As if the rampant corruption in international soccer isn't enough to get folks to sit up and take notice of how money greases FIFA's skids, yesterday I ran across this article on ESPN about the 1978 World Cup in Argentina.
In 1976 the military staged a coup in the midst of the chaos of clashes between leftist guerillas and right-wing paramilitaries. Much of the populace welcomed the coup at first - until they realized the terror and repression that would follow. The 1978 World Cup was used by the military junta to justify their reign of terror. To this day there are many in Argentina who would rather forget about the national team's triumph in 1978.
While the World Cup was being played on pitches across the country, thousands of political dissidents, leftists, trade unionists and activists for the poor were kidnapped and placed in secret prisons where they were tortured and killed. There are thousands of people across the country who don't even know who there parents were because the military killed their parents and gave the babies to colleagues.
Meanwhile, in Sao Paolo, striking subway workers in have threatened to continue their strike through the rest of the week - which would provide some serious headaches for World Cup organizers and fans. In response, local police turned against the striking workers firing tear gas in an attempt to break up the protest.
The government controlled subway operator announced that some 60 of the striking workers had been fired. And this from a socialist-leaning government. So much for the workers of the world speech - now it's all about the filthy lucre from large multi-national sponsors.
Finally, here are a few problems FIFA, the Brazilian government and international broadcasters would rather you not take notice of. But, hey, it's just a game, right?
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
When the truth isn't so clear cut
The story line was that the Ukrainian government under President Viktor Yanukovych precipitated the situation in Kiev by choosing to strengthen his country's ties with Russia rather than aligning with the European Union. This decision supposedly caused so much consternation with the opposition parties that activists took over the streets to protest the decision.
When the demonstrations turned violent, President Yanukovych turned his security forces on their own countrymen and ordered them to fire. Dozens were killed and Yanukovych suddenly found himself in an untenable position.
President Obama called on Mr. Yanukovych to tell his security forces to stand down. Mr. Obama proclaimed that the United States stood behind those protesting for freedom and democracy. He said the country needed to move toward multi-party democracy and needed to open itself to the West.
Mr. Yanukovych fled the capital on Saturday just before the Parliament voted to remove him from office. The protesters were victorious. Democracy had triumphed. Ukraine could now turn its attention to the West.
But not so fast.
What was really going on in the Ukraine? What was really at stake?
Maybe a clue could be gathered from yesterday's announcement by the European Union that it would provide loans to the Ukrainian government to assist in economic and political reform. At the same time the EU warned Russia to stop meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine.
A similar situation is playing itself out in Venezuela where the US government is providing backing for the groups organizing street protests against the government of Nicholas Maduro. Venezuela has been on Washington's shit list ever since Hugo Chavez came to power and began attacking the fundamental and systemic inequality in the nation.
The language the US uses when discussing Venezuela in public mirrors that they use when talking about the situation in the Ukraine. In both cases our government claims to be on the side of democracy and human rights. Washington issued calls for both governments to order their security forces to stand down. Yet, in both cases, our government was working behind the scenes to effect the overthrow of democratically elected governments.
As an aside, my wife and I had a conversation about Venezuela the other day. She had a couple of Venezuelan students who both came from fairly wealthy families who had the money to send them to college in the United States. Neither of them had anything good to say about Hugo Chavez. They blamed him for the worsening economic situation in the country. My wife adopted their views on the situation. Thus she never contemplated the condition of the poor and the ways in which they had been exploited by international capital for decades. She also didn't understand that our government cut aid to Venezuela because our elected officials didn't like the idea of a socialist trying to make things better for the poor and working class. She also didn't understand that our government has been funding various opposition groups for years in an effort to destabilize the government down there.
In both the Ukraine and Venezuela the parties in power had enough support in the legislature to pass the laws they wanted to without any assistance from the opposition. Now I'll be the first to tell you that operating in that manner is a recipe for disaster as it marginalizes a great number of people (look at what happened in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood), but it certainly doesn't give the United States the right to meddle in their politics to try to put someone friendly in power. The irony is you don't have to leave this state to see such tactics demonstrated. The Texas Taliban, under Governor Rick Perry, has forced its views on women's rights, gay rights, health care and the environment down everyone's throats in the Lone Star State simply because they don't need Democratic support in the state legislature to pass anything.
And the notion that our government will go out on a limb to promote democracy and human rights is downright laughable. Where is the US outrage over the non-democratic governments of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain? Where is the outrage over the treatment of women? Last time I checked we're still providing military hardware to the Saudis and military assistance to the Bahrainis. For decades our government openly supported right-wing military dictatorships in South and Central America. No one in Washington ever raised a stink about the slaughter of innocents in East Timor at the hands of the Indonesian government.
The truth about what happened in Ukraine is a very murky concept indeed and it certainly doesn't follow the narrative we've been force fed over the past few weeks.
When the demonstrations turned violent, President Yanukovych turned his security forces on their own countrymen and ordered them to fire. Dozens were killed and Yanukovych suddenly found himself in an untenable position.
President Obama called on Mr. Yanukovych to tell his security forces to stand down. Mr. Obama proclaimed that the United States stood behind those protesting for freedom and democracy. He said the country needed to move toward multi-party democracy and needed to open itself to the West.
Mr. Yanukovych fled the capital on Saturday just before the Parliament voted to remove him from office. The protesters were victorious. Democracy had triumphed. Ukraine could now turn its attention to the West.
But not so fast.
What was really going on in the Ukraine? What was really at stake?
Maybe a clue could be gathered from yesterday's announcement by the European Union that it would provide loans to the Ukrainian government to assist in economic and political reform. At the same time the EU warned Russia to stop meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine.
And then there was US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland having the spotlight thrust on her for using some very colorful language in talking about the EU. But that episode only served to divert people's attention to what was really important on the leaked telephone conversation. On tape we had Ms. Nuland talking with the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffery Pyatt, about who the US was backing in the confrontation. That's right, while everyone focused on Ms. Nuland telling the EU to fuck off, everyone ignored the fact that US officials were working with the opposition to overthrow the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych.VICTORIA NULAND: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary. I don’t think it’s a good idea.
GEOFFREY PYATT: Yeah. I mean, I guess, you think—in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking, in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys. And, you know, I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. I kind of—
VICTORIA NULAND: I think—I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy—you know, what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk. It’s just not going to work.
A similar situation is playing itself out in Venezuela where the US government is providing backing for the groups organizing street protests against the government of Nicholas Maduro. Venezuela has been on Washington's shit list ever since Hugo Chavez came to power and began attacking the fundamental and systemic inequality in the nation.
The language the US uses when discussing Venezuela in public mirrors that they use when talking about the situation in the Ukraine. In both cases our government claims to be on the side of democracy and human rights. Washington issued calls for both governments to order their security forces to stand down. Yet, in both cases, our government was working behind the scenes to effect the overthrow of democratically elected governments.
As an aside, my wife and I had a conversation about Venezuela the other day. She had a couple of Venezuelan students who both came from fairly wealthy families who had the money to send them to college in the United States. Neither of them had anything good to say about Hugo Chavez. They blamed him for the worsening economic situation in the country. My wife adopted their views on the situation. Thus she never contemplated the condition of the poor and the ways in which they had been exploited by international capital for decades. She also didn't understand that our government cut aid to Venezuela because our elected officials didn't like the idea of a socialist trying to make things better for the poor and working class. She also didn't understand that our government has been funding various opposition groups for years in an effort to destabilize the government down there.
In both the Ukraine and Venezuela the parties in power had enough support in the legislature to pass the laws they wanted to without any assistance from the opposition. Now I'll be the first to tell you that operating in that manner is a recipe for disaster as it marginalizes a great number of people (look at what happened in Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood), but it certainly doesn't give the United States the right to meddle in their politics to try to put someone friendly in power. The irony is you don't have to leave this state to see such tactics demonstrated. The Texas Taliban, under Governor Rick Perry, has forced its views on women's rights, gay rights, health care and the environment down everyone's throats in the Lone Star State simply because they don't need Democratic support in the state legislature to pass anything.
And the notion that our government will go out on a limb to promote democracy and human rights is downright laughable. Where is the US outrage over the non-democratic governments of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain? Where is the outrage over the treatment of women? Last time I checked we're still providing military hardware to the Saudis and military assistance to the Bahrainis. For decades our government openly supported right-wing military dictatorships in South and Central America. No one in Washington ever raised a stink about the slaughter of innocents in East Timor at the hands of the Indonesian government.
The truth about what happened in Ukraine is a very murky concept indeed and it certainly doesn't follow the narrative we've been force fed over the past few weeks.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
One last lap
As y'all read this I will be out running through the streets of Houston for the final time. When I cross the finish line I will have completed 15 Houston marathons and 30 marathons and ultras all together.
I'll probably keep running marathons after this - but I just won't participate in the Houston marathon anymore. The Houston race just isn't fun anymore. It used to be more of a party atmosphere but, with Chevron aboard as the title sponsor, the race has become more and more corporatized.
The race is so beholden to a corporation with a horrid reputation when it comes to environmental damage and human rights that in 2010 a team of runners sponsored by the Rainforest Action Network were kicked out of the pre-race Expo for speaking out against Chevron's record on human rights in Ecuador.
Once upon a time there was a marathon kick-off party at Memorial Park in early September. You could go to the park and register for the race in person. Now, with registration over the internet, the race is filled months and months in advance. Luckily since I have veteran status (having completed at least 10 races), I don't have to concern myself with the crowds registering on the interwebz. I just have to remember to sign up by November 1.
The addition of the half-marathon has made the race way too congested over the first nine or so miles. And what's the great feat about running 13.1 miles anyway? That's a distance I can do hungover on any Sunday morning.
My attention will now turn to Galveston, Seabrook and Huntsville. The races are smaller and less regimented. It's not a chore the register, pick up a packet and run those races. They're fun.
In the meantime, here's a look at Chevron's "dirty hands." Here's a little fact sheet on how Chevron has been complicit in violating the rights of indigenous peoples around the globe. Here's what the Rainforest Action Network has to say on the topic. Here's the report from the Corporate Research Project. And then there's Chevron's record on the environment.
And we're not even going to get started with the Aramco, the sponsor of the half-marathon.
I'll probably keep running marathons after this - but I just won't participate in the Houston marathon anymore. The Houston race just isn't fun anymore. It used to be more of a party atmosphere but, with Chevron aboard as the title sponsor, the race has become more and more corporatized.
The race is so beholden to a corporation with a horrid reputation when it comes to environmental damage and human rights that in 2010 a team of runners sponsored by the Rainforest Action Network were kicked out of the pre-race Expo for speaking out against Chevron's record on human rights in Ecuador.
Once upon a time there was a marathon kick-off party at Memorial Park in early September. You could go to the park and register for the race in person. Now, with registration over the internet, the race is filled months and months in advance. Luckily since I have veteran status (having completed at least 10 races), I don't have to concern myself with the crowds registering on the interwebz. I just have to remember to sign up by November 1.
The addition of the half-marathon has made the race way too congested over the first nine or so miles. And what's the great feat about running 13.1 miles anyway? That's a distance I can do hungover on any Sunday morning.
My attention will now turn to Galveston, Seabrook and Huntsville. The races are smaller and less regimented. It's not a chore the register, pick up a packet and run those races. They're fun.
In the meantime, here's a look at Chevron's "dirty hands." Here's a little fact sheet on how Chevron has been complicit in violating the rights of indigenous peoples around the globe. Here's what the Rainforest Action Network has to say on the topic. Here's the report from the Corporate Research Project. And then there's Chevron's record on the environment.
And we're not even going to get started with the Aramco, the sponsor of the half-marathon.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Serving two masters
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. -- Hippocratic Oath (English translation)When a person becomes a doctor, or other health professional, they take the Hippocratic Oath vowing never to do anything to harm a patient. A doctor's ethical duty is to do what's in the best interest of his or her patient.
After the US government declared its War on Everything Terror after 9/11, the CIA began its programs of rendition and torture. In order to determine the most effective method to extract information from a prisoner, the Department of Defense looked to its Behavioral Science Consultation Teams made up of behavioral scientists - including psychiatrists.
Psychiatrists are considered to be medical professionals. They have a medical degree and they take the same Hippocratic Oath as a pediatrician, internist or neurologist.
But, instead of following their ethical obligations to do no harm to any patient, they jumped at the opportunity to put together interrogation programs designed to humiliate, degrade and cause physical harm to prisoners. Other medical professionals who worked for the government provided assistance to the regime of torture by advising interrogators how far they could go in a given "interrogation technique." They treated prisoners and nursed them back to health so they could be tortured again. They also assisted the government by forcibly inserting feeding tubes into prisoners who were on hunger strike so they wouldn't die on the government's dime.
Even more galling is the fact that not one of the doctors, nurses or other medical professionals who witnessed and participated in the torture program ever raised their voice in protest against what can only be described as a crime against humanity. Not a one.
They were more than willing to sell their souls - and their ethics - to win the War on Terror.
The Institute of Medicine as a Profession and the Open Society Foundations conducted a two-year study that looked into the role medical professionals played in the torture regime initiated by President Bush and continued by President Obama. What they found should turn the stomach of anyone who hasn't yet drank the government's koolaid.
The US government would like us to believe it's no big deal. They would like you to believe that the oath these men and women took upon joining the team trumps the one they took when they became doctors and nurses. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't work that way.
A doctor takes an oath to serve his or her patient. The doctor didn't take an oath to serve another power. He didn't take an oath to serve a publicly-held hospital corporation. He didn't take an oath to serve an insurance company. He took that oath to put his patient first.
The medical professionals who provided assistance to those who tortured prisoners may very well have gone into government service for the very best of motives. But they were blinded by the pre-packaged patriotism that we are fed like turkeys being fattened up for the holidays.
They violated the oaths they took when they helped design torture regimes. They violated the oaths they took when they monitored prisoners during the torture process. They violated their oaths when they strapped prisoners down and forced feeding tubes down their noses. They violated their oaths when they kept their mouths shut about what they had seen and what they had done.
A lawyer takes an oath to represent his client as zealously as possible (with the exception that a prosecutor takes an oath to see that justice is done). Everything that a lawyer does in a particular case must be weighed against that duty. A lawyer serves his client - and his client alone. A lawyer can't have two masters. And neither can a medical professional. Once you start trying to serve two masters you will find that you can't do it and act in the best interest of your client - or your patient - at the same time.
Those medical professionals who assisted the torture program betrayed not only the prisoners they were supposedly there to assist; they also betrayed society.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Missing the point entirely
A little bit over a week ago Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released reports that humanized the victims of US drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. The reports presented case studies of the people who were victimized by the "surgical strikes" carried out by unmanned drones flying high overhead.
The debate in the media afterward, however, was restricted to two viewpoints - is it more humane to send troops into Yemen and Pakistan to kill suspected militants or to fire missiles at folks whom the US thinks are militants?
With the exception of the progressive media, and shows such as Democracy Now!, no one questioned whether the US had any right to invade the sovereignty of another nation and kill its citizens based on nothing more than a belief that someone was up to no good. No one questioned whether killing folks without some semblance of due process of law was right. No one questioned the notion that anyone who happens to be hanging out with someone the US thinks is a terrorist is fair game for a missile strike.
Even more obscene was the notion that the only thing that matters in the calculus of making the decision between troops and drones is the expected casualty rate of American soldiers. No one gave a second thought to the innocent men, women and children who have been victimized by drones flown by anonymous personnel sitting in an office in the United States. As far as they were concerned, they were nothing more than collateral damage - and, since they weren't Americans, they didn't matter anyway.
The real question is not about reducing potential American casualties. The real question is will anyone ever be held accountable for the gross violations of human rights caused by the United States? Will the people who "flew" the drones ever be held accountable? Will their military commanders ever be held accountable? Will the President ever be held accountable?
Pakistan and Yemen are sovereign nations. The US has no business flying lethal killing machines over their airspace. Just imagine, for a second, the utter outrage that would result from another country sending armed drones into US airspace to take out someone they suspected of plotting some type of terror attack. Just imagine the reaction of our elected "leaders" when innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with any planned attack were killed, maimed or wounded as a result of a missile attack in a populated area.
This notion that we have the authority to go into any country and do as we wish to anyone we suspect of being a terrorist is a remnant of imperialism. This idea that the US can do as it wishes when it comes to the War onEverything Terror is the ultimate example of hubris.
The right to live is the most basic human right of them all. Even the most repressive nations have some type of mechanism for arresting, charging and trying those suspected of breaking the law. Those mechanisms may very well not be perfect but a framework exists.
But when the US decides to kill someone they suspect of being a terrorist, there is no mechanism to arresting, charging or trying that individual. There is no semblance of due process. Without so much as a hearing to determine probable cause, the president can order a drone strike. Even worse are the so-called "signature strikes" in which the person ordering the murder doesn't even know who he's killing. Check off enough boxes and you can claim that all signs indicate that John Doe is a terrorist and needs to be blown to bits. And what of those folks around him who had absolutely nothing to do with his alleged acts? They don't even merit a second thought.
The debate in the media afterward, however, was restricted to two viewpoints - is it more humane to send troops into Yemen and Pakistan to kill suspected militants or to fire missiles at folks whom the US thinks are militants?
With the exception of the progressive media, and shows such as Democracy Now!, no one questioned whether the US had any right to invade the sovereignty of another nation and kill its citizens based on nothing more than a belief that someone was up to no good. No one questioned whether killing folks without some semblance of due process of law was right. No one questioned the notion that anyone who happens to be hanging out with someone the US thinks is a terrorist is fair game for a missile strike.
Even more obscene was the notion that the only thing that matters in the calculus of making the decision between troops and drones is the expected casualty rate of American soldiers. No one gave a second thought to the innocent men, women and children who have been victimized by drones flown by anonymous personnel sitting in an office in the United States. As far as they were concerned, they were nothing more than collateral damage - and, since they weren't Americans, they didn't matter anyway.
The real question is not about reducing potential American casualties. The real question is will anyone ever be held accountable for the gross violations of human rights caused by the United States? Will the people who "flew" the drones ever be held accountable? Will their military commanders ever be held accountable? Will the President ever be held accountable?
Pakistan and Yemen are sovereign nations. The US has no business flying lethal killing machines over their airspace. Just imagine, for a second, the utter outrage that would result from another country sending armed drones into US airspace to take out someone they suspected of plotting some type of terror attack. Just imagine the reaction of our elected "leaders" when innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with any planned attack were killed, maimed or wounded as a result of a missile attack in a populated area.
This notion that we have the authority to go into any country and do as we wish to anyone we suspect of being a terrorist is a remnant of imperialism. This idea that the US can do as it wishes when it comes to the War on
The right to live is the most basic human right of them all. Even the most repressive nations have some type of mechanism for arresting, charging and trying those suspected of breaking the law. Those mechanisms may very well not be perfect but a framework exists.
But when the US decides to kill someone they suspect of being a terrorist, there is no mechanism to arresting, charging or trying that individual. There is no semblance of due process. Without so much as a hearing to determine probable cause, the president can order a drone strike. Even worse are the so-called "signature strikes" in which the person ordering the murder doesn't even know who he's killing. Check off enough boxes and you can claim that all signs indicate that John Doe is a terrorist and needs to be blown to bits. And what of those folks around him who had absolutely nothing to do with his alleged acts? They don't even merit a second thought.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Update: Dying a free man
Herman Wallace died yesterday.
He died a free man after spending over 40 years in solitary confinement in the Louisiana penitentiary known as Angola.
A federal judge ordered him released earlier in the week. Even then Mr. Wallace had to fight the power of the state as officials refused to release him until the judge threatened to hold them in contempt.
Although the victory was all too short, it was a victory nonetheless.
He died a free man after spending over 40 years in solitary confinement in the Louisiana penitentiary known as Angola.
A federal judge ordered him released earlier in the week. Even then Mr. Wallace had to fight the power of the state as officials refused to release him until the judge threatened to hold them in contempt.
Although the victory was all too short, it was a victory nonetheless.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Hypocrisy and human rights
Once upon a time there was a monarchy. The citizenry were divided into two distinct groups. The folks who belonged to the group the king belonged to were afforded more rights than the folks who were in the other group.
After a while the folks in that second group looked around them and decided that since no one was going to take up their cause that they would have to do it themselves. So they demonstrated and they called for basic human rights.
But the king defied them. He ordered their leaders to be arrested, jailed and tortured. Still the people carried on. They rallied for democracy. They rallied for equal rights.
But the king stood firm and ordered the army to break up the demonstrations.
More folks were arrested, jailed and tortured.
Then they got their day in court. Only the result was pre-determined. The only question was how long they would be behind bars.
Sixteen protesters were branded as terrorists and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Four others were sentenced to 10 years. Thirty others were sentenced to five years. More than a dozen of those convicted were tried in abstentia.
Now how would a government that pats itself on the back and proclaims itself a champion of human rights deal with this king and his repressive policies? Would its president stand up and announce to the world that this type of behavior is unacceptable? Would he push for some sort of sanctions to punish the kingdom for its blatant violation of human rights? Would he seek to work with the opposition to force reforms?
Or would he sit back and do nothing for fear of pissing off a little tyrant with a whole lotta money?
If you chose the last option, you'd be right. Despite the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, President Obama carries on like nothing ever happened. You see, the US Navy's Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain and the last thing President Obama wants to do is raise a stink about how Bahrain treats its own residents.
Human rights mean nothing to our government. It's but a phrase bandied about when someone needs an excuse for carrying out some policy. Oh, and I guess there's that little matter of the oil under the desert, too.
If this story had come out of a country with a leftist-leaning government that refused to sacrifice the well-being of its citizens for the good of global capital, President Obama would whip himself into a frenzy telling the world how awful it is for a government to treat its citizens that way. But that so-called concern for human rights goes away in a flash when the government in question flashes cash or barrels of oil.
After a while the folks in that second group looked around them and decided that since no one was going to take up their cause that they would have to do it themselves. So they demonstrated and they called for basic human rights.
But the king defied them. He ordered their leaders to be arrested, jailed and tortured. Still the people carried on. They rallied for democracy. They rallied for equal rights.
But the king stood firm and ordered the army to break up the demonstrations.
More folks were arrested, jailed and tortured.
Then they got their day in court. Only the result was pre-determined. The only question was how long they would be behind bars.
Sixteen protesters were branded as terrorists and sentenced to 15 years in prison. Four others were sentenced to 10 years. Thirty others were sentenced to five years. More than a dozen of those convicted were tried in abstentia.
Now how would a government that pats itself on the back and proclaims itself a champion of human rights deal with this king and his repressive policies? Would its president stand up and announce to the world that this type of behavior is unacceptable? Would he push for some sort of sanctions to punish the kingdom for its blatant violation of human rights? Would he seek to work with the opposition to force reforms?
Or would he sit back and do nothing for fear of pissing off a little tyrant with a whole lotta money?
If you chose the last option, you'd be right. Despite the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain, President Obama carries on like nothing ever happened. You see, the US Navy's Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain and the last thing President Obama wants to do is raise a stink about how Bahrain treats its own residents.
Human rights mean nothing to our government. It's but a phrase bandied about when someone needs an excuse for carrying out some policy. Oh, and I guess there's that little matter of the oil under the desert, too.
If this story had come out of a country with a leftist-leaning government that refused to sacrifice the well-being of its citizens for the good of global capital, President Obama would whip himself into a frenzy telling the world how awful it is for a government to treat its citizens that way. But that so-called concern for human rights goes away in a flash when the government in question flashes cash or barrels of oil.
Monday, September 30, 2013
The double standard of international law
Charles Taylor will spend the next 50 years (should he live that long) cooling his heels in a prison in England, not because he committed war crimes against the people of Sierra Leone, but because he is from Africa.
Mr. Taylor was the president of Liberia in the late 1990's when a civil war began brewing in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor provided support to the rebels in exchange for a piece of the profit obtained from the sale of so-called blood diamonds. During the course of the civil war the people of Sierra Leone suffered unspeakable atrocities.
In 2002, Mr. Taylor was driven from office and an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court was issued. His trial on war crimes began in 2007 and ended with a conviction in 2012 that resulted in a 50-year prison sentence. Last week his appeal was denied.
During the course of the trial, Mr. Taylor was found to have provided arms to the rebels in Sierra Leone. He was also found to be responsible for murder and rape as well as the recruitment of child soldiers.
I won't argue that Mr. Taylor did nothing wrong. I won't argue that he shouldn't be punished. After all, if we want to live in a world governed by the rule of law, those who attempt to crush dissent by the law of rule must be brought to justice.
But what about George W. Bush? He launched wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan with no justification. He sent in troops who killed innocent men, women and children. He ordered bombs dropped over urban areas that resulted in widespread death and destruction.
Under President Bush we saw the development of secret CIA prisons in which inmates were abused and tortured. We saw suspected terrorists - who had never been charged with a crime - secreted off to third countries whose security forces committed unspeakable atrocities. We operated a prison on US property in which men have been held for over a decade without every having been charged and where they were tortured on a regular basis.
And what of President Obama? He escalated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He escalated the use of unmanned drones to rain missiles down on those suspected of being terrorists - as well as those who were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Under President Obama we have used drones to fire missiles into Yemen and Pakistan. The United States was the prime mover in the overthrow of the Libyan government.
Where is the International Criminal Court now? Why hasn't a warrant for the arrest of George W. Bush been issued? Anyone care to guess whether a warrant will be issued for Barack Obama when he leaves the White House?
There never will be, I suppose. And that's the problem with the entire notion of international law. Unless the law applies equally to all nations and people, it will never be anything more than a joke. You will never see a politician from a major western nation standing in the dock facing decades in prison for the death and destruction his or her policies caused. That fate will be left to leaders of the Third World - those who don't have the ability to defend themselves against the powers of the West.
Mr. Taylor was the president of Liberia in the late 1990's when a civil war began brewing in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor provided support to the rebels in exchange for a piece of the profit obtained from the sale of so-called blood diamonds. During the course of the civil war the people of Sierra Leone suffered unspeakable atrocities.
In 2002, Mr. Taylor was driven from office and an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court was issued. His trial on war crimes began in 2007 and ended with a conviction in 2012 that resulted in a 50-year prison sentence. Last week his appeal was denied.
During the course of the trial, Mr. Taylor was found to have provided arms to the rebels in Sierra Leone. He was also found to be responsible for murder and rape as well as the recruitment of child soldiers.
I won't argue that Mr. Taylor did nothing wrong. I won't argue that he shouldn't be punished. After all, if we want to live in a world governed by the rule of law, those who attempt to crush dissent by the law of rule must be brought to justice.
But what about George W. Bush? He launched wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan with no justification. He sent in troops who killed innocent men, women and children. He ordered bombs dropped over urban areas that resulted in widespread death and destruction.
Under President Bush we saw the development of secret CIA prisons in which inmates were abused and tortured. We saw suspected terrorists - who had never been charged with a crime - secreted off to third countries whose security forces committed unspeakable atrocities. We operated a prison on US property in which men have been held for over a decade without every having been charged and where they were tortured on a regular basis.
And what of President Obama? He escalated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He escalated the use of unmanned drones to rain missiles down on those suspected of being terrorists - as well as those who were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Under President Obama we have used drones to fire missiles into Yemen and Pakistan. The United States was the prime mover in the overthrow of the Libyan government.
Where is the International Criminal Court now? Why hasn't a warrant for the arrest of George W. Bush been issued? Anyone care to guess whether a warrant will be issued for Barack Obama when he leaves the White House?
There never will be, I suppose. And that's the problem with the entire notion of international law. Unless the law applies equally to all nations and people, it will never be anything more than a joke. You will never see a politician from a major western nation standing in the dock facing decades in prison for the death and destruction his or her policies caused. That fate will be left to leaders of the Third World - those who don't have the ability to defend themselves against the powers of the West.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Making your bed and sleeping in it
Oh, be so careful what you wish for. Millions cheered when Muhammed Morsi was deposed last month in Egypt. No, he was no friend of democracy. But, what can you expect when the country has never known anything but authoritarian rule?
Mr. Morsi somehow believed that his election gave the Muslim Brotherhood the authority to impose an Islamic state on the people of Egypt. Never mind that he won with barely a majority of the voters. He took his win and did his best to ram his party's theocratic ideology down the throats of the people.
He seemed to forget that the revolution that toppled Hosni Mubarak wasn't the work of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was the work of the masses who were willing to stand up and risk their lives to overthrow a dictator.
After the fall of Mubarak it was the Muslim Brotherhood who was in the best position to take advantage of the power vacuum, having been an organized - albeit banned - party from the better part of the 20th century. They had the infrastructure, and the money, to put together a winning slate of candidates.
What they didn't have was the ability to compromise and to work with others in forming a coalition to develop democracy in Egypt. For Mr. Morsi and the Brotherhood, it was their way or the highway. And it was this attitude that brought about the crisis that resulted in a military coup in early July.
And make no mistake about it, it was a coup. The Obama administration can parse words and play games all they want - but when the military forces out a popularly elected president (no matter how much dissatisfaction their is with his rule), it is a coup.
There were those who welcomed the military into the streets in late June. There were those who cheered when the General Sisi announced that Mr. Morsi had been removed from office and placed under arrest. There were those who claimed that the military was acting to save the revolution.
Are they cheering now?
There are
And, as I have asked before, what does this portend the next time a popularly elected president runs afoul of public opinion? What happens the next time the people gather together to demand that their voices are heard?
The government also imposed a month-long state of emergency. The purpose of the decree? To quell any and all dissent. How is this any different than life under the Mubarak regime? But I suppose that is a tricky question for those supporting the coup. So, come on , President Obama, explain the difference. Explain how the current situation is doing anything to advance democracy across Egypt. Or is this all about appeasing defense contractors who need markets to sell their tools of death and destruction?
I'm no fan of Muhammed Morsi. I'm no fan of anyone who wants to mix religion and politics. Could Mr. Morsi have handled his brief time in office better? There is no doubt about it. If he had been more interested in building a democratic Egypt than he was in deciding who folks could pray to, he would still be the nation's president. Had he been more concerned with improving the lot of the Egyptian people rather than telling them how to live their lives the nation wouldn't be under de facto military rule.
But that doesn't begin to excuse what has happened in Egypt over the past six weeks. And it doesn't being to excuse the shameful behavior of our government in the affair. The Obama administration has clearly demonstrated that our nation's supposed commitment to democracy and human rights is nothing more that empty words.
Never forget that what the military giveth by force of arms, the military taketh as well. Those who support the coup have made their deal with the devil and will have to live with the consequences for a long time. Or so long as they stay within the good graces of the military.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Bradley Manning cleared of aiding the enemy
Bradley Manning knew what he was doing when he downloaded reams of government documents and forwarded them to WikiLeaks. He knew the information was classified. He knew that he shouldn't have been doing what he was doing.
Well, except for the fact that he exposed human rights violations committed by our government. He had a duty to reveal that information. After all, at the Nuremberg trials we found out that a defense that one was just following orders was insufficient to keep a noose from being tied around your neck.
But maybe that was just because those put on trial for committing war crimes were the losers in the war. No one ever puts the winners on trial. Maybe history will - one day.
Bradley Manning was a whistleblower and, just like every other whistleblower, he broke the rules to expose the wrong doing. That's part of the game. These folks who are willing to stand up and tell the truth about what's going on behind closed doors do so at a great price. Sometimes the consequences are financial and sometimes they're greater.
Pvt. Manning knew what that price was - yet he did what he thought was the right thing anyway. Without his actions we would never have seen video of the chopper killing children and journalists while the soldiers inside acted like they were playing a video game. The film was classified not because there was anything secret about what happened - it was classified because it was really embarrassing.
Yesterday Pvt. Manning was found guilty on 20 of the 22 charges filed against him - but he was acquitted of the most serious charge of aiding the enemy. Even though he was acquitted of the charge that could have brought about a life sentence, Pvt. Manning is still looking at the possibility of spending decades behind bars.
The aiding the enemy charge was dismissed by Col. Denise Lind because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning intended to provide the material to enemies of the United States. But the remaining charges do cast a large shadow on advocates for more government transparency.
Yes, the world's a dangerous place. Yadda, yadda, yadda. And part of the reason it is a dangerous place are the policies of the US government that are carried out without benefit of illumination. Our government has a sorry record of backing military dictatorships and authoritarian rulers due to fears that those who produce wealth will one day rise up and demand their fair share of the pie. Our government provides the weapons of war to despots in order to keep the steady drip of oil from running out. Our government has done things during this so-called War on Terrorism that we would condemn if the other side did the same.
Our government occupies over 100 countries around the world by the use of military bases. Our government gets involved in the internal politics of nations all over the globe in an attempt to ensure that politicians who favor a neo-liberal economic agenda and who are friendly to global corporations sit in the seats of power.
Just imagine the outrage if these roles were reversed. Would the US stand for another nation putting a military base in the Lower 48? What would be the reaction if it turned out that a foreign government funneled money into an American election?
Bradley Manning peeled back the curtain and for that he will be punished severely. The entire circus that has surrounded this case from the beginning has only served to distract the public from the real issues. During the trial we were consumed by the question of whether or not he intended for Osama bin Laden to see the information. We've questioned whether or not he exceeded his authority to download the material in question.
But few people questioned the basic assumptions of this case. No one in the mainstream media questioned whether or not government officials violated international law or committed human rights violations. No one questioned whether it was proper to charge someone criminally who exposed wrongdoing to the press. No one questioned whether the actions of our government that Pvt. Manning exposed were proper.
President Obama has come down harder on whistleblowers than any other president. He has made it his mission to keep the American people from knowing what their government does in their name. He has gone after those who exposed wrongdoing with a vengeance.
Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have done us all a service by exposing the illegal actions of our government. History shall be the judge of how they should be rewarded.
Well, except for the fact that he exposed human rights violations committed by our government. He had a duty to reveal that information. After all, at the Nuremberg trials we found out that a defense that one was just following orders was insufficient to keep a noose from being tied around your neck.
But maybe that was just because those put on trial for committing war crimes were the losers in the war. No one ever puts the winners on trial. Maybe history will - one day.
Bradley Manning was a whistleblower and, just like every other whistleblower, he broke the rules to expose the wrong doing. That's part of the game. These folks who are willing to stand up and tell the truth about what's going on behind closed doors do so at a great price. Sometimes the consequences are financial and sometimes they're greater.
Pvt. Manning knew what that price was - yet he did what he thought was the right thing anyway. Without his actions we would never have seen video of the chopper killing children and journalists while the soldiers inside acted like they were playing a video game. The film was classified not because there was anything secret about what happened - it was classified because it was really embarrassing.
Yesterday Pvt. Manning was found guilty on 20 of the 22 charges filed against him - but he was acquitted of the most serious charge of aiding the enemy. Even though he was acquitted of the charge that could have brought about a life sentence, Pvt. Manning is still looking at the possibility of spending decades behind bars.
The aiding the enemy charge was dismissed by Col. Denise Lind because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Manning intended to provide the material to enemies of the United States. But the remaining charges do cast a large shadow on advocates for more government transparency.
Yes, the world's a dangerous place. Yadda, yadda, yadda. And part of the reason it is a dangerous place are the policies of the US government that are carried out without benefit of illumination. Our government has a sorry record of backing military dictatorships and authoritarian rulers due to fears that those who produce wealth will one day rise up and demand their fair share of the pie. Our government provides the weapons of war to despots in order to keep the steady drip of oil from running out. Our government has done things during this so-called War on Terrorism that we would condemn if the other side did the same.
Our government occupies over 100 countries around the world by the use of military bases. Our government gets involved in the internal politics of nations all over the globe in an attempt to ensure that politicians who favor a neo-liberal economic agenda and who are friendly to global corporations sit in the seats of power.
Just imagine the outrage if these roles were reversed. Would the US stand for another nation putting a military base in the Lower 48? What would be the reaction if it turned out that a foreign government funneled money into an American election?
Bradley Manning peeled back the curtain and for that he will be punished severely. The entire circus that has surrounded this case from the beginning has only served to distract the public from the real issues. During the trial we were consumed by the question of whether or not he intended for Osama bin Laden to see the information. We've questioned whether or not he exceeded his authority to download the material in question.
But few people questioned the basic assumptions of this case. No one in the mainstream media questioned whether or not government officials violated international law or committed human rights violations. No one questioned whether it was proper to charge someone criminally who exposed wrongdoing to the press. No one questioned whether the actions of our government that Pvt. Manning exposed were proper.
President Obama has come down harder on whistleblowers than any other president. He has made it his mission to keep the American people from knowing what their government does in their name. He has gone after those who exposed wrongdoing with a vengeance.
Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange have done us all a service by exposing the illegal actions of our government. History shall be the judge of how they should be rewarded.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Killing v. caging
The other day my fellow blogger, Grits for Breakfast, left the following comment to a posting about how badly the State of Georgia wants to kill folks:
The ECHR held, in a case brought by a man sentenced to life without parole for the murder of a colleague, that locking someone away for the rest of their life contravenes Article 3 of the European convention on human rights which prohibits "inhuman and degrading punishment." The court didn't say that Douglas Vinter will be released anytime soon - it just said that denying him the possibility of parole was a violation of his human rights.
And we all know that just because someone appears before a parole board doesn't mean they will ever be paroled. The odds are fairly short that Mr. Vinter, and the other men held in Britain for life without the possibility of parole, will spend the remainder of their lives in prison.
So, yes, the state's power to cage up a man or woman like an animal and leave them to die decades down the road is something that should shock the conscience. But it doesn't. At least not on this side of the Atlantic.
But, as bad as what Jeff Gamso calls "death in prison" is, the power to take that life at will is magnitudes more intrusive. That man sitting in a cage for the rest of his life is still breathing. And he still has a chance at freedom. Just ask Michael Morton. For those on death row, such as Cameron Willingham, exoneration may come too late.
In this day and age no government should have the power to decide who lives and who dies. The problem is made worse when we consider the rules of jury selection in capital cases work to ensure a jury is seated that is predisposed to kill the defendant. As I have stated many times in the past, killing an inmate doesn't bring anyone back to life and it certainly doesn't fill the void in the lives of those who lost a loved one. All it does is create a void for another family.
One day the state's power to kill will be abolished once and for all. That day is approaching faster than death penalty proponents want to admit - but for those of us fighting to do away with capital punishment that day can't come soon enough.
Is killing an inmate the state's "most intrusive power" compared to locking them up for life? Everybody dies. Not everybody spends decades in a cage.On the one hand Grits is right. The power to lock someone away in a cage for decades is antithetical to the notion of limited government. Locking someone away for the rest of their life without the possibility of parole is, according to the European Court of Human Rights, a violation of a prisoner's human rights.
The ECHR held, in a case brought by a man sentenced to life without parole for the murder of a colleague, that locking someone away for the rest of their life contravenes Article 3 of the European convention on human rights which prohibits "inhuman and degrading punishment." The court didn't say that Douglas Vinter will be released anytime soon - it just said that denying him the possibility of parole was a violation of his human rights.
And we all know that just because someone appears before a parole board doesn't mean they will ever be paroled. The odds are fairly short that Mr. Vinter, and the other men held in Britain for life without the possibility of parole, will spend the remainder of their lives in prison.
So, yes, the state's power to cage up a man or woman like an animal and leave them to die decades down the road is something that should shock the conscience. But it doesn't. At least not on this side of the Atlantic.
But, as bad as what Jeff Gamso calls "death in prison" is, the power to take that life at will is magnitudes more intrusive. That man sitting in a cage for the rest of his life is still breathing. And he still has a chance at freedom. Just ask Michael Morton. For those on death row, such as Cameron Willingham, exoneration may come too late.
In this day and age no government should have the power to decide who lives and who dies. The problem is made worse when we consider the rules of jury selection in capital cases work to ensure a jury is seated that is predisposed to kill the defendant. As I have stated many times in the past, killing an inmate doesn't bring anyone back to life and it certainly doesn't fill the void in the lives of those who lost a loved one. All it does is create a void for another family.
One day the state's power to kill will be abolished once and for all. That day is approaching faster than death penalty proponents want to admit - but for those of us fighting to do away with capital punishment that day can't come soon enough.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Forced feeding = torture
Is it a form of torture to force feed a prisoner on hunger strike?
Let's forget for a second the question of whether it's torture to hold someone without charges thousands of miles from their own country for over a decade.
Rapper Yasiin Bey (formerly known as Mos Def) took part in a demonstration to show the world just what is involved in the forced feeding of a hunger striker. The doctors followed the procedures as set out in the military instructions that were leaked earlier this year.
The entire process takes about two hours but the demonstration only lasted about four minutes because of the pain and discomfort to Mr. Bey. While you watch, picture yourself or a loved one strapped into that chair.
Think about the pain and humiliation those being force fed must suffer over and over again.
What's going to happen as the Muslim world enters the month of Ramadan? Are we going to violate these prisoners' right to practice their own religion?
This is the reality of the War onEverything Terror. Our government has done everything it can to dehumanize those whom we don't like. Our conduct has been shameful and my only hope is that one day someone will have to answer for the crimes that have been committed in our name.
H/T The Guardian
Let's forget for a second the question of whether it's torture to hold someone without charges thousands of miles from their own country for over a decade.
Rapper Yasiin Bey (formerly known as Mos Def) took part in a demonstration to show the world just what is involved in the forced feeding of a hunger striker. The doctors followed the procedures as set out in the military instructions that were leaked earlier this year.
The entire process takes about two hours but the demonstration only lasted about four minutes because of the pain and discomfort to Mr. Bey. While you watch, picture yourself or a loved one strapped into that chair.
Think about the pain and humiliation those being force fed must suffer over and over again.
What's going to happen as the Muslim world enters the month of Ramadan? Are we going to violate these prisoners' right to practice their own religion?
This is the reality of the War on
H/T The Guardian
Friday, May 17, 2013
Shutting down dissent anyway possible
By now it is quite obvious to the most oblivious observer that President Obama has failed miserably in his attempt to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. You'll remember that he told everyone who would listen back in 2008 that one of the first things he would do as president was close it down.
Like many of his other promises for progressive reform, his promise to close down GITMO has fallen to the wayside. He has been far too interested in killing innocent men, women and children with remote controlled drones to put any effort into closing Guantanamo. He was more concerned about smoothing over the summary execution of three US citizens than in ending the program of torture on Cuba.
If you follow the mainstream media you probably aren't aware that more than 100 of the detainees at Guantanamo are on hunger strike to protest the conditions in the prison. These are men who have been held without charge for, in some cases, over a decade. History will not judge the US kindly over its treatment of the detainees - the constant hysteria for the war on terror has been used to dull the American people's senses when it comes to concepts such as due process and rule of law.
Now the government is fearful that its power to compel the detainees to do what it wants them to is waning. In order to show the detainees who's boss, prison officials have begun force-feeding 30 of the hunger strikers.
This memo obtained by Al-Jazeera spells out the program of forced compliance. You see, it just wouldn't do for a detainee to drop dead from starvation at GITMO. That might just garner a bit of press attention (though just a bit). That might just pique the American public's interest in what is being done in our name. It might re-ignite a debate on the regime of torture started under Bush and accelerated under Obama.
For those detainees who are subject to being force-fed a liquid diet, they are strapped to a chair while a feeding tube is fed through their nose down to their stomach. A mask is placed over the detainee's face and liquid is fed through the tube for up to two hours. Afterward the detainee is placed in a so-called "dry cell" and observed for 45-60 minutes for any signs of induced vomiting. If the detainee vomits he is placed back in the chair and the process is begun anew.
These forced feedings are nothing more than an extension of the torture regime that detainees around the world have been subject to - ever since the Bush administration decided that torture wasn't torture if you called it something else. If there were justice in this world, George W. Bush would sit in a courtroom in The Hague facing charges of human rights violations at the International Criminal Court. Maybe one day Barack Obama could be his cellmate.
The men who are being held illegally at GITMO are adults who are more than capable of making medical decisions for themselves. They have the right to withhold their consent from being force-fed. They have the right to refuse to eat. They have the right to die with dignity, if they so choose. Sadly it is the only form of protest that is garnering any attention to the ways in which the United States is imposing the law of rule.
The Obama administration and other apologists for GITMO claim that the remaining detainees can't be released because there are no assurances they won't immediately take up arms against the United States. Well, to be quite honest, who the fuck could blame them? If they weren't already inclined to take up arms you can bet they sure as hell are now after the way they have been treated and the myriad ways in which the US government has violated their human rights.
It's time to man up, President. Either the men in Guantanamo have committed crimes against the United States or they haven't. If they haven't, it's time to set them free. If they have committed crimes, set their cases for trial.
If President Obama had any humanity he would put an end to the forced feeding of hunger strikers and he would address the problems at Guantanamo. Unfortunately for the detainees, they don't have an effective lobby and they don't have millions of dollars to funnel to Super PACS. All they have are their lives to give in their cause.
Like many of his other promises for progressive reform, his promise to close down GITMO has fallen to the wayside. He has been far too interested in killing innocent men, women and children with remote controlled drones to put any effort into closing Guantanamo. He was more concerned about smoothing over the summary execution of three US citizens than in ending the program of torture on Cuba.
If you follow the mainstream media you probably aren't aware that more than 100 of the detainees at Guantanamo are on hunger strike to protest the conditions in the prison. These are men who have been held without charge for, in some cases, over a decade. History will not judge the US kindly over its treatment of the detainees - the constant hysteria for the war on terror has been used to dull the American people's senses when it comes to concepts such as due process and rule of law.
Now the government is fearful that its power to compel the detainees to do what it wants them to is waning. In order to show the detainees who's boss, prison officials have begun force-feeding 30 of the hunger strikers.
This memo obtained by Al-Jazeera spells out the program of forced compliance. You see, it just wouldn't do for a detainee to drop dead from starvation at GITMO. That might just garner a bit of press attention (though just a bit). That might just pique the American public's interest in what is being done in our name. It might re-ignite a debate on the regime of torture started under Bush and accelerated under Obama.
For those detainees who are subject to being force-fed a liquid diet, they are strapped to a chair while a feeding tube is fed through their nose down to their stomach. A mask is placed over the detainee's face and liquid is fed through the tube for up to two hours. Afterward the detainee is placed in a so-called "dry cell" and observed for 45-60 minutes for any signs of induced vomiting. If the detainee vomits he is placed back in the chair and the process is begun anew.
These forced feedings are nothing more than an extension of the torture regime that detainees around the world have been subject to - ever since the Bush administration decided that torture wasn't torture if you called it something else. If there were justice in this world, George W. Bush would sit in a courtroom in The Hague facing charges of human rights violations at the International Criminal Court. Maybe one day Barack Obama could be his cellmate.
The men who are being held illegally at GITMO are adults who are more than capable of making medical decisions for themselves. They have the right to withhold their consent from being force-fed. They have the right to refuse to eat. They have the right to die with dignity, if they so choose. Sadly it is the only form of protest that is garnering any attention to the ways in which the United States is imposing the law of rule.
The Obama administration and other apologists for GITMO claim that the remaining detainees can't be released because there are no assurances they won't immediately take up arms against the United States. Well, to be quite honest, who the fuck could blame them? If they weren't already inclined to take up arms you can bet they sure as hell are now after the way they have been treated and the myriad ways in which the US government has violated their human rights.
It's time to man up, President. Either the men in Guantanamo have committed crimes against the United States or they haven't. If they haven't, it's time to set them free. If they have committed crimes, set their cases for trial.
If President Obama had any humanity he would put an end to the forced feeding of hunger strikers and he would address the problems at Guantanamo. Unfortunately for the detainees, they don't have an effective lobby and they don't have millions of dollars to funnel to Super PACS. All they have are their lives to give in their cause.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Justice in Guatemala
Yesterday in Guatemala we saw an example of just what democracy is all about. In a court of law former Guatemalan strongman Efrain Rios Montt was found guilty of genocide for the slaughter of more than 1700 peasants during the country's dirty war. The judge sentenced Rios Montt to 80 years in prison.
The verdict is a vivid demonstration that in a democracy, no one is above the law - even a former military dictator. Could you imagine if a former president stood accused of human rights violations in this country?
It's a sad commentary when a country that has spent most of its history under repressive regimes gives us a lesson in democracy and the rule of law.
President Obama ordered the murder of an American citizen in Yemen. As a result of his orders, two more Americans were killed in Yemen. He has also been complicit in the torture and illegal detention of prisoners of war in Guantanamo.
President Bush (the Younger) committed countless violations of human rights in the torture program his administration cooked up as part of the American arsenal in the war oneverything terror. He also ordered air strikes in Iraq that killed hundreds of innocent civilians as part of his cooked up war against Iraq.
President Clinton sent the war planes into Balkan air space and bombed the hell out of men, women and children who had nothing to do with the civil war in the former Yugoslavia.
President Bush (the Elder) was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Panamanians when he ordered bombing raids on populated areas during his invasion of Panama.
Under each of these presidents, covert operations were launched in countless nations around the world that resulted in the deaths of innocent men, women and children were nothing more than collateral damage in the eyes of our leaders.
And every time a new president is elected he tells the American people that it's time to look ahead and not argue about the past. No president has ever ordered an investigation into the human rights abuses committed by a former occupant of the White House. It's not because he wants to try to bring the country together in a common mission -- it's because it's tacitly understood that if you ignore what the guy before you did, the guy after you will ignore what you did in kind.
I have no faith that we will hold our leaders accountable for their actions. I have no faith that any former president will have to stand and defend himself against charges that he committed gross human rights violations. And, until it finally happens, there will always be those who are above the law.
What a sorry lesson to teach our children.
The verdict is a vivid demonstration that in a democracy, no one is above the law - even a former military dictator. Could you imagine if a former president stood accused of human rights violations in this country?
It's a sad commentary when a country that has spent most of its history under repressive regimes gives us a lesson in democracy and the rule of law.
President Obama ordered the murder of an American citizen in Yemen. As a result of his orders, two more Americans were killed in Yemen. He has also been complicit in the torture and illegal detention of prisoners of war in Guantanamo.
President Bush (the Younger) committed countless violations of human rights in the torture program his administration cooked up as part of the American arsenal in the war on
President Clinton sent the war planes into Balkan air space and bombed the hell out of men, women and children who had nothing to do with the civil war in the former Yugoslavia.
President Bush (the Elder) was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Panamanians when he ordered bombing raids on populated areas during his invasion of Panama.
Under each of these presidents, covert operations were launched in countless nations around the world that resulted in the deaths of innocent men, women and children were nothing more than collateral damage in the eyes of our leaders.
And every time a new president is elected he tells the American people that it's time to look ahead and not argue about the past. No president has ever ordered an investigation into the human rights abuses committed by a former occupant of the White House. It's not because he wants to try to bring the country together in a common mission -- it's because it's tacitly understood that if you ignore what the guy before you did, the guy after you will ignore what you did in kind.
I have no faith that we will hold our leaders accountable for their actions. I have no faith that any former president will have to stand and defend himself against charges that he committed gross human rights violations. And, until it finally happens, there will always be those who are above the law.
What a sorry lesson to teach our children.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
We certainly can't let a bit of repression get in the way of a race
Stop me if we've been down this road before but the repressive government in Bahrain has launched raids to detain opposition activists prior to the annual motoring circus known as Formula 1 coming to town.
Last year the army, backed up by Saudi arms and American money, attempted to crush the revolt in the days leading up to the race leading for calls for the FIA to cancel the race. Ah, but the love of the filthy lucre was too much for Bernie Ecclestone and his cronies to pass up on and so they put on their dark sunglasses and looked the other way as much as possible and had a grand ol' time hanging out with the uber-wealthy set.
Once again those in charge of the Formula 1 franchise couldn't care less about a little repression here and there - just so long as it doesn't disrupt their little race. At least former World Champion Damon Hill has given the matter a bit of thought (even though he appears loathe to rock the boat too much).
Of course I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the US Navy's Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain and so the US government, despite its claims to be fighting for greater freedom and democracy around the world, has no problem with a bit of repression now and then.
I guess it shouldn't be unexpected given that those involved in the world of motorsport tend to lean toward the right. A good many of the drivers in Formula 1 came from wealthy families who bankrolled their expensive little hobby as they grew up. The team owners were exceedingly wealthy and had to have some serious coin to deal with the massive cost of replacing equipment on a regular basis.
Over the years Formula 1 marketed itself as having the best drivers in the best cars on the world's best racing circuits. And you couldn't possibly have the commoners getting tickets to sit and watch so the bosses jacked the ticket prices to the stratosphere so that only the truly wealthy could afford to tag along with the road show.
Add this all together and you come up with a sport that has much more in common with the repressive regime in Bahrain than it does with the folks out on the streets fighting for a voice. Is it any wonder the powers-that-be don't care about a little bloodletting here and there?
After all, the series ran its races in plenty of other repressive states over the years including Franco's Spain, the generals' Argentina and Brazil just to name a few.
FIA has no problem taking public money to put on its traveling circus around the world. Considering that money could have been used for other purposes that would have benefited more people, race organizers should be a little bit more attuned to what's going on in the streets.
The race only serves to benefit the ruling elite of Bahrain. The Bahraini government (and FIA) want the world to see an antiseptic race course with lots of money being flashed around by pretty people. Having to put up with those annoying folks fighting for democracy would only serve to spoil the show.
Anyway, they've got to get ready for the Chinese Grand Prix coming up later this year.
Last year the army, backed up by Saudi arms and American money, attempted to crush the revolt in the days leading up to the race leading for calls for the FIA to cancel the race. Ah, but the love of the filthy lucre was too much for Bernie Ecclestone and his cronies to pass up on and so they put on their dark sunglasses and looked the other way as much as possible and had a grand ol' time hanging out with the uber-wealthy set.
Once again those in charge of the Formula 1 franchise couldn't care less about a little repression here and there - just so long as it doesn't disrupt their little race. At least former World Champion Damon Hill has given the matter a bit of thought (even though he appears loathe to rock the boat too much).
Of course I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the US Navy's Fifth Fleet is housed in Bahrain and so the US government, despite its claims to be fighting for greater freedom and democracy around the world, has no problem with a bit of repression now and then.
I guess it shouldn't be unexpected given that those involved in the world of motorsport tend to lean toward the right. A good many of the drivers in Formula 1 came from wealthy families who bankrolled their expensive little hobby as they grew up. The team owners were exceedingly wealthy and had to have some serious coin to deal with the massive cost of replacing equipment on a regular basis.
Over the years Formula 1 marketed itself as having the best drivers in the best cars on the world's best racing circuits. And you couldn't possibly have the commoners getting tickets to sit and watch so the bosses jacked the ticket prices to the stratosphere so that only the truly wealthy could afford to tag along with the road show.
Add this all together and you come up with a sport that has much more in common with the repressive regime in Bahrain than it does with the folks out on the streets fighting for a voice. Is it any wonder the powers-that-be don't care about a little bloodletting here and there?
After all, the series ran its races in plenty of other repressive states over the years including Franco's Spain, the generals' Argentina and Brazil just to name a few.
FIA has no problem taking public money to put on its traveling circus around the world. Considering that money could have been used for other purposes that would have benefited more people, race organizers should be a little bit more attuned to what's going on in the streets.
The race only serves to benefit the ruling elite of Bahrain. The Bahraini government (and FIA) want the world to see an antiseptic race course with lots of money being flashed around by pretty people. Having to put up with those annoying folks fighting for democracy would only serve to spoil the show.
Anyway, they've got to get ready for the Chinese Grand Prix coming up later this year.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Tracking down betrayal
Martin Almada is an attorney in Paraguay. He and his wife were teachers back in the 1970's when Gen. Alfredo Stroessner wielded his brutal hand in the South American country. The Almadas were known for their leftist views and they became a target of the secret police.
One night the state came for them. Mr. Almada was taken away and interrogated, and tortured, for 30 days. The police would call up his wife and let her listen to her husband being beaten on the other end of the line. They sent her Mr. Almada's bloody clothing and even called to tell her that her husband was dead.
A few days later his wife was dead of a heart attack. She had died at the hand of the state after being subjected to psychological torture for days on end.
For years afterward Mr. Almada searched in vain for evidence that his wife had been tortured to death. Twenty years ago he found what he was looking for when he received a phone call from a lady telling him that the documentary proof he had been searching for existed.
The papers existed because Pastor Coronel, the head of Paraguay's secret police, was obsessive compulsive when it came to paperwork. He kept detailed notes on everything he did. The archives were full of detailed accounts of who had been tortured, why they were tortured, how they were tortured and what the victims told their torturers.
During his time in prison, Mr. Almada found out about a plan carried out by various South American dictators in which they agreed to help each other take care of their own dissidents. Today we know this program of disappearances and torture as Operation Condor.
The mind boggles at what governments are capable of doing to their own citizens.
The mind also boggles at how little our government cares when another country turns its guns on its own citizens. We hear endless pronouncements about the supposed evils of Cuba and Venezuela yet our duly elected representatives continue to rain arms and weapons upon brutal dictatorships around the world who gladly do our bidding.
Our government has long lost its moral authority to tell anyone else how to behave. Our leaders long ago replaced their admiration for the rule of law with a love for the law of rule. Our government has kidnapped and tortured foreign nationals without regard to international law. Our government has committed acts of war on foreign soil by murdering foreign nationals with unmanned drones. Our government has continued to kill its own citizens in prison.
One night the state came for them. Mr. Almada was taken away and interrogated, and tortured, for 30 days. The police would call up his wife and let her listen to her husband being beaten on the other end of the line. They sent her Mr. Almada's bloody clothing and even called to tell her that her husband was dead.
A few days later his wife was dead of a heart attack. She had died at the hand of the state after being subjected to psychological torture for days on end.
For years afterward Mr. Almada searched in vain for evidence that his wife had been tortured to death. Twenty years ago he found what he was looking for when he received a phone call from a lady telling him that the documentary proof he had been searching for existed.
The papers existed because Pastor Coronel, the head of Paraguay's secret police, was obsessive compulsive when it came to paperwork. He kept detailed notes on everything he did. The archives were full of detailed accounts of who had been tortured, why they were tortured, how they were tortured and what the victims told their torturers.
During his time in prison, Mr. Almada found out about a plan carried out by various South American dictators in which they agreed to help each other take care of their own dissidents. Today we know this program of disappearances and torture as Operation Condor.
The mind boggles at what governments are capable of doing to their own citizens.
The mind also boggles at how little our government cares when another country turns its guns on its own citizens. We hear endless pronouncements about the supposed evils of Cuba and Venezuela yet our duly elected representatives continue to rain arms and weapons upon brutal dictatorships around the world who gladly do our bidding.
Our government has long lost its moral authority to tell anyone else how to behave. Our leaders long ago replaced their admiration for the rule of law with a love for the law of rule. Our government has kidnapped and tortured foreign nationals without regard to international law. Our government has committed acts of war on foreign soil by murdering foreign nationals with unmanned drones. Our government has continued to kill its own citizens in prison.
Friday, November 9, 2012
A tale of two men
British Prime Minister David Cameron said the other day that he would support safe passage out of Syria for embattled dictator Bashar al-Assad if it would end the bloodshed in that country.
But Mr. Cameron won't allow Wikileaks founder Julian Assange safe passage to Ecuador following Ecuador's decision to grant asylum to Ms. Assange.
Mr. Assad is a murderer. He has turned his military on the people of Syria in the name of holding on to power until the bitter end. He has ordered planes and helicopters to fly over and bomb urban areas in an attempt to end the rebellion in the country.
Mr. Assange is a journalist who published secret (and not-so-secret) documents as part of a campaign for transparency. Wikileaks was provided information by Bradley Manning that revealed human rights abuses at the hands of the US government and its agents abroad.
Mr. Assad, much like his daddy, is a brutal dictator who cares less about the people of Syria than accumulating wealth and power. In response to the Syrian people who demanded more say in the running of their government, he cracked down on dissent and turned a political movement into a civil war.
Mr. Assange, through Wikileaks, exposed (and embarrassed) the US government by releasing State Department cables detailing the ways in which the US and its proxies operated under cloak of darkness and secrecy. He exposed the US backing of repressive dictatorships around the world and US-backed attempts to limit dissent.
Mr. Assad has committed crimes against humanity. He should be in the dock at the International Criminal Court answering charges for murder, torture and gross human rights abuses. Despite his actions, Mr. Assad is being promised safe passage out of the country in order to facilitate an end to the civil war.
Mr. Assange faces a complaint in Sweden that he sexually assaulted two women. Not charged, mind you. He has offered to answer any questions Swedish authorities have for him - provided that either the interview take place in the Ecuadorean embassy or that Sweden provide assurances that they won't extradite him to the United States to face a possible indictment alleging he committed treason.
Mr. Cameron is very much continuing the legacy of former Prime Minister Tony Blair who willingly allowed himself to be prostituted by the United States. Whatever Washington wanted from him, Mr. Blair was only too happy to do. The Obama administration has decided that it is time for Mr. Assad to step aside (while leaving brutal dictators in charge in both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain).
The US Government has also decided that the documents published by Wikileaks have so hindered the government's ability to pull the strings around the world, that Mr. Assange must be punished. Let us not forget that this has nothing to do with revealing state secrets - the White House has done that routinely over the years when it serves the President's purposes - it has to do with pulling the curtain back and exposing the Wizard.
In the meantime Mr. Cameron is okay with granting safe passage to a dictator, but not to a journalist. What's wrong with this picture?
But Mr. Cameron won't allow Wikileaks founder Julian Assange safe passage to Ecuador following Ecuador's decision to grant asylum to Ms. Assange.Mr. Assad is a murderer. He has turned his military on the people of Syria in the name of holding on to power until the bitter end. He has ordered planes and helicopters to fly over and bomb urban areas in an attempt to end the rebellion in the country.
Mr. Assange is a journalist who published secret (and not-so-secret) documents as part of a campaign for transparency. Wikileaks was provided information by Bradley Manning that revealed human rights abuses at the hands of the US government and its agents abroad.
Mr. Assad, much like his daddy, is a brutal dictator who cares less about the people of Syria than accumulating wealth and power. In response to the Syrian people who demanded more say in the running of their government, he cracked down on dissent and turned a political movement into a civil war.
Mr. Assange, through Wikileaks, exposed (and embarrassed) the US government by releasing State Department cables detailing the ways in which the US and its proxies operated under cloak of darkness and secrecy. He exposed the US backing of repressive dictatorships around the world and US-backed attempts to limit dissent.Mr. Assad has committed crimes against humanity. He should be in the dock at the International Criminal Court answering charges for murder, torture and gross human rights abuses. Despite his actions, Mr. Assad is being promised safe passage out of the country in order to facilitate an end to the civil war.
Mr. Assange faces a complaint in Sweden that he sexually assaulted two women. Not charged, mind you. He has offered to answer any questions Swedish authorities have for him - provided that either the interview take place in the Ecuadorean embassy or that Sweden provide assurances that they won't extradite him to the United States to face a possible indictment alleging he committed treason.
Mr. Cameron is very much continuing the legacy of former Prime Minister Tony Blair who willingly allowed himself to be prostituted by the United States. Whatever Washington wanted from him, Mr. Blair was only too happy to do. The Obama administration has decided that it is time for Mr. Assad to step aside (while leaving brutal dictators in charge in both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain).
The US Government has also decided that the documents published by Wikileaks have so hindered the government's ability to pull the strings around the world, that Mr. Assange must be punished. Let us not forget that this has nothing to do with revealing state secrets - the White House has done that routinely over the years when it serves the President's purposes - it has to do with pulling the curtain back and exposing the Wizard.
In the meantime Mr. Cameron is okay with granting safe passage to a dictator, but not to a journalist. What's wrong with this picture?
Monday, September 3, 2012
Nothing to see here
There is no question that the U.S. government has operated secret prisons around the world that have been used to torture detainees suspected of being terrorists or aiding terrorism.
Back in May I reviewed Larry Siems' book The Torture Report which dealt with the ways in which the Bush Administration implemented a systematic plan to torture so-called enemy combatants in the War onEverything Terrorism. The book is a chilling account of the ways in which our leaders conspired to violate every international treaty dealing with the treatment of enemy combatants.
Attorney General Eric Holder "conducted" an investigation of the CIA's torture apparatus after the government caught heat for the death of a detainee in custody. The investigation was nothing but a sham from the beginning as its purpose was to determine whether the program of torture broke the guidelines laid down by President Bush's aides. In other words, Mr. Holder wasn't looking into the question of whether CIA personnel violated international law in torturing detainees who have yet to be charged with any crime, he was looking into whether or not anyone crossed the line scribbled on a sheet of paper by President Bush's lackeys.
And, predictably, Mr. Holder came to the conclusion that there just wasn't enough "admissible evidence" to proceed with any prosecution.
You see the government has decided that much of the evidence proving the U.S. torture program violated international law is too sensitive to be released. In fact, in the show trials in Guantanamo, the courts have ruled that detainees cannot even testify as to the torture they were subjected to because releasing that information would harm national security. Or, to be more blunt (and honest) the information would be embarrassing to the government and might open some up to charges of crimes against humanity.
And we just can't have that, can we? We all know that the only folks who ever get brought up on charges of crimes against humanity are the losers. The winners never have to face justice. Not to mention that the winners get to write the history.
It is evidence of this program of systematic torture that made Bradley Manning the object of the government's hatred. Mr. Manning did what every soldier is required to do under international law - report incidents of torture and war crimes. That is Mr. Manning's sin - he did just what he was supposed to do but, because the information he released embarrassed the government, he is charged with treason and locked up and deprived of his rights.
There is no justification for torture. When you humiliate and degrade another person just because you have the power to do so, you are humiliating and degrading yourself, your institutions, your government and your country.
But no one will ever have to answer for their crimes. No one will ever have to stand before a court to justify the criminal acts they authorized or carried out. No one will ever have to defend himself against charges he committed crimes against humanity.
And it's because no one in our government has the guts or the moral compass to stand up and say it was wrong. President Bush committed crimes against humanity. President Obama has committed crimes against humanity. And whoever wins the election in November will continue to do the same.
All the time the American public will sit there staring at shiny objects not giving a second thought to what their so-called representatives are doing in their name.
Back in May I reviewed Larry Siems' book The Torture Report which dealt with the ways in which the Bush Administration implemented a systematic plan to torture so-called enemy combatants in the War on
Attorney General Eric Holder "conducted" an investigation of the CIA's torture apparatus after the government caught heat for the death of a detainee in custody. The investigation was nothing but a sham from the beginning as its purpose was to determine whether the program of torture broke the guidelines laid down by President Bush's aides. In other words, Mr. Holder wasn't looking into the question of whether CIA personnel violated international law in torturing detainees who have yet to be charged with any crime, he was looking into whether or not anyone crossed the line scribbled on a sheet of paper by President Bush's lackeys.
And, predictably, Mr. Holder came to the conclusion that there just wasn't enough "admissible evidence" to proceed with any prosecution.
You see the government has decided that much of the evidence proving the U.S. torture program violated international law is too sensitive to be released. In fact, in the show trials in Guantanamo, the courts have ruled that detainees cannot even testify as to the torture they were subjected to because releasing that information would harm national security. Or, to be more blunt (and honest) the information would be embarrassing to the government and might open some up to charges of crimes against humanity.
And we just can't have that, can we? We all know that the only folks who ever get brought up on charges of crimes against humanity are the losers. The winners never have to face justice. Not to mention that the winners get to write the history.
It is evidence of this program of systematic torture that made Bradley Manning the object of the government's hatred. Mr. Manning did what every soldier is required to do under international law - report incidents of torture and war crimes. That is Mr. Manning's sin - he did just what he was supposed to do but, because the information he released embarrassed the government, he is charged with treason and locked up and deprived of his rights.
There is no justification for torture. When you humiliate and degrade another person just because you have the power to do so, you are humiliating and degrading yourself, your institutions, your government and your country.
But no one will ever have to answer for their crimes. No one will ever have to stand before a court to justify the criminal acts they authorized or carried out. No one will ever have to defend himself against charges he committed crimes against humanity.
And it's because no one in our government has the guts or the moral compass to stand up and say it was wrong. President Bush committed crimes against humanity. President Obama has committed crimes against humanity. And whoever wins the election in November will continue to do the same.
All the time the American public will sit there staring at shiny objects not giving a second thought to what their so-called representatives are doing in their name.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
An innocent man
A man is kidnapped in Somalia. The warlord hands over to an official from another country who then sends the man to a secret prison somewhere near the Middle East. For five years that man is held in solitary confinement. He is stripped of his clothes. He is deprived of sleep. He is subjected to bright lights and loud music for days at a time. He is left in complete darkness for days at a time. He is physically and mentally tortured. And this does on day after day, week after week, month after month, for five long years.
Then, one day he is released. He was never formally charged. He never saw the inside of a courtroom or was allowed to see the evidence against him. One day he's in and the next day, with a piece of paper indicating that he was detained and found innocent, he's out.
The label of suspected terrorist is stuck on his back. He lives in constant fear that he will be scooped up again in the future and subjected to the dehumanizing treatment he suffered for those five long years. He has no recourse against the government that ordered his torture. He is, instead, left to pick up the pieces of his own shattered life.
The man's name is Suleiman Abdallah and he was an innocent victim of the United States' brutal torture regime under both the Bush and Obama administrations. The hell through which he lived was a violation of his human rights and constituted a war crime. Of course since the U.S. pulls the strings in both the U.N. and the International Criminal Court, there is no chance that either George W. Bush or Barack Obama will ever have to answer charges they broke international law.
Writes Clara Gutteridge in The Nation:
As I believe my colleague, Jeff Gamso, would say, the torture regime carried out by our government is a case in which the Law of Rule supplanted the Rule of Law. The U.S. government tortured foreign nationals because they could. There was no one to stop it. There was no one to storm the gates at Bagram Air Force Base or at Guantanamo Bay.
Some day, maybe sooner than later, we will look back in shame at what our government did in our name. We will realize that the ends don't justify the means and that once you cross the line the way our government did, there's no coming back.
Every soldier who participated in the torture of a foreign national should face charges. Every officer who ordered the torture to continue should face charges. Every commander who presided over the torture of anyone should face charges. Every federal agent who participated should face charges. The Attorneys General and Defense Secretaries who gave the plan the go-ahead should face charges. Presidents Bush and Obama should face charges.
There is no excuse for what happened in those secret prisons. There is no excuse for the treatment the detainees suffered through. There is no justification for the systematic violation of human rights and international law.
But it won't stop.
From Democracy Now!
Then, one day he is released. He was never formally charged. He never saw the inside of a courtroom or was allowed to see the evidence against him. One day he's in and the next day, with a piece of paper indicating that he was detained and found innocent, he's out.
The label of suspected terrorist is stuck on his back. He lives in constant fear that he will be scooped up again in the future and subjected to the dehumanizing treatment he suffered for those five long years. He has no recourse against the government that ordered his torture. He is, instead, left to pick up the pieces of his own shattered life.
The man's name is Suleiman Abdallah and he was an innocent victim of the United States' brutal torture regime under both the Bush and Obama administrations. The hell through which he lived was a violation of his human rights and constituted a war crime. Of course since the U.S. pulls the strings in both the U.N. and the International Criminal Court, there is no chance that either George W. Bush or Barack Obama will ever have to answer charges they broke international law.
Writes Clara Gutteridge in The Nation:
Suleiman’s legal options were few. “There is currently no political or judicial avenue available to a person like Suleiman who has been wronged by the United States,” explains attorney and professor Joe Margulies, author of Guantánamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power. “In limited circumstances, like prisoners at Guantánamo, people can seek their release in court, but no one can seek anything more than that.” Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, he notes, “any suggestion that the US should compensate an innocent man for the wrong done to him is a complete nonstarter.”
In theory, Suleiman could have sued one of the regional states—Djibouti or Kenya—for their complicity in his rendition and torture. But weak, slow-moving and overburdened legal systems make this option unlikely to yield any tangible benefit.
As I believe my colleague, Jeff Gamso, would say, the torture regime carried out by our government is a case in which the Law of Rule supplanted the Rule of Law. The U.S. government tortured foreign nationals because they could. There was no one to stop it. There was no one to storm the gates at Bagram Air Force Base or at Guantanamo Bay.
Some day, maybe sooner than later, we will look back in shame at what our government did in our name. We will realize that the ends don't justify the means and that once you cross the line the way our government did, there's no coming back.
Every soldier who participated in the torture of a foreign national should face charges. Every officer who ordered the torture to continue should face charges. Every commander who presided over the torture of anyone should face charges. Every federal agent who participated should face charges. The Attorneys General and Defense Secretaries who gave the plan the go-ahead should face charges. Presidents Bush and Obama should face charges.
There is no excuse for what happened in those secret prisons. There is no excuse for the treatment the detainees suffered through. There is no justification for the systematic violation of human rights and international law.
But it won't stop.
From Democracy Now!
Sunday, June 3, 2012
And sometimes justice just happens
It was 1981. Anwar Sadat, the President of Egypt, was sitting in the stands watching a military parade and basking in the glory of being seen as a man of peace after sitting down with President Jimmy Carter and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1979.
The the parade came to a halt and shots were fired into the stands. Mr. Sadat was mortally wounded and Hosni Mubarak took charge.
Over the next 30 years, Mr. Mubarak ruthlessly stopped dissent, whether it came from the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood or secular groups. He benefited from millions of dollars in military aid from the United States who had no qualms about arming brutal dictators around the world.
That all came to a grinding halt in the Spring of 2011 when protesters occupied Tahrir Square on January 25 in what was the start of Egypt's Arab Spring. But Mr. Mubarak was not one to go down quietly. He sat and twiddled his thumbs as security forces murdered unarmed protesters in the streets. But, when his army refused to turn their guns on their countrymen, Mr. Mubarak's days were numbered.
In the aftermath of his downfall the military took charge. Parliamentary elections were held and the Muslim Brotherhood and other conservative Islamist parties took the wind out of the revolution's sails. When the Egyptian people walked into the polls for the first ever election for President, the revolutionaries were once again disappointed when the top two vote-getters were a candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood and Mr. Mubarak's last prime minister.
This past week brought a measure of satisfaction to those who risked their lives to stand up to Mr. Mubarak, however, when a court convicted the former president and sentenced him to life in prison for his role in the deaths of over 800 protesters.
No, the sentence doesn't bring back those who died in the Arab Spring and it doesn't bring back those who died at the hands of Mr. Mubarak during his 30 years in power. But it does send a message that heads of state are not above the law.
Of course we all know that it's the winners who make the law and Mr. Mubarak was clearly on the losing side of the revolution. But maybe, just maybe, government officials around the world who persist in violating the human rights of others, will see the inside of a courtroom and will be made to answer for their crimes.
Please excuse George W. Bush and Barack Obama if they aren't applauding the decision.
The the parade came to a halt and shots were fired into the stands. Mr. Sadat was mortally wounded and Hosni Mubarak took charge.
Over the next 30 years, Mr. Mubarak ruthlessly stopped dissent, whether it came from the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood or secular groups. He benefited from millions of dollars in military aid from the United States who had no qualms about arming brutal dictators around the world.
That all came to a grinding halt in the Spring of 2011 when protesters occupied Tahrir Square on January 25 in what was the start of Egypt's Arab Spring. But Mr. Mubarak was not one to go down quietly. He sat and twiddled his thumbs as security forces murdered unarmed protesters in the streets. But, when his army refused to turn their guns on their countrymen, Mr. Mubarak's days were numbered.
In the aftermath of his downfall the military took charge. Parliamentary elections were held and the Muslim Brotherhood and other conservative Islamist parties took the wind out of the revolution's sails. When the Egyptian people walked into the polls for the first ever election for President, the revolutionaries were once again disappointed when the top two vote-getters were a candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood and Mr. Mubarak's last prime minister.
This past week brought a measure of satisfaction to those who risked their lives to stand up to Mr. Mubarak, however, when a court convicted the former president and sentenced him to life in prison for his role in the deaths of over 800 protesters.
No, the sentence doesn't bring back those who died in the Arab Spring and it doesn't bring back those who died at the hands of Mr. Mubarak during his 30 years in power. But it does send a message that heads of state are not above the law.
Of course we all know that it's the winners who make the law and Mr. Mubarak was clearly on the losing side of the revolution. But maybe, just maybe, government officials around the world who persist in violating the human rights of others, will see the inside of a courtroom and will be made to answer for their crimes.
Please excuse George W. Bush and Barack Obama if they aren't applauding the decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)