responsibility for the violations perpetrated".
The US has long been the largest arms supplier to Israel; under a current 10-year agreement negotiated by the Bush administration the US will provide $30bn in military aid to Israel.
"As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the USA has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa programme director. "To a large extent, Israel's military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers' money."
2) Lugar Report Gives Momentum to Anti-Embargo Push
Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, Feb 23
here
Monday's call by Sen. Richard Lugar for a major re-assessment of Washington's nearly half-century effort to isolate Cuba increases the likelihood that U.S. President Barack Obama will make substantial changes in policy toward Havana beyond those he promised during his election campaign, according to experts here.
"What's significant is that this is the senior statesman for foreign policy in the Republican Party, someone who doesn't have a long track record of advocating for changes in Cuba policy, who has decided to come out and really put his stamp on this issue by saying that the U.S. embargo doesn't favour our national interest," said Daniel Erickson, a Cuba specialist at the Inter-American Dialogue, a think tank here.
"The fact is that Lugar has pre-empted Obama with his own proposals for changing the policy and in so doing creates a context that is much more favourable to changing the policy beyond the narrow of issue of lifting restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances" to the island, added Erickson, author of 'The Cuba Wars,' a recently published book on U.S.-Cuban relations.
"What you are seeing is momentum-building," agreed Geoff Thale, a Cuba specialist at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a human rights group that has long opposed the trade embargo. "With the policy already under review by the administration, Lugar is creating political space for Obama to take stronger action than he otherwise might."
In an introduction to a staff report he released Monday, Lugar, the ranking Republican and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Washington "must recognize the ineffectiveness of our current policy and deal with the Cuban regime in a way that enhances U.S. interests."
"After 47 years... the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of 'bringing democracy to the Cuban people'," Lugar wrote, "while it may have been used as a foil by the regime to demand further sacrifices from Cuba's impoverished population," he noted, adding that the report, entitled 'Changing Cuba Policy - In the United States National Interest', "provides significant insight and a number of important recommendations to advance U.S. interests with Cuba."
The report itself, published on the first anniversary of the transfer of power from former President Fidel Castro to his brother, Raul, and based in part on four-day trip to Cuba by a staff delegation last month, called for the resumption of bilateral talks on drug interdiction and migration, enhanced cooperation on alternative energy development, and easing restrictions on travel and trade.
It also urged Havana's re-integration into western-dominated international institutions, such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, among other steps Washington could take as part of process of "sequenced engagement" designed to "develop trust" between the two nations.
...
"I think he will go beyond the Cuban-American curbs and at least go back to the circumstances (that prevailed) at least at the end of the (Bill) Clinton administration," said William LeoGrande, a Cuba specialist and dean of the School of Government at American University. "Remember, it was a Republican-controlled Senate that approved the sale of food and medicine to Cuba back in 2000, so I don't think there is significant political risk."
In the last several weeks, lawmakers, including Lugar in the Senate, have quietly introduced bills that, if passed, would lift all travel restrictions on trips to Cuba by U.S. citizens, a step that could inflict a decisive blow against the embargo. Such legislation passed in both the House of Representatives and Senate in 2003 and 2004 but was dropped when Bush threatened to veto the bills.
3) US Congress Easing Restrictions on Cuba Travel
AP, February 23, 2009
here
Democrats controlling Congress are loosening restrictions on allowing people of Cuban descent to visit their relatives on the island.
A huge bill wrapping up last year's budget would block enforcement of restrictions imposed by President Bush in 2004 on family travel to Cuba. The Bush rules limit family visits to once every three years for no more than 14 days. Travel spending is now capped at $50 per day.
Once signed by Obama, the legislation would allow Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba once a year to visit relatives, spend up to $170 a day and visit for an unlimited duration.
The legislation would also expand the definition of family to include first cousins, aunts and uncles rather than parents, siblings and grandparents. That would allow many more people to travel to the island under the looser rules that apply to Cuban-Americans and legal immigrants.
4) Poll: Most Back Obama's Troop Plan For Afghanistan
Susan Page, USA Today, February 23, 2009
here
Americans by 2-1 approve of President Obama's decision to send 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan despite skepticism over whether they can succeed in stabilizing the security situation there within the next few years.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday shows a reservoir of support for Obama's first major military decision as president. Two-thirds express approval of his order to expand the U.S. deployment to Afghanistan by 50%; one third disapprove.
Half of those surveyed say they'd support a decision to send another 13,000 troops, which would fulfill the request by U.S. commanders to nearly double the U.S. force in Afghanistan even as troops are being withdrawn from Iraq.
Even so, there is measurable opposition. One of four Americans says Obama should reduce the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or withdraw them entirely. That opposition is stronger among Obama's fellow Democrats than among Republicans: 29% of Democrats, compared to 17% of Republicans.
...
Americans are split over whether the United States will be able to establish a stable enough situation in Afghanistan within the next three years to allow most U.S. troops to be withdrawn. While 49% say they will, another 46% say they won't. Most of those predict a stalemate between the United States and the Taliban.
Afghanistan
5) Applying Iraq's Broader Lessons In Afghanistan
Matthew B. Stannard, San Fransicso Chronicle, Tuesday, February 24, 2009
here
As the United States and NATO craft a new strategy for Afghanistan, they are likely to apply counterinsurgency lessons learned at great cost during the war in Iraq. Last week, President Obama ordered 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, prompting comparisons to the "surge" strategy in Iraq.
But there was more to the surge than just additional troops, and it is those elements - changing the troops' mission from offense to defense, increasing support for indigenous forces, and stepping up diplomacy within the nation and among its neighbors - that analysts say could be most relevant for Afghanistan.
...
First, many analysts say, the mission of U.S. and NATO troops should shift from hunting down insurgents to protecting civilians. "The biggest lesson from Iraq - and it holds true in Afghanistan - is the center of gravity is the population, and the security of the population, in a counterinsurgency," Johnson said.
...
A more fundamental problem, Nagl said, is that the size of the Afghan force has been defined by what Afghanistan can afford, a problem he suggested the international community should address with money, not military. "You can get 70 Afghan soldiers for the price of one American soldier deployed to Afghanistan. Just on a pure pocketbook issue, this is the way to win this war," he said.
Reaching out to other nations - friendly and otherwise - is another component many analysts hope to see in a new Afghanistan strategy. Afghanistan is within the spheres of influence of Iran, China, Russia, India and Pakistan, home of the restive tribal areas where Afghanistan's insurgents find safe haven.
...
Diplomatic hands must also be extended to the Afghans themselves - another lesson from the surge in Iraq, during which local militias and leaders were given financial and political incentive to cooperate.
"The biggest thing we're learning from Iraq is the Tip O'Neill thing, which is 'All politics are local,'" Barfield said. "The biggest thing we did was in Iraq was we sat down ... with people and said, 'What are our common interests?' "
The same thing is needed in Afghanistan, Johnson said, but using methods that reflect the diffused village culture of the rural insurgency.
So far, he said, the United States has focused on supporting the central government. Instead, Johnson envisions the deployment of perhaps 200 teams combining U.S. and Afghan troops and civilian specialists in subjects such as agriculture and hydrology.
...
Empowering local leaders may require some political reforms - such as allowing governors to be elected locally instead of appointed by Kabul - and risks reawakening warlordism if it is not handled with care, analysts warn.
It also could mean abandoning the quest for a Western-style centralized democratic government in Afghanistan, and instead focusing on simpler ambitions, Nagl said: preventing the country from becoming a terrorist sanctuary or triggering a regional crisis, and helping the Afghan people build a sustainable government of their own design.
Iran
6) Our Friend In Tehran
Ali Reza Eshraghi, New York Times, February 23, 2009
here
[Eshraghi, former newspaper editor in Iran, is visiting scholar at the University of California.]
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - the Iranian leader Washington loves to hate - has only a few more months left in his presidential term. But this is not cause for celebration. If President Barack Obama really wants to improve relations with Tehran, working with Ahmadinejad may be his best bet. In a speech earlier this month commemorating the Islamic revolution's anniversary, an event normally reserved for anti-American rhetoric, Ahmadinejad declared Iran's readiness to talk to the United States. The election of a new president in June could slam shut a rare window of opportunity.
Obama seems to understand this. He recently said that he will be looking for "openings" in the months ahead for face-to-face talks with Iran. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France cautioned that it would be wiser to hold off on talks until after the Iranian presidential elections. But this would be a bad idea. While it is too early to predict the elections' outcome, Ahmadinejad is hardly guaranteed to win. Perhaps Sarkozy believes that the victory of a more moderate president, like Mohammad Khatami, would set the stage for more productive talks with Iran. In reality, Ahmadinejad may be the most capable of standing up to Tehran's hard-liners. Khatami may not have the courage - or the clout among conservatives - to take the same kinds of risks.
...
But Ahmadinejad's boldest moves have been toward the United States. Shortly after the American presidential election, Ahmadinejad wrote a letter to Obama congratulating him on his historic victory. This marked the first time, at least since the revolution, that an Iranian leader congratulated the winner of an election in the United States. To be sure, some wonder if this friendly gesture reflected official sentiment in Tehran. Ahmadinejad is, after all, not the most powerful or influential person in his country. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei basically steers Iran's foreign policy. But it is foolish to believe that Ahmadinejad was truly acting alone. He could not have sent a congratulatory letter to Obama without at least the tacit permission of the supreme leader.
...
Obama has expressed interest in engaging in dialogue with Iran, and there is no time to waste. Over the next few months he should initiate negotiations without preconditions and establish formal diplomatic ties with Iran. Ahmadinejad, for all his faults, has taken unprecedented steps to reach out to the United States. Iran's next leader may not be able to do the same. Obama must seize the opportunity to shake the Iranian president's outstretched hand.
7) Iran Easing Aspects Of Nuclear Program
Report Cites Lag at Centrifuge Facility
Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Friday, February 20, 2009; A14
here
Iran appears to be putting the brakes on key aspects of its controversial nuclear program, U.N. officials said yesterday in a report that nonetheless showed Tehran edging closer to nuclear-weapons capability.
Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency found that Iran has slowed the expansion of the underground centrifuge facility where it makes enriched uranium, a key ingredient in nuclear bombs, according to the agency's report. The slower pace was interpreted by some U.N. officials as a conciliatory gesture in advance of any diplomatic overtures by the Obama administration.
"The pace of installing and bringing centrifuges into operation has slowed quite considerably since August," a senior U.N. official said in briefing journalists on the new IAEA inspection report. The official, speaking on the condition that he remain anonymous, said the agency "has no information" to explain the slowdown.
Yet, the official said, while curtailing growth in some areas, Iran continues to amass enriched uranium and, in theory, may have already acquired enough to make a nuclear bomb. Such a move would require months or years of additional work, after Iran first expelled U.N. inspectors from the country, he said.
IAEA inspectors have seen no evidence that Iran is preparing to take such a step, and the agency is confident that none of Iran's enriched uranium is being secretly removed for weapons work. "All the material is under containment and surveillance," the U.N. official said.
The new details were contained in a pair of IAEA inspection reports prepared by the nuclear watchdog in advance of a meeting of IAEA member states next month. On Tuesday, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei hinted at the report's findings at a news conference and suggested that Iran may be attempting to send a positive message to President Obama. "They haven't really been adding centrifuges, which is a good thing," ElBaradei said. "Our assessment is that it's a political decision."
-
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans.
Today's News at Bill of Rights Defense Committee: Current News
For easy access to the following, go here and scroll down, go here and/or sign up for free emails.
2/24, Jonathan Tracy, Jurist, For a Non-partisan Commission on Detainee Treatment
2/24, Steven Erlanger, New York Times, Terror Convictions Overturned in France
2/24, Jay McDonough, Examiner.com, Investigate the Democrats too
2/24, Paisley Dodds, Associated Press, UK Guantanamo detainee enjoys 1st day of freedom
2/24, BBC News, Spain may take Guantanamo inmates
2/24, Media Matters for America, Wash. Times claim that Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib were "completely unrelated" contradicted by bipartisan Senate report
2/24, Lennox Samuels, Newsweek, Abu Ghraib Gets a Makeover
2/24, John H. Richardson, Esquire, The Torture Trap: Can Obama Really Ease Up?
2/23, William Glaberson, New York Times, Administration Draws Fire for Report on Guantánamo
2/24, Jonathan Tracy, Jurist, For a Non-partisan Commission on Detainee Treatment
2/24, Steven Erlanger, New York Times, Terror Convictions Overturned in France
2/24, Jay McDonough, Examiner.com, Investigate the Democrats too
2/24, Paisley Dodds, Associated Press, UK Guantanamo detainee enjoys 1st day of freedom
2/24, BBC News, Spain may take Guantanamo inmates
2/24, Media Matters for America, Wash. Times claim that Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib were "completely unrelated" contradicted by bipartisan Senate report
2/24, Lennox Samuels, Newsweek, Abu Ghraib Gets a Makeover
2/24, John H. Richardson, Esquire, The Torture Trap: Can Obama Really Ease Up?
2/23, William Glaberson, New York Times, Administration Draws Fire for Report on Guantánamo
Center for Constitutional Rights Special Event in Atlanta, GA on March 4, 2009
Please join CCR Executive Director Vincent Warren in Atlanta, GA on March 4, 2009. He will join Akinyele Umoja from the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement and Azadeh Shahshahani from the American Civil Liberties Union - Atlanta for a panel discussion, "The Right to Dissent: Challenging Political Repression," moderated by the US Human Rights Network. The speakers will address attacks on dissent that have taken place both in recent years and throughout decades of repression and resistance, particularly the targeting of activists, the labeling of dissenters as "terrorists," political prisoners in the US and the creation of new categories of repression, including "enemy combatants."
Vincent Warren will discuss the Center's 100 Days Campaign, that addresses the urgent need to restore, protect and expand the right to dissent, as well as the need to end torture, arbitrary detention and extraordinary rendition, roll back executive power, abolish preventive detention, limit the state secrets privilege, reform presidential war powers, and end warrantless wiretapping.
Akinyele Umoja will discuss the targeting of activists in Black social liberation movements from COINTELPRO through the Patriot Act, as well as recent acts of repression such as the case of the San Francisco 8, and what can be done to combat this repression.
Azadeh Shashahani will discuss the targeting of immigrant communities, particularly Arab and Muslim communities post-9/11 and the urgent need to repeal the policies and practices that threaten these communities.
WHAT: The Right to Dissent: Challenging Political Repression
WHO: Featuring CCR Executive Director Vince Warren
WHEN: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 7:00 PM
WHERE: US Human Rights Network, 250 Georgia Avenue SW , 3rd Floor Conference Room, Atlanta, GA 30312
The event is free and open to the public. We look forward to seeing you.
Sincerely,
Annette Dickerson
Director of Education and Outreach
Vincent Warren will discuss the Center's 100 Days Campaign, that addresses the urgent need to restore, protect and expand the right to dissent, as well as the need to end torture, arbitrary detention and extraordinary rendition, roll back executive power, abolish preventive detention, limit the state secrets privilege, reform presidential war powers, and end warrantless wiretapping.
Akinyele Umoja will discuss the targeting of activists in Black social liberation movements from COINTELPRO through the Patriot Act, as well as recent acts of repression such as the case of the San Francisco 8, and what can be done to combat this repression.
Azadeh Shashahani will discuss the targeting of immigrant communities, particularly Arab and Muslim communities post-9/11 and the urgent need to repeal the policies and practices that threaten these communities.
WHAT: The Right to Dissent: Challenging Political Repression
WHO: Featuring CCR Executive Director Vince Warren
WHEN: Wednesday, March 4, 2009, 7:00 PM
WHERE: US Human Rights Network, 250 Georgia Avenue SW , 3rd Floor Conference Room, Atlanta, GA 30312
The event is free and open to the public. We look forward to seeing you.
Sincerely,
Annette Dickerson
Director of Education and Outreach
Help Gaza, Zimbabwe, Congo and More: Just in from International Rescue Committee
here
It happens at a moment's notice.
A humanitarian crisis erupts somewhere in the world, and my IRC emergency response team is ready for action.
In a matter of hours we are rushing to the scene to help people uprooted by disaster and devastation.
Your urgent donation will directly support our lifesaving work in Zimbabwe, Gaza, Congo, and other crisis zones where the lives of men, women, and children are at stake.
As you may have heard in the news, the humanitarian catastrophe in Zimbabwe is worsening. A major cholera outbreak has sickened 55,000 and claimed almost 4,000 lives.
This morning, I spoke with IRC doctors who are on the scene training health teams and helping local leaders coordinate a response to the health crisis. We discussed our plan to send more health workers to communities across the country in the coming months to treat those stricken with cholera.
In the coming week, the IRC will deliver 250 "light kits" to cholera treatment centers across Zimbabwe. These kits include flashlights, candles, and safety matches, and will enable clinics to operate day and night in the face of this massive health crisis.
As director of the IRC's emergency response program, I've seen the immediate benefits of your support. It provides comfort, health, and hope for those who endure a daily struggle to survive.
By supporting the IRC, you will help rebuild lives shattered by humanitarian crises in Zimbabwe, Gaza, Congo, and elsewhere around the world.
Beyond Zimbabwe, my team is hard at work launching relief efforts throughout the world. In war-torn Gaza, more than 100,000 remain homeless following three weeks of deadly conflict.
At the outset of the crisis, The IRC worked with local partners to deliver badly needed medical supplies and household items to those left vulnerable in Gaza.
Right now, the IRC is developing psychological support programs for children and sanitation programs that will serve thousands without access to clean water.
Outside of Zimbabwe and Gaza, my team members are working effectively and efficiently in 42 countries torn apart by violence and deprivation.
When you support the IRC, you can trust our stewardship of your dollars. Ninety cents of every dollar we spend will go directly to the front lines helping refugees on the long journey from harm to home.
Make a gift today, and it will provide direct and critical aid for refugees:
Thank you. Because of your compassion and commitment to saving lives, we are making a difference.
Sincerely,
Gillian Dunn
IRC Emergency Response Director
here
It happens at a moment's notice.
A humanitarian crisis erupts somewhere in the world, and my IRC emergency response team is ready for action.
In a matter of hours we are rushing to the scene to help people uprooted by disaster and devastation.
Your urgent donation will directly support our lifesaving work in Zimbabwe, Gaza, Congo, and other crisis zones where the lives of men, women, and children are at stake.
As you may have heard in the news, the humanitarian catastrophe in Zimbabwe is worsening. A major cholera outbreak has sickened 55,000 and claimed almost 4,000 lives.
This morning, I spoke with IRC doctors who are on the scene training health teams and helping local leaders coordinate a response to the health crisis. We discussed our plan to send more health workers to communities across the country in the coming months to treat those stricken with cholera.
In the coming week, the IRC will deliver 250 "light kits" to cholera treatment centers across Zimbabwe. These kits include flashlights, candles, and safety matches, and will enable clinics to operate day and night in the face of this massive health crisis.
As director of the IRC's emergency response program, I've seen the immediate benefits of your support. It provides comfort, health, and hope for those who endure a daily struggle to survive.
By supporting the IRC, you will help rebuild lives shattered by humanitarian crises in Zimbabwe, Gaza, Congo, and elsewhere around the world.
Beyond Zimbabwe, my team is hard at work launching relief efforts throughout the world. In war-torn Gaza, more than 100,000 remain homeless following three weeks of deadly conflict.
At the outset of the crisis, The IRC worked with local partners to deliver badly needed medical supplies and household items to those left vulnerable in Gaza.
Right now, the IRC is developing psychological support programs for children and sanitation programs that will serve thousands without access to clean water.
Outside of Zimbabwe and Gaza, my team members are working effectively and efficiently in 42 countries torn apart by violence and deprivation.
When you support the IRC, you can trust our stewardship of your dollars. Ninety cents of every dollar we spend will go directly to the front lines helping refugees on the long journey from harm to home.
Make a gift today, and it will provide direct and critical aid for refugees:
Thank you. Because of your compassion and commitment to saving lives, we are making a difference.
Sincerely,
Gillian Dunn
IRC Emergency Response Director
here
Monday, February 23, 2009
GAZA APPEALS: Code Pink Event & UNICEF's Gaza Children's Fund
Send Aid to the Women of GazaWednesday March, 4th, 8:00--10:00 PM
Levantine Cultural Center, 5998 W. Pico Blvd, Los Angeles, 90035
$50.00 Or you can contribute from your armchair wherever you are by going:
here
CODEPINK actvists are going to Gaza on International Women's Day (March 8th) to deliver aid to the women of Gaza. CODEPINK and the Levantine Cultural Center invite you to join us at the Levantine Cultural Center to raise funds for the trip and awareness within the community.
Middle Eastern music, sweets, and tea, and reports from those who have just arrived back from Gaza.
____________
From Juan Cole's Informed Comment blog:
The demonstrating crowds have gone home. The blog postings have tapered off. The pundits have moved on. Congress is back to its old tricks, ignoring public opinion in favor of the lobbyists and money men. The US public is worried about losing its job or getting back the one it lost. Gaza here is a dimming memory, a momentary nightmare now past.
But the Palestinian children wounded and charred by Israeli bombings are still screaming, their physicians unable to get hold of enough pain killers to still their yelps of pain. Some 5300 Palestinians, most of them children, women and noncombatants, were wounded in Israel's savage war on the Gaza population.
Please consider donating to UNICEF's Gaza children's fund.
here
For more startling information and video go - here
Suspend Military Aid to Israel, Amnesty Urges Obama after Detailing US Weapons Used in Gaza
[Relatives mourn a Palestinian man killed by Israeli soldiers in Gaza, last month. Photograph: Eyad Baba/AP] By Rory McCarthyPublished on Monday, February 23, 2009 by the Guardian/UK
JERUSALEM - Detailed evidence has emerged of Israel's extensive use of US-made weaponry during its war in Gaza last month, including white phosphorus artillery shells, 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles.
In a report released today, Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups. It called on the Obama administration to suspend military aid to Israel.
The human rights group said that those arming both sides in the conflict "will have been well aware of a pattern of repeated misuse of weapons by both parties and must therefore take responsibility for the violations perpetrated".
The US has long been the largest arms supplier to Israel; under a current 10-year agreement negotiated by the Bush administration the US will provide $30bn (£21bn) in military aid to Israel.
"As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the USA has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa program director. "To a large extent, Israel's military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers' money."
For their part, Palestinian militants in Gaza were arming themselves with "unsophisticated weapons" including rockets made in Russia, Iran and China and bought from "clandestine sources", it said. About 1,300 Palestinians were killed and more than 4,000 injured during the three-week conflict. On the Israeli side 13 were killed, including three civilians. Amnesty said Israel's armed forces carried out "direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Gaza, and attacks which were disproportionate or indiscriminate". The Israeli military declined to comment yesterday.
Palestinian militants also fired "indiscriminate rockets" at civilians, Amnesty said. It called for an independent investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides.
Amnesty researchers in Gaza found several weapon fragments after the fighting. One came from a 500lb (227kg) Mark-82 fin guided bomb, which had markings indicating parts were made by the US company Raytheon. They also found fragments of US-made white phosphorus artillery shells, marked M825 A1.
On 15 January, several white phosphorus shells fired by the Israeli military hit the headquarters of the UN Relief and Works Agency in Gaza City, destroying medicine, food and aid. One fragment found at the scene had markings indicating it was made by the Pine Bluff Arsenal, based in Arkansas, in October 1991.
The human rights group said the Israeli military had used white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas, which it said was an indiscriminate form of attack and a war crime. Its researchers found white phosphorus still burning in residential areas days after the ceasefire.
At the scene of an Israeli attack that killed three Palestinian paramedics and a boy in Gaza City on 4 January, Amnesty found fragments of an AGM114 Hellfire missile, made by Hellfire Systems of Orlando, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The missile is often fired from Apache helicopters.
Amnesty said it also found evidence of a new type of missile, apparently fired from unmanned drones, which exploded into many pieces of shrapnel that were "tiny sharp-edged metal cubes, each between 2 and 4mm square in size".
"They appear designed to cause maximum injury," Amnesty said. Many civilians were killed by this weapon, including several children, it said.
Rockets fired by Palestinian militants were either 122mm Grad missiles or short-range Qassam rockets, a locally made, improvised artillery weapon. Warheads were either smuggled in or made from fertilizer.
The arsenal of weapons was on a "very small scale compared to Israel", it said, adding that the scale of rocket arsenal deployed by Hizbullah in the 2006 Lebanese war was "beyond the reach of Palestinian militant groups".
Armed for war
Israelis Missiles launched from helicopters and unmanned drones, including 20mm cannon and Hellfire missiles. Larger laser-guided and other bombs dropped by F-16 warplanes. Extensive use of US-made 155mm white phosphorus artillery shells and Israeli-made 155mm illuminating shells that eject phosphorus canisters by parachute. Several deaths caused by flechettes, 4cm-long metal darts packed into 120mm tank shells, and fragments of US-made 120mm tank shells.
Palestinians Militants fired rockets into southern Israel including 122mm Grad rockets of either Russian, Chinese or Iranian manufacture, and smaller, improvised Qassam rockets often made inside Gaza and usually holding 5kg of explosives and shrapnel.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
Article printed from here
URL to article: here