junk and crap, amen

Why you ask? Two reasons mainly. Two standout wackos jumped into my fairly wide field of vision recently with these stories:

Republican Congressman Steve King, who believes the following:
I recognized that we're a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and we're coming up to Christmastime. ... It's time we stood up and said so, and said to the rest of America, Be who you are and be confident.
That's right, Jesus Freaks. It's time y'all stood up to the heathens and blasphemers in your midst. It only takes a bit of extra inquisitiveness on your part to root them out.

And Republican Senator Bond, Kit Bond, who likens waterboarding, or torture as I prefer to call it, to swimming. OK, maybe swimming after a big pig out on caviar and chocolate truffles.... with someone holding your fucking head underwater. Asshole.

Labels: politics, religion, stupidity, torture

Omar Khadr, a then 15 year old Canadian citizen captured in Afghanistan by the US in 2002, held at Guantanamo Bay and labelled an 'enemy combatant', will will soon face a Military Commission 'trial'.

The incidents leading to his capture: (from Wikipedia, links intact)

On July 27, 2002, 15-year-old Khadr was in a compound near Khost that was surrounded by US special forces. According to Master Sgt Scotty Hansen of Utah, "we [sent] a couple of Afghan interpreters to go in and talk to them because we didn't want to be storm troopers unless we had to." The two interpreters were shot "point blank in the face," however, according to Sergeant Layne Morris, after which "all heck broke out," according to Hansen^[6]. Sergeant Layne Morris was injured early in the skirmish. The Americans called in a devastating air strike, such that no survivors were expected. Khadr, however, survived and allegedly threw a grenade, which injured Sgt. Christopher Speer and led to his death, and injured three other members of the squad.^[4] Omar was shot three times, and left nearly blind in one eye.

Unlike most other inmates at Guantanamo, charges have been laid against him, first on Nov. 7th 2005 with conspiracy, murder, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. Then on Feb. 2nd 2007 more charges were brought: murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, spying, and providing material support for terrorism. These were then dismissed and then later reinstated. More...

Read the above account of his capture and tell me if these charges make sense. Conspiracy? To what, protect himself? Spying? On who, the Taliban? Murder? And what of the "...devastating air strike, such that no survivors were expected."?

He was 15 fucking years old, having been indoctrinated by his father into a militant mindset, in a country ravaged by war and colonialism for decades which had just been invaded illegally under false pretenses by the most powerful army on the planet. What's he going to do, tell his dad to go to hell, I'm joining the Salvation Army? Maybe, to fit with the circus of legal limbo he finds himself mired in, he should have been charged with 'the audacity not to have died on schedule'.

In 2006, Khadr was finally granted permission to see his lawyers. But subsequently this right has been redacted:

Omar Khadr fought for the right to consult with Canadian lawyers since his arrival at Guantanamo.^[32] In 2006 Dennis Edney and Nathan Whiting were given permission to visit him at Guantanamo. However, in late October, the new Chief Defense counsel barred Edney from visiting Khadr, or attending his trial.^[33] According to the Associated Press Edney was barred because he has criticized Lieutenant Commander Keubler's efforts.

From Edney:

"It's a travesty of justice. It's dark politics that's what it is. The office of the military defence counsel is giving the impression that it's working in Omar's best interest when they're denying his fundamental right to choice of counsel."

While detained, Khadr suffered inhumane treatment. From Amnesty International.:

...he says he has been beaten, “short shackled” (wrists and ankles chained together to a fixed point on the ground), exposed to extreme temperatures, held in isolation for prolonged periods and threatened with rape. An expert on the mental health of juveniles in correctional facilities... concluded that Omar Khadr’s symptoms were “consistent with those exhibited by victims of torture” and he had a mental disorder “including but not limited to post-traumatic stress disorder.”

And the official Government of Canada response to the whole situation? There is this inexplicable ruling:

In August 2005, the Federal Court of Canada issued an injunction barring Canadian officials from conducting any further interviews or questioning him on a variety of the grounds including that his rights were not being adequately protected.

And pathetically from then Defence Minister Bill Graham:

"It is an unfortunate reality that juveniles are too often the victims in military actions and that many groups and countries actively recruit and use them in armed conflicts and in terrorist activities. Canada is working hard to eliminate these practices, but child soldiers still exist, in Afghanistan, and in other parts of the world."

But strangely, Canada's involvement in Afghanistan continues unabated despite the prevalence of child soldiers there. What do you suppose 'working hard to eliminate these practices' means in this situation?

The kowtowing Harper government needs to defend Canadian citizens' rights no matter who they are or what they are accused of. We are not subject to Orwellian US law. Omar Khadr has the absolute right to be tried by jury in Canada.

Labels: Afghanistan, enemy combatant, Guantanamo, Omar Khadr, torture

The baffling confusion that the US government displays over whether or not torture is a bad thing continues unabated. The latest chapter has the latest Attorney General candidate Michael Mukasey claiming that he's probably the only person in the world who doesn't know what waterboarding is or how it's done. Keep in mind that he's been nominated to replace Alberto Gonzales, who resigned in disgrace after, among a host of other illegal actions, enabling Bush & Co. to engage in torture.

Now to be fair, Mukasey can't really say that waterboarding is torture because if he did, he'd have to prosecute the people who nominated him for the post. Specifically, he'd have to prosecute George W. Bush for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

So the beat goes on. Waterboarding and other torture techniques continue to be used with impunity by the US and it's allies. So just for perspective, here are some members of the torture club that the US has so eagerly joined:
Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Augusto Pinochet, Pol Pot, The Chinese Communist Party, Ho Chi Min, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Suharto.....etc, etc, etc.

Labels: torture

Today, the US begins the 5the year of it's illegal, immoral and Orwellian occupation of Iraq.

Sigh.

And how best to commemorate this momentous day? How about a disingenuous debate involving a corrupt politician, an unelected policy maker who has been dead wrong about everything and a "journalist" who has been discredited.

Watch it and weep.

Labels: Iraq, torture

It's long overdue, but finally happened. Stephen Harper, Canada's version of Bushy the Chimp, has issued a formal apology to Maher Arar for the role the government and the RCMP played in his being 'rendered' to Syria and then tortured there.

From the CBC:

"On behalf of the government of Canada, I wish to apologize to you…and your family for any role Canadian officials may have played in the terrible ordeal that all of you experienced in 2002 and 2003," Harper said.

I, and the rest of Canadians however, are still waiting for our apology. The one where Harper says: 'And to the Canadian People, I would ask their forgiveness for our inept handling of public institutions, the flagrant disregard of Canadian Sovereignty, human rights and international law, and for wasting a hell of a lot of your money. Now I'd like to resign in shame.'

The Harper government also offered a $10 million compensation package, plus an additional $1 million for legal fees, obviously to try and derail any possible legal action.

One million in legal fees? WTF? What kind of absurd criminal justice system do we have where one has to have a million dollars to effectively defend ones name from false accusations of being a terrorist?

Maybe it's like a make-work program for lawyers. Guy gets falsely accused, kidnapped, shipped off, tortured, then set free. He then seeks justice and tries to clear his name, racking up a huge legal bill. Government that shipped him off knew it was wrong in the first place, is humiliated, apologizes, and pays for the guys legal fees.

Once again, logic becomes a wreck on the side of the highway.

FYI: Here's Maher Arar's full story.

Labels: Maher Arar, torture

For years Augusto Pinochet, former Dictator of Chile, puppet of the US, murderer, torturer, sadist, ... has been avoiding trial and prosecution for crimes against humanity for allegedly being mentally unfit to stand trial. (See articles)

Recent comments from his daughter tell a different story. They describe a man who feels remorse for what he's done, and therefore an understanding of what he's done. From Democracy Now:

Victims’ Families Reject Pinochet Meeting Request
In Chile, the daughter of former dictator Augusto Pinochet has announced her father is willing to meet with the families of victims tortured or disappeared under his rule.

Lucia Pinochet: "He feels very pained for this and he has told me, that he feels that if he would be able to meet with these people he would express to them a profound apology. And this is the truth because he has not announced this, he told me this in private."

The daughter, Lucia Pinochet, went on to say Pinochet is not willing to seek a national pardon. Her comments come two weeks after Pinochet was put under house arrest for overseeing kidnapping, murder and torture at the secret prison of Villa Grimaldi.

Expressing a 'profound apology' implies complete understanding of what you're apologizing for, no? This would then also imply being in possession of the mental faculties to stand trial for that which you are apologizing...no?

Meanwhile, some leading human rights lawyers believe Pinochet’s reported comments may undermine the former dictator’s repeated defense to avoid being brought to court.

This guy really needs to stand trial for what he's done. It's a criminal act itself to allow his obviously phony defense to shield him from justice.

Labels: torture, war criminal

Thanks to Crooks&Liars.com for linking to this interview at Speigel Online of Ron Suskind, former writer for the Wall Street Journal. The subject of the interview is torture and "black sites", or secret prisons.

Here's a choice little excerpt:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the average interrogator at a Black Site understands more about the mistakes made than the president?

Suskind: The president understands more about the mistakes than he lets on. He knows what the most-skilled interrogators know too. He gets briefed, and he was deeply involved in this process from the beginning. The president loves to talk to operators.

And this:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: With all your access to high-level sources, have you come across anyone who still thinks it is a good idea for the US to torture people?

Suskind: No.

And then this:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The government's tenor seems to be that...the system of Black Sites is ending.

Suskind: They were the prizes, the most significant of them. Are there others? Of course, they are in various places, in the sort of loose confederation of prisons that are housed simply within countries. The prisoners are farmed out but not beyond the purview of the United States, which is still interested in what they say. The Egyptians, Jordanians and others keep us informed. I assume there are still about 100 prisoners and that the system of Black Sites is continuing. The president has preserved his right to do that.

So...everyone thinks torture doesn't work, but Bush wants to keep doing it anyway. Why? "He was deeply involved in the process from the beginning." This is his baby.

Bush loves to talk to the 'operators', which clearly is a euphemism for torturer.

Bush "loves" to talk to the torturers.

Think about that for a millisecond. He's not talking to them about stopping. He's not talking to them about the morality of it, or he'd be talking about stopping. He's not talking about the ineffectiveness of it, or he'd talk about stopping. He's definitely not talking about puppies. Maybe they're talking about Nazis, we're not sure, but he's certainly talking to them about what they know - torturing people. Maybe getting a good belly laugh or two.

'Operator': Oh man Mr. Prez, you shoulda seen this one dude. Crapped his pants right there. Course, we'd been force feeding him through a tube 'till it started to come back up through his throat, and maybe that kick in the stomach might of had something to do with it. But geez.....

G.W.B.: Ha ha ha ha ha! Stop it! I'm gonna puke! I gotta tell this one to Alberto.......

When he drones on about staying the course, perhaps this is what he's really talking about. After all, he seems to be having fun.

Labels: Black Sites, Bush, torture, war criminal

Is Waterboarding Torture?

Sure looks like torture to me. Also, remember that this guy isn't a detainee, nor does he really fear for his life, nor has been been held in solitary confinement for months, nor has he been subject to sleep deprivation or other "aggressive" interrogation techniques.

Enter Alan Dershowitz again, advocating torture. His argument falls flat. Instead of regulating torture, which basically codifies it into law and makes it's use legitimate, why not a law that states "The President, being the commander in chief during times of war, is hereby to be held responsible for instances of systematic torture, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, carried out by subordinates under his command."

There's responsibility for and a condemnation of the use of torture in one tidy little package.

Labels: Alan Dershowitz, torture

Here is his acceptance speech after recieving the Institute for Policy Studies' 30th Annual Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award.



Transcript:

Hello my name is Maher Arar. Sorry I could not join you for today’s ceremony.

All Center for Constitutional Rights Staff and I are humbled to have been chosen this year’s recipient for the Letelier-Moffitt International Human Rights Award. This award means a tremendous amount to us. It means that there are still Americans out there who value our struggle for justice.

It means that there are Americans out there who are truly concerned about the future of America.

We now know that my story is not a unique one. Over the past two years we have heard from many other people who were, who have been kidnapped, unlawfully detained, tortured and eventually released without being charged with any crime in any country.

JFK Stopover

My nightmare began on September 26, 2002. I was transiting through New York airport, JFK Airport, when they asked me to wait in a waiting area. I found that to be strange. Shortly after, some FBI officials came to see me and they asked me whether, I was willing to be interviewed.

My first immediate reaction was to ask for a lawyer and I was surprised when they told me that I had no right to a lawyer because I was not an American citizen.

Then I asked for a phone call, I wanted to call my family to let them know what was going on. And they just ignored my request.

Then they told me, we only have couple of questions for you and we’ll let you go. So I agreed. I had nothing to hide. And the interrogation started. Soon after, you know, they asked me about people I knew. It was deeper, until the interrogation was going deeper and deeper and deeper.

During this time, they played mind games with me. They would sometimes insult me; say to me something like you’re smart. Other times they would accuse me of being dumb.

And, I repeatedly ask for a lawyer, to make a phone call. They always ignored my question. The interrogation that day lasted about four hours with the FBI officials and another four hours with immigration. At the end of that day, instead of sending me back to Canada, they shackled and chained me and sent me to another, another terminal in the airport where I stayed overnight and in that place, in that room they kept me in, the lights were, were always on. There was no bed in that room and I could not sleep that night.

The next day another set of interrogations started. This time it was about, they asked me about political opinions—I answered openly, I didn’t try to hide my political opinions. The asked me about Iraq. They asked me about Palestine and so many other issues. And they also, if I remember correctly, asked me about my emails and some other questions.

Going to Syria

And they told me that day we are about to decide about your fate. At the end of that day, surprisingly, one of the immigration officers came and asked me to volunteer to go to Syria. I said to them: why do you want me to go to Syria, I’ve never been there for 17 years. And they say, “You are special interest.” Of course, back then I did not know what this expression meant.

But it was clear that the Americans, the officer did not want me to go to Canada.

When he insisted, I said, let me go back to Switzerland. That was my point of departure before I arrived at JFK and he refused. Eventually they took me into the Metropolitan Detention Center, a federal prison, where they kept me for about 12 days. During this time I was interviewed for six hours by INS. It was a very exhaustive interview from 9PM to like around 3AM in the morning. When I asked them to, during this interview to go, to allow me to go back to my cell to
perform my prayer, they refused, completely refused.

Also during my stay at the Metropolitan Detention Center I could clearly see that I was being treated differently from other prisoners. For example, they didn’t give me toothpaste they would allow me to go for recreation for about a week. They always ignored my demand for making a phone call.

Eventually they allowed me to make a phone call. Up until that time, which was a week after I was arrested, no one in my family knew where I was. My wife thought I was
disappeared, I was killed. No one knew exactly what happened, until I informed my mother-inlaw that I was arrested.

Eventually on October 8th, against my will, they took me out of my cell. They basically read the pieces of document to me saying, that we will be sending you Syria. And when I complained, I said to them, I did explain to you if I’m sent back I will be tortured and they, I remember, the INS person flipped a couple of pages in this document, to the end of this document and read to me a paragraph that I still remember until today, an extremely shocking statement she made to me.

She said something like: The INS is not the body or the agency that signed the Geneva
Convention, convention against torture. For me what that really meant is we will send you to torture and we don’t care.

So they put me on a private jet, which I found extremely strange. I was the only passenger on that, on that plane. It’s a luxurious plane, with leather seats in it. My only preoccupation during this trip is how I could avoid torture. By then, I realized that they were exactly sending me to Syria for torture. And that became very clear to me. Then the plane flew to Washington from Washington it flew to Maine then to Rome, then from Rome to Jordan.

Shackled and Chained

And I remember on the plane I was most of the time I was shackled and chained except the last two hours when they offered me a shish-kabob dinner. Up until this day I do not, I cannot explain why they did that. If I was a dangerous person like they claimed in the beginning, why they would remove my chains and shackles the last two hours of the trip?

During also the trip, whenever I wanted to use the bathroom, one of the team members would go inside with me. Even though I complained that this was against my religious belief.

The plane landed in Jordan on three in the morning October 8th. And a couple of Jordanians were waiting, men, were waiting for me. They took me, they blindfolded me, they put me in a car and shortly after they started beating me on the back of my head. Whenever I complained about the beating they would actually start beating me more. So I just kept silent.

I stayed in Jordan for about 12 hours in a detention center. I still don’t know what that place is. I was always blindfolded whenever they took me from one cell to another or when they took me to see the doctor. But I felt something strange in that prison. I felt, what, that I used an elevator, which is quite strange for a Middle Eastern prison.

After 12 hours of detention, unlawful detention in Jordan I was eventually driven to Syria. And I just didn’t want to believe that I was going to Syria. I always was hoping that someone, a miracle would happen—the Canadian government would intervene. A miracle would happen that would take me back to my country Canada.

I arrived in Syria that same day, at the end of the day and I was able to confirm that I was in fact in Syria after my blindfold was removed and I was able to see the pictures of the Syrian President. My feeling then is I just wanted to kill myself because I knew what was coming. I knew that the Americans, the American government send me there to be tortured.

Sometime later the interrogators came in. They started asking questions, routine questions at the beginning, but whenever I hesitated to answer their questions or whenever they thought I was lying one of them would threaten me with a chair, a metallic chair with no seats in it, only the frames. And back then I did not understand or I did not know how they would torture people with it. I later learned that from other prison inmates.

But the message was clear: if you don’t speak quickly enough we will torture you. That day, the interrogation lasted about four hours. There was no physical beating; there was only verbal threats. Around midnight, they took me to the basement. In the basement, the guard opened a door for me, a metallic door. I could not believe my eyes. I looked at him and I said, what is that? He didn’t answer. He just said to me: Enter.

The Grave

The cell was about three feet wide, six feet deep and about seven feet high. It was dark. There was no source of light in it. It was filthy. There were only two thin covers on the floor. I was naïve; I thought they would keep me in this place for one, two, maybe three days to put pressure on me. But this same place, the same cell that I later called the grave was my home 10 months and 10 days. The only light that came into the cell was from the ceiling, from the opening in the ceiling. There was a small spotlight and that’s it.

Life in the cell was impossible. At the beginning—even though it was a filthy place, it was like a grave, I preferred to stay in that cell rather than being beaten. Whenever I heard the guards coming to open my door I would just think, you know, this is it for me that would be my last day.

The beating started the following day. Without no warning…(long pause as he fights tears) without no warning the interrogator came in with a cable. He asked me to open my right hand. I did open it. And he hit me strongly on my palm. It was so painful to the point that I forgot every moment I enjoyed in my life.

Torture

This moment is still vivid in my mind because it was the first I was ever beaten in my life. Then he asked me to open my left hand. He hit me again. And that one missed and hit my wrist. The pain from that hit lasted approximately six months. And then he would ask me questions. And I would have to answer very quickly. And then he would repeat the beating this time anywhere on my, on my body. Sometimes he would take me to a room where I could, where I was alone, I could hear other prisoners being tortured, severely tortured. I remember that I used to hear their screams. I just couldn’t believe it, that human beings would do this to other human beings.

And then they would take me back to the interrogation room. Again another set of questions, and the beating starts again and again. On the third day the beating was the worst. They beat me a lot with the cable. And they wanted me to confess that I have been to Afghanistan. This was a big surprise to me because even the Americans who interviewed me, the FBI officials who interviewed me, did not ask me that question. I ended up falsely confessing in order to stop the torture. The torture decreased in intensity.

From that moment on they rarely used the cable. Mostly they slapped me on the face, they kicked me, they humiliated me all the time.

The first 10 days of my stay in Syria was extremely harsh and during that period I found my cell to be a refuge. I didn’t want to see their faces. But later on living in that cell was horrible.

And just to give you an idea about how painful it is to stay in that place—I was ready after a couple of months, I was ready to sign any piece of document for me, not to be released, just to go to another place where it is fit for human being.

During this time I wasn’t aware that my wife launched a campaign with other human rights organizations like Amnesty International and others. My wife lobbied the media, she lobbied politicians and eventually I was released. The Syrians released me and they clearly stated through the ambassador in Washington that they did not find any links to terrorism. I was not charged in any country including Canada, United States, Jordan and Syria.

Since my release I have been suffering from anxiety, constant fear, and depression. My life will never be the same again. But I promised myself one thing, that I will continue my quest for justice as long as I have a breath. What keeps me going is my faith, Americans like yourselves and the hope that one day our planet Earth will be free of tyranny, torture and injustice.

Labels: Maher Arar, torture

Alan Dershowitz, in his Op-Ed for the LA Times (Oct. 17) offers us a disingenuous, almost tortuous defense of his previous advocation for the use of torture using Bill Clinton as his vindicator.
Some choice quotations:

Although I personally oppose the use of torture, I recognize the reality that some forms of torture have been, are being and will continue to be used by democracies in extreme situations, regardless of what we say or what the law provides. In an effort to limit the use of torture to genuinely extreme "ticking bomb" situations, rather than allowing it to become as routine as it obviously became at Abu Ghraib, I proposed that the president or a federal judge would have to take personal responsibility for ordering its use in extraordinary situations.

The ultimate pragmatist, he would have us believe. Since torture is going to happen anyway lets try to control it, try to hold someone responsible, thereby limiting it's use. But actually he is capitulating to authority. He is acknowledging the right of his masters to take him away and torture him if his 'situation' was deemed 'extraordinary'. That's OK with him as long as the President takes responsibility for it. Indeed, a flippant word to the press by Bush or his successor, which is the likely form any sort of responsibility would take, would make everything all peachy with me too.

For suggesting this approach to the terrible choice of evils between torture and terrorism, I was condemned as a moral monster, labeled an advocate of torture and called a Torquemada.

Why are the choices exclusively torture or terrorism? It's not clear. Perhaps there are other choices which aren't so monstrously immoral. It is clear however that he is advocating the use of torture. To work towards integrating the use of torture into law is advocacy. Geez, almost by definition. The Torquemada reference seems a little harsh, although that was a society which had codified the use of torture into it's laws, which most likely required advocates to bring about, so perhaps Mr. Dershowitz would've found a role for himself in 15th century Spain.

Now I see that former President Clinton has offered a similar proposal. In a recent interview on National Public Radio, Clinton was asked, as someone "who's been there," whether the president needs "the option of authorizing torture in an extreme case."

See? It's cool cuz Bill thinks so too! My colorblind friend ernestly believes that blue is red, and his colordblind friend agrees with him, but I'm not colorblind. Red is red. Blue is blue. Torture is torture. Violations of fundamental human rights aren't supported or made more legitimate by someone agreeing with them. They are still the same crimes. What's made more legitimate is the thought of them being legitimate, which reduces the citizenry - indeed humanity - to the status of objects who can be abused by the state at will.
Quoting Clinton in the article:

"We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture. They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

Or to paraphrase: 'Nobody is above the law, except in cases of torture where we'd like to write into law that some people are'. What he's absurdly suggesting is a process like the FISA courts, where the Executive can obtain a warrant to wiretap or spy on someone after the fact, after the spying was done. Clinton is completely ignoring the fact that the Bush administration has disdained the FISA courts openly and without apology or responsibility taken for years , which sets a clear precedent on how they would view a similar court for torture. He also fails to consider the new Military Commissions Act of 2006 about to be signed in by Bush, which gives the President the powers of a tyrant, allowing him to deem you an "unlawful combatant" arbitrarily and then deny you any right of due process and finally give the thumbs up to torture you. Arbitrarily because he answers only to himself. Read it and be afraid. How this defends Dershowitz's views on Presidential responsibility isn't clear.

Clinton quickly added that he doesn't know whether this ticking bomb scenario "is likely or not," but he did know that "we have erred in who was a real suspect or not."

I'm surprised he included this in the article, because he completely ignores it and it's implications for his entire position. The high probability that innocent people will be tortured should be enough to negate his entire argument. I suspect it's in there just for effect, to give us the impression that he's duly considered this possibility and found it wanting, in his eminent professional opinion of course.
Quoting Clinton again:

"But I think if you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Convention and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we're gonna be in real trouble."

But that's exactly what you are doing. Are you mentally deficient? Basic concepts like this are easily understood by children.

I offered my controversial proposal as a way to stimulate debate about a difficult choice of evils. I hope that the silence following the Clinton interview does not mean the debate has ended. The problem persists. Torture will continue. Let's not stop thinking and talking about whether the evil of torture is ever a necessary evil.

Again with the two evil choices. Why frame the debate this way Mr. Dershowitz? Do you really believe that the only choice is to let terrorists run amok or to torture people? Do you discount evidence that definitively say torture does not work? Do you discount evidence that definitively says that torture breeds more of the very same people who are likely to be targeted for torture? Can you not see the endless loop that is being created? Can you not understand that torture breeds hatred among the tortured and psychosis among the torturers? Your position (and Clinton's for that matter) is absurd and misinformed with rationalizations that don't withstand scrutiny.

Heres to the day when we do stop thinking about whether torture is a necessary evil. The day we all agree that it's not.

Labels: Alan Dershowitz, torture

Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen who was kidnapped at J.F.K. Airport in New York on September 2002 while returning home from a family vacation. He was held in solitary confinement, was refused access to a lawyer, and rendered to Syrian intelligence authorities where he was brutally tortured for 10 months.

From the Center for Constitutional Rights:

On February 16, 2006 a federal judge dismissed the Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit brought on behalf of Maher Arar. The judge ruled that 'national security' and 'foreign relations' concerns made it impossible to hold liable the government officials who sent Maher to Syria to be tortured.

This is a travesty. Mr. Arar deserves justice. The USA is our supposed ally. We're fighting under their goddam command in Afghanistan. I demand the Canadian government take action and secure justice for Maher Arar, and while they're at it - reaffirm Canada's commitment to the Geneva Conventions.

If you are Canadian, I urge you to contact your MP and tell them to pressure Stephen Harper for action.

Labels: Maher Arar, torture

Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State and (unwitting?) Bush propagandist, in one of the understatements of the century, has said he believes the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis for the war on terror.

Actually, the world has firmly stated it's belief in the war's immorality. From the moment the US invaded Iraq the world has been opposed to it, and with each new horror story about torture, cluster bombs, white phosphorous, civilian deaths, corporate corruption, war profiteering...etc...the world gets more sickened and angered by the actions of the USA.

Since the end of WW2, the Geneva Conventions have served to guide the conduct of nations engaged in war in an attempt to make war more humane, with the ultimate goal of doing away with war completely. There has been no confusion, no ambiguity over their meaning. And every signatory nation and it's citizens is obliged by law to follow it's guidelines. Not to do so would make one a criminal.

In the 1990's, the USA passed a law criminalizing violations of the Geneva Convention, making it a crime not only under international law, but US federal law as well. This would hold many currently serving in the US government criminally liable for their conduct during the last five or six years, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a host of other high ranking elected officials, political appointees, military officers, intelligence officers, civilian contractors, etc. And so we're treated to the spectacle of the USA suddenly explaining that the Geneva Conventions are 'vague' and need to be clarified. That they need to be 'reinterpreted' in order to apply to the new world order they seek to impose.

They're scared shitless that they might be held accountable.

Here (part 1) and here (part 2) is the comedy and tragedy of men who believe themselves to be above the law coming to realize that maybe they aren't, and so, holy crap, they realize the real world still exists along with accountability, and they better re-write and redefine those 'vague and outdated guidelines' before they are put on trial.

To give you an idea of the US's selective support of the Geneva Conventions, here's what the right wing think tank (and co-architect of the war on terror) The Heritage Foundation had to say about them in 2003 in reference to Saddam Hussein and justification for the Iraq War:

The laws on war have a long history. In 1907, the international community convened the first of a series of diplomatic conferences that endeavored to codify the "laws and customs of war." The first of these conferences was the 1907 Hague Convention on the Conduct of War. After World War II, the international community met again to expand these customary laws of war to meet with the changing times. The result was the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which introduced the concept of individual criminal liability and "universal jurisdiction" to try individuals responsible for "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions.

The article goes on to thoroughly list the violations committed by Saddam Hussein, including this:

Videotape that aired on Iraqi state television and Al Jazeera on March 23 showing deceased U.S. soldiers also included footage of U.S. prisoners of war (POWs) being interrogated by Iraqi officials. Some of the captured soldiers appeared to be disoriented and badly injured in the video. One of the female POWs was shown lying on the ground with a bandaged ankle. The POWs were identified as members of the 507th maintenance company who were ambushed in Nasiriya after taking a wrong turn.

Something as minor (and inconclusive) as a bandaged ankle is seen as proof of Geneva violations, in accordance with article 17:

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.

But near drowning (I hate the word waterboarding, it sounds like a sport), sleep deprivation, humiliation, rape, beatings, mental anguish, and on and on....are not.

When it serves their purpose, the Geneva Conventions are legitimate and without ambiguity. When it doesn't they are vague and irrelevent.

The immoral basis for the war on terror is perfectly clear to the entire planet. All 6 billion.

Labels: Geneva Conventions, torture

Christopher Brauchli, writing for counterpunch.org, has todays ode to insanity. Beyond the ridiculousness of the situation, there is the tragedy of it. And there should be outrage as well.

Props to my home and native land for stepping up, or at least trying to. Canada does do some things right. Hey Albania, let them c'mon over.

Labels: Afghanistan, Bush, Mangled Logic, torture, Uighurs, War of Terror