William Fisher
Eric Rudolph has been sentenced to four life sentences without parole for the deadly 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta and attacks at two abortion clinics and a gay nightclub.
But the chances are that by the time most of us heard the news of Rudolph’s sentence, we had long since forgotten another name that was prominent in the Olympic Park case.
That name is Richard Jewell.
And some see what happened to him as part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other law enforcement agencies.
Richard Jewell was working as a security guard at Olympic Park, where the bomb exploded. He spotted a suspicious object and reported it. He thus helped save lives that might otherwise have been lost.
Richard Jewell was hailed as a hero. TV networks and newspapers interviewed him. He seemed to have a bright future in law enforcement.
But only three days after the explosion, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published a story saying police were investigating the possibility that Jewell had planted the bomb. FBI agents interviewed Jewell and searched his apartment. Their aggressive questioning led him to ask for an attorney. A large crowd of journalists and TV crews watched as the security guard’s property was hauled away as evidence.
Jewell told reporters he was innocent. Two bombing victims filed suit against Jewell. A few days later, Jewell’s mother, Barbara Jewell, appeared on television, was weeping as she asked President Bill Clinton to exonerate her son.
But U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno refused to clear Jewell or apologize to him. He was labeled a ‘person of interest’. The FBI would neither confirm nor deny he was a suspect.
It was not until the following October that a US District Judge said he thought Jewell was not, at that time, a suspect. The US Attorney then told Jewell that he was no longer under investigation.
In August 1997, a year after the event, then Attorney General Janet Reno publicly apologized to Jewell and deplored the leak to the media that made his name known as a suspect. “I regret very much the leak that made him an object of so much public attention,” Reno commented. “I don’t think any apology is sufficient when somebody has gone through . . . what Mr. Jewell has gone through.”
But by that time Richard Jewell had lived for months under a very dark cloud. He appeared at a televised news conference, and said, “I am not the Olympic Park bomber. I am a man who has lived 88 days afraid of being arrested for a crime I did commit.” He said the FBI latched onto him “in its rush to show the world it could get its man.”
Another high-profile ‘person of interest’ is Dr. Steven Hatfill, a former researcher at the Army's infectious disease research laboratory at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. Hatfill, 50, has been under FBI scrutiny since the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened 17 others. He has never been charged with a crime, simply designated a ’person of interest’.
The former Army researcher has denied involvement in the anthrax mailings and claims he was fired from a job because of the media coverage of the case. The Washington Times, which claimed that Hatfill might have been the culprit, eventually said Hatfill might have been framed by a team of government scientists.
His apartment and rubbish bins were searched several times. He has been under 24-hour surveillance. A swamp, near the government laboratory where he once worked, was drained by the FBI.
Hatfill told news media, "I've been in this field for a number of years, working until 3 o'clock in the morning, trying to counter this type of weapon of mass destruction, and, sir, my career is over at this time."
Hatfill sued then Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI, accusing the government of "a campaign of harassment" and unfairly singling him out. . Ashcroft had publicly called him a ‘person of interest’ in the anthrax probe in 2002.
Hatfill also sued the New York Times Co. and columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, claiming the paper defamed him in a series of columns that identified him as the likely culprit. The lawsuit said Kristof identified him as the anthrax killer to "light a fire" under investigators in their probe of the anthrax-spore mailings.
Hatfill accused Kristof of making "false and defamatory" allegations and the Times of engaging in "substandard and unethical journalism.''
In a series of columns in 2002, Kristof criticized the FBI for failing to
aggressively pursue a scientist he at first identified as "Mr. Z.'' He wrote
that the biodefense community had called Mr. Z a "likely culprit" and was
"buzzing about Mr. Z behind his back," in part because the scientist was
familiar with anthrax and was angered at the suspension of his top security
clearance less than a month before the attacks.
Kristof, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, later acknowledged that Mr. Z was
Hatfill. He also wrote that Hatfill deserved the "presumption of innocence" and
that "there is not a shred of traditional physical evidence linking him to the
attacks.''
No one has ever been charged in the investigation of anthrax-tainted letters mailed to media and government offices.
At the end of September 2003 – nearly two years after the anthrax attacks -- the new head of the FBI investigation says it is troubling that Hatfill was publicly labeled a "person of interest" in the case by top law enforcement officials. "The anthrax investigation has been beset by a number of leaks”, he said, and labeled this “unfortunate”.
Meanwhile, Hatfill remains unemployed, and perhaps unemployable.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
ABOUT TARIQ RAMADAN
By William Fisher
The Muslim scholar who was issued and then denied a visa to teach in the United States because of alleged ties to ‘terrorists’ is calling for an immediate moratorium on corporal punishments, stoning, and the death penalty that Muslim fundamentalists say is mandated by Shariah law.
Writing in the French newspaper, Le Monde, Tariq Ramadan said, in Western societies, “the infliction of corporal punishments, stoning, execution in the name of a religious standard that would impose itself on an entire society, cannot be accepted.” The Islamic world, he writes, “sends very contradictory messages: firm and definitive condemnations come from a small minority of Muslim intellectuals or social or political actors, while certain governments attempt to legitimize their Islamic character by the application of these repressive practices.”
Calling for a robust debate over “the future of relations between civilizations, religions, and cultures”, Ramadan urges “an immediate moratorium in the Muslim world in the very name of Islamic principles themselves.”
“When we call for a moratorium” on the application of Shariah law, he says, “voices in the West assert: ‘That's unacceptable; it's not enough!’ Others in the Muslim world exclaim: ‘It's unacceptable; it's treason to our standards!’ “
Ramadan wonders how such a debate is possible given the hardened attitudes of both Islamic and Western societies.
At least one Muslim scholar, Prof. Omid Safi, Chair for Islamic Studies at the American Academy of Religion at Colgate University, believes this kind of debate is “not only possible but essential”. He told IPS, “It’s true that this kind of intra-Muslim conversation may be attractive to the West. But it is not for the benefit of the West that it should happen. It is for the benefit of Islam, and for all of us simply as human beings. The ‘fundamental debate’ Prof. Ramadan is urging will find its subject matter within the core of Islam itself.” Prof. Safi is chair of the Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMU), a relatively new, small but growing movement within Islam.
Safi, who is the editor of ‘Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism’, says of the movement, “Our aim has been to envision a socially and politically active Islamic identity that remains committed to ideals of social justice, pluralism, and gender equality. The aim here is not to advocate our own understanding as uniquely "Islamic" to the exclusion of the past fourteen hundred years of Islamic thought and practice.”
Ramadan voices a similar idea. “The evolution of minds,” he says, “will only happen in the Muslim world as a result of this debate, which should allow this universe to reconcile itself with the essence of its message of justice, equality, and pluralism rather than to be obsessed with its most repressive and violent aspects because of frustration with bad experiences or feelings of alienation fostered by the leitmotiv of Western domination.”
“Isn't it possible,” he asks, “to stipulate non-negotiable universal values (the integrity of the human person, equality under the law, rejection of degrading treatment, etc.), while recognizing and acknowledging the diversity and specificity of standards (religious and cultural), the histories that can lead to their expression and demand?”
In August 2004, the U. S. revoked the visa it issued to Dr. Ramadan to teach Islamic philosophy and ethics at Notre Dame University in Indiana. He received a visa from the State Department and was scheduled to start his classes in late August. But just days before he was set to travel, his visa was revoked without explanation at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security.
Ramadan, professor of Islamic studies and philosophy at Fribourg University in Switzerland, was barred under a section of the Patriot Act, which denies entry to foreigners who have used a "position of prominence . . . to endorse or espouse terrorist activity." He has been described by Time magazine as one of the 100 most likely innovators of the 21st century.
Prof. Ramadan is far from the first to be denied visas to the U.S. in recent months. A group of Cuban Grammy nominees was denied U.S. visas and could not attend the award ceremonies in Los Angeles. Dora Maria Tellez, a Nicaraguan historian and former Sandinista official, was excluded because of purported involvement in terrorist acts – even though she had traveled to the U.S. numerous other times. And a group of Chinese computer scientists met the same fate.
But it is unusual for a visa to be issued and then rescinded, as in Prof. Ramadan’s case.
Ramadan’s position on Shariah law suggests a solution. He says “the ulemas (scholars trained in Islamic law and theology) agree neither on the interpretations of the contents (nor sometimes on the authenticity) of the texts that refer to these practices, nor, by the way, on the prerequisite conditions and the socio-political contexts in which they are possible. In the absence of any consensus on the subject, we must, therefore, open a large and pluralistic debate, by deciding to stop the practices immediately.”
He adds, “The application of Shariah is used today by repressive powers that attack women, the poor, and their political opposition in a legal near-void in which summary executions of accused persons - whose human dignity is not respected, accused persons without defense, without a lawyer - are increasing. Contemporary Muslim conscience cannot accept these denials of justice.”
“Whole swathes of Muslim populations, from Nigeria to Malaysia, regularly demand the strict application of Shariah, and the majority of ulemas -- Muslim scholars trained in Islamic law and theology -- limit themselves to asserting that these punishments ‘are almost never applicable’, by insisting on the prerequisite conditions, but they avoid expressing themselves clearly on the question, most often so as not to lose their credibility with these populations.”
“The unilateral condemnations that we hear in the West will not help things evolve. For the moment, we're living through exactly the opposite phenomenon: Muslim populations convince themselves of the Islamic character of these practices by virtue of Western rejection… the less Western it is, the more Islamic it is."
He concludes: “We have to emerge from this perversion, and Western governments and individuals have a major responsibility to allow the Muslim world to engage in this debate…”
The Muslim scholar who was issued and then denied a visa to teach in the United States because of alleged ties to ‘terrorists’ is calling for an immediate moratorium on corporal punishments, stoning, and the death penalty that Muslim fundamentalists say is mandated by Shariah law.
Writing in the French newspaper, Le Monde, Tariq Ramadan said, in Western societies, “the infliction of corporal punishments, stoning, execution in the name of a religious standard that would impose itself on an entire society, cannot be accepted.” The Islamic world, he writes, “sends very contradictory messages: firm and definitive condemnations come from a small minority of Muslim intellectuals or social or political actors, while certain governments attempt to legitimize their Islamic character by the application of these repressive practices.”
Calling for a robust debate over “the future of relations between civilizations, religions, and cultures”, Ramadan urges “an immediate moratorium in the Muslim world in the very name of Islamic principles themselves.”
“When we call for a moratorium” on the application of Shariah law, he says, “voices in the West assert: ‘That's unacceptable; it's not enough!’ Others in the Muslim world exclaim: ‘It's unacceptable; it's treason to our standards!’ “
Ramadan wonders how such a debate is possible given the hardened attitudes of both Islamic and Western societies.
At least one Muslim scholar, Prof. Omid Safi, Chair for Islamic Studies at the American Academy of Religion at Colgate University, believes this kind of debate is “not only possible but essential”. He told IPS, “It’s true that this kind of intra-Muslim conversation may be attractive to the West. But it is not for the benefit of the West that it should happen. It is for the benefit of Islam, and for all of us simply as human beings. The ‘fundamental debate’ Prof. Ramadan is urging will find its subject matter within the core of Islam itself.” Prof. Safi is chair of the Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMU), a relatively new, small but growing movement within Islam.
Safi, who is the editor of ‘Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism’, says of the movement, “Our aim has been to envision a socially and politically active Islamic identity that remains committed to ideals of social justice, pluralism, and gender equality. The aim here is not to advocate our own understanding as uniquely "Islamic" to the exclusion of the past fourteen hundred years of Islamic thought and practice.”
Ramadan voices a similar idea. “The evolution of minds,” he says, “will only happen in the Muslim world as a result of this debate, which should allow this universe to reconcile itself with the essence of its message of justice, equality, and pluralism rather than to be obsessed with its most repressive and violent aspects because of frustration with bad experiences or feelings of alienation fostered by the leitmotiv of Western domination.”
“Isn't it possible,” he asks, “to stipulate non-negotiable universal values (the integrity of the human person, equality under the law, rejection of degrading treatment, etc.), while recognizing and acknowledging the diversity and specificity of standards (religious and cultural), the histories that can lead to their expression and demand?”
In August 2004, the U. S. revoked the visa it issued to Dr. Ramadan to teach Islamic philosophy and ethics at Notre Dame University in Indiana. He received a visa from the State Department and was scheduled to start his classes in late August. But just days before he was set to travel, his visa was revoked without explanation at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security.
Ramadan, professor of Islamic studies and philosophy at Fribourg University in Switzerland, was barred under a section of the Patriot Act, which denies entry to foreigners who have used a "position of prominence . . . to endorse or espouse terrorist activity." He has been described by Time magazine as one of the 100 most likely innovators of the 21st century.
Prof. Ramadan is far from the first to be denied visas to the U.S. in recent months. A group of Cuban Grammy nominees was denied U.S. visas and could not attend the award ceremonies in Los Angeles. Dora Maria Tellez, a Nicaraguan historian and former Sandinista official, was excluded because of purported involvement in terrorist acts – even though she had traveled to the U.S. numerous other times. And a group of Chinese computer scientists met the same fate.
But it is unusual for a visa to be issued and then rescinded, as in Prof. Ramadan’s case.
Ramadan’s position on Shariah law suggests a solution. He says “the ulemas (scholars trained in Islamic law and theology) agree neither on the interpretations of the contents (nor sometimes on the authenticity) of the texts that refer to these practices, nor, by the way, on the prerequisite conditions and the socio-political contexts in which they are possible. In the absence of any consensus on the subject, we must, therefore, open a large and pluralistic debate, by deciding to stop the practices immediately.”
He adds, “The application of Shariah is used today by repressive powers that attack women, the poor, and their political opposition in a legal near-void in which summary executions of accused persons - whose human dignity is not respected, accused persons without defense, without a lawyer - are increasing. Contemporary Muslim conscience cannot accept these denials of justice.”
“Whole swathes of Muslim populations, from Nigeria to Malaysia, regularly demand the strict application of Shariah, and the majority of ulemas -- Muslim scholars trained in Islamic law and theology -- limit themselves to asserting that these punishments ‘are almost never applicable’, by insisting on the prerequisite conditions, but they avoid expressing themselves clearly on the question, most often so as not to lose their credibility with these populations.”
“The unilateral condemnations that we hear in the West will not help things evolve. For the moment, we're living through exactly the opposite phenomenon: Muslim populations convince themselves of the Islamic character of these practices by virtue of Western rejection… the less Western it is, the more Islamic it is."
He concludes: “We have to emerge from this perversion, and Western governments and individuals have a major responsibility to allow the Muslim world to engage in this debate…”
Are We "Ugly Americans"?
By Jason Miller
Somebody please tell Karl Rove to quit holding up the applause sign. The minions he manipulates are cheering for an America that does not exist. The abstract concept of America, and its embodiment of liberties and human rights, is a fiction. Norman Rockwell's portrayal of America was an idealistic perversion of a landscape, that for many, has been littered with oppression, bigotry, greed, torture and even murder. Goya's brutal "Duel With Cudgels" would come closer to capturing the essence of the underlying mean-spiritedness of this nation that the Bush administration is working so hard to revitalize. Yes, there is a dark, brutish aspect to this self-proclaimed beacon of freedom and liberty, and I am going to delve into it. Read on if you dare to take an introspective look at the darker aspects of our national identity.
This nation's founders captured inhabitants of various nations or tribes
from the continent of Africa, brought them to the colonies against their
will, and allowed for their continued enslavement through our
Constitution. Abolitionists, like John Brown, were executed as terrorists.
A bloody Civil War and three Amendments to the Constitution still were not
enough to end the oppression of blacks in our nation. The specter of Jim
Crow arose in the south in the 1890's, and did not die out until leaders
like Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, and Martin Luther King, Jr. emerged in
the mid Twentieth Century. Even some peaceful opponents of black
oppression, like King, were slain for their beliefs. In today's world,
racism hides behind the veil of "political correctness", and those who
practice it often cower from the legal consequences of practicing their
bigotry openly. However, covert as it often is, racism is still a
pervasive part of American society.
The Native Americans have not fared so well in America either, at least
not since the Western Europeans invaded their continent. In 1830, the US
Congress passed the "Indian Removal Act", which eventually enabled the
federal government to resolve the problem of a growing population in the
state of Georgia by moving the Cherokee Nation to the state of Oklahoma,
In 1838, on the forced 1,000 mile march, 4,000 Cherokee men, women and
children died in what is now known as "The Trail of Tears".
Tecumseh, a Shawnee leader who organized opposition to forced Native
American colonization, showed his insight into the ugly aspect of America
when he spoke to the Osage tribe in 1812. In his speech, he said,
"Brothers, the white people are like poisonous serpents: when chilled,
they are feeble and harmless; but invigorate them with warmth, and they
sting their benefactors to death."
Thanks to Howard Zinn in Voices of a People's History of the United States
for uncovering a telling quote from the Saturday Pioneer, a newspaper in
Aberdeen, South Dakota. Ironically, L. Frank Baum, who also wrote The
Wonderful Wizard of Oz, was the paper's editor in 1890, when the quote
appeared. Shortly after the massacre at Wounded Knee, and the subsequent
murder of Sitting Bull, Baum's paper wrote, "The Whites, by law of
conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American
continent....and the best safety of the frontier settlers will be secured
by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians." What a
heart-warming heritage for our nation.
America continued to demonstrate its imperialistic ways in the Mexican
War. Eager to expand US territory, President James Polk annexed Texas, and
sent American troops to help this future state gain its independence from
Mexico. In less than two years, America brought Mexico to its knees, and
proudly included Texas, New Mexico, and California in its borders. Maybe
the illegal Mexican immigrants of today are simply trying to find their
ancestral homes that were seized by conquest.
William McKinley came to office in 1896 to preside over a country that
still had a ravenous appetite for expansion. "Manifest destiny" was the
order of the day. Under McKinnley, the US waged war against Spain in Cuba,
and drove the Spaniards out, leaving a power vacuum that was quickly
filled by greedy US corporations. 500,000 Filipinos were killed as America
wrested the Philippine Islands away from Spain. McKinley also arranged for
the annexation of Hawaii and Puerto Rico during his reign, or, depending
on one's perspective, presidency.
In the early Twentieth Century, Upton Sinclair and his fellow muckrakers
cast a light into the shadows where ruthless corporations victimized
workers and consumers with their avarice-driven disregard for health and
safety. Sinclair's expose' of the corrupt and dangerous practices of the
meat-packing industry (entitled The Jungle)led to the passage of The Pure
Food and Drug Act of 1906. Prior to the efforts of Populists and
Socialists, America's system of unbridled capitalism and laisez-faire
economic policy by the federal government enabled ruthless corporations to
treat their workers like cattle and market products to consumers with
little regard for health or quality.
Eugene Debs and other war protestors who violated the Sedition Act during
World War I, paid the price with their freedom. As they sat in prison for
exercising their First Amendment rights, over 100,000 Americans died in
the "war to end all wars". Our government could employ flag-waving
propaganda to lure millions of young men to face horror and death, but if
an individual protested against their use of this propaganda in the "land
of the free", that individual went to prison.
Ask the Japanese citizens during World War II for their perspective on the
"American Dream". Or would it be more appropriate to say "Nightmare"? Over
100,000 of them were displaced from their homes and businesses and herded
into camps surrounded by barb-wire. Their "crime" was "disloyalty". After
the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the federal government first employed curfews
as a means to marshal control of the "enemy within". Eventually, they made
the decision to move 110,000 people of Japanese descent into ten
"relocation centers" throughout the United States. Most of them were
American citizens born on American soil, and they were imprisoned without
a trial and without being charged with a crime. Guantanamo Bay now makes
America a repeat offender.
America is still drunk with power, arrogance, and an insatiable appetite
for the accumulation of wealth. Based on a statement of principles drafted
in 1997, and a think-tank created to formulate ways to implement the
principles, The Project for the New American Century paved the way for
George Bush and his pack of so-called "neo-cons" to launch the unprovoked
and unsubstantiated invasion of Iraq. Several of the war hungry neo-cons,
like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, signed the statement of principles,
and 9/11 gave them the excuse they needed to initiate their aggression.
Their imperial intentions are clearly outlined at
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. Their
concluding paragraph states:
"Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be
fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on
the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our
greatness in the next."
The Bush administration has demonstrated its commitment to making the
Twenty First Century the "American Century". However, the reality is, the
invasion of a small country like Iraq has stretched our military to its
limits, and two years later there is still strong resistance to the
American imposed government, and much chaos. The sun is setting on the
"American Empire" as Bush and his people desperately struggle to fan the
dying embers and rekindle the flames. There are multiple countries with
nuclear capabilities. China is rivalling the US both as an economic and
military power. Terrorism has proven to be the David to our Goliath. With
a $7.5 trillion deficit, America is bleeding red ink, and the effort in
Iraq is costing billions that this country does not have.
Bush has launched a war with no end in sight against the "evil
terrorists", an elusive, shadow target which cannot be definitively
beaten. Perpetual fear and hatred of the "terrorists" motivate Americans
to support a seemingly endless war, and enable Karl Rove to manipulate the
masses, leaving the neo-cons free to pursue their policy of military
proliferation of American interests to their hearts' content. However, the
waning strength of this nation, coupled with the rising strength of
nations like China, make this model unsustainable.
In 1997, with the advent of The Project for the New American Century,
America laid out a publicly available plan for global domination.
Historically, Americans have pursued a policy of aggressive global
expansionism under the guise of altruism, the "right of manifest destiny",
or under the pretext of protecting its regional interests. The United
States flaunts its lofty Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet with each
passing day continues to deny basic civil rights to homosexuals (who make
up 5% of the population), defies the UN and Geneva Convention, earns an
annual per capita income of $34,000.00 (compared to the world per capita
of $7,000.00), and consumes 25% of the world's fossil fuels (while 2
billion people in the world have no access to electricity and Bush has
elected to withdraw from the Kyoto Treaty). In 2000, the Bush regime
installed itself to rule our Executive branch by manipulating the voting
process. This regime has engaged in a consistent pattern of false
propaganda to manipulate public opinion, unilateral decision-making
without regard for relationships with allies or the UN, and has rewarded
and promoted its staff members in spite of acts of incompetence and war
crimes. The US Senate is now considering a bill, the Constitution
Restoration Act, promoted by America's own religious radicals. The CRA
would, for the purposes of judicial review, recognize "God as the
sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." And Americans thought
the Muslim theocracies were frightening?
Why were Americans surprised at the attack of 9/11? Certainly it shattered
our illusion of invulnerability. However, there are deeper psychological
forces at work. As Ward Churchill stated in "Some People Push Back",
"America's indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of
self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world's
peoples ample cause to be at war with it." It is time for America to stop
considering itself the center of the universe. America was not an innocent
victim on 9/11. The people who died that day were innocent victims, but
America as a nation was not innocent, and had been asking to be attacked
for many years. Our nation has oppressed and provoked people and other
nations since its founding, and has faced few consequences. 9/11 was a
wake up call. It is time for America to come down from its pedestal and
take its place amongst the world community, as equals, rather than as
condescending tyrants.
I will conclude by stating that I still believe in the inherent decency of
many of the people in the United States. My opinion is that the
Constitution and Bill of Rights represent a contract between citizens and
government that is unparalleled in its capacity to create a government
that represents and protects the rights and interests of its people. I
believe in an economic system based on capitalism, provided there are
reasonable government restraints on the power of businesses, and
government safety nets for the poor and under-privileged. Despite the ugly
stains on our history, we as Americans had been making great evolutionary
strides in the areas of civil rights, inclusion, justice, and toning down
our aggressive foreign policy. However, I am seeing many signs of that
progress eroding. America is a nation comprised of millions of people and
dynamics, and to expect it to live up to the idealized notions of truth,
justice, and the American way would be unrealistic. Yet, the fact that the
ideal is unattainable does not give us license to abandon the principles
of our Constitution to the extent that we have. Today, I have written
about the dark side of our nation to motivate those of us who are willing
to look at the uglier aspects of our nature to continue to work toward a
more spiritually evolved and enlightened place.
Somebody please tell Karl Rove to quit holding up the applause sign. The minions he manipulates are cheering for an America that does not exist. The abstract concept of America, and its embodiment of liberties and human rights, is a fiction. Norman Rockwell's portrayal of America was an idealistic perversion of a landscape, that for many, has been littered with oppression, bigotry, greed, torture and even murder. Goya's brutal "Duel With Cudgels" would come closer to capturing the essence of the underlying mean-spiritedness of this nation that the Bush administration is working so hard to revitalize. Yes, there is a dark, brutish aspect to this self-proclaimed beacon of freedom and liberty, and I am going to delve into it. Read on if you dare to take an introspective look at the darker aspects of our national identity.
This nation's founders captured inhabitants of various nations or tribes
from the continent of Africa, brought them to the colonies against their
will, and allowed for their continued enslavement through our
Constitution. Abolitionists, like John Brown, were executed as terrorists.
A bloody Civil War and three Amendments to the Constitution still were not
enough to end the oppression of blacks in our nation. The specter of Jim
Crow arose in the south in the 1890's, and did not die out until leaders
like Rosa Parks, Thurgood Marshall, and Martin Luther King, Jr. emerged in
the mid Twentieth Century. Even some peaceful opponents of black
oppression, like King, were slain for their beliefs. In today's world,
racism hides behind the veil of "political correctness", and those who
practice it often cower from the legal consequences of practicing their
bigotry openly. However, covert as it often is, racism is still a
pervasive part of American society.
The Native Americans have not fared so well in America either, at least
not since the Western Europeans invaded their continent. In 1830, the US
Congress passed the "Indian Removal Act", which eventually enabled the
federal government to resolve the problem of a growing population in the
state of Georgia by moving the Cherokee Nation to the state of Oklahoma,
In 1838, on the forced 1,000 mile march, 4,000 Cherokee men, women and
children died in what is now known as "The Trail of Tears".
Tecumseh, a Shawnee leader who organized opposition to forced Native
American colonization, showed his insight into the ugly aspect of America
when he spoke to the Osage tribe in 1812. In his speech, he said,
"Brothers, the white people are like poisonous serpents: when chilled,
they are feeble and harmless; but invigorate them with warmth, and they
sting their benefactors to death."
Thanks to Howard Zinn in Voices of a People's History of the United States
for uncovering a telling quote from the Saturday Pioneer, a newspaper in
Aberdeen, South Dakota. Ironically, L. Frank Baum, who also wrote The
Wonderful Wizard of Oz, was the paper's editor in 1890, when the quote
appeared. Shortly after the massacre at Wounded Knee, and the subsequent
murder of Sitting Bull, Baum's paper wrote, "The Whites, by law of
conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American
continent....and the best safety of the frontier settlers will be secured
by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians." What a
heart-warming heritage for our nation.
America continued to demonstrate its imperialistic ways in the Mexican
War. Eager to expand US territory, President James Polk annexed Texas, and
sent American troops to help this future state gain its independence from
Mexico. In less than two years, America brought Mexico to its knees, and
proudly included Texas, New Mexico, and California in its borders. Maybe
the illegal Mexican immigrants of today are simply trying to find their
ancestral homes that were seized by conquest.
William McKinley came to office in 1896 to preside over a country that
still had a ravenous appetite for expansion. "Manifest destiny" was the
order of the day. Under McKinnley, the US waged war against Spain in Cuba,
and drove the Spaniards out, leaving a power vacuum that was quickly
filled by greedy US corporations. 500,000 Filipinos were killed as America
wrested the Philippine Islands away from Spain. McKinley also arranged for
the annexation of Hawaii and Puerto Rico during his reign, or, depending
on one's perspective, presidency.
In the early Twentieth Century, Upton Sinclair and his fellow muckrakers
cast a light into the shadows where ruthless corporations victimized
workers and consumers with their avarice-driven disregard for health and
safety. Sinclair's expose' of the corrupt and dangerous practices of the
meat-packing industry (entitled The Jungle)led to the passage of The Pure
Food and Drug Act of 1906. Prior to the efforts of Populists and
Socialists, America's system of unbridled capitalism and laisez-faire
economic policy by the federal government enabled ruthless corporations to
treat their workers like cattle and market products to consumers with
little regard for health or quality.
Eugene Debs and other war protestors who violated the Sedition Act during
World War I, paid the price with their freedom. As they sat in prison for
exercising their First Amendment rights, over 100,000 Americans died in
the "war to end all wars". Our government could employ flag-waving
propaganda to lure millions of young men to face horror and death, but if
an individual protested against their use of this propaganda in the "land
of the free", that individual went to prison.
Ask the Japanese citizens during World War II for their perspective on the
"American Dream". Or would it be more appropriate to say "Nightmare"? Over
100,000 of them were displaced from their homes and businesses and herded
into camps surrounded by barb-wire. Their "crime" was "disloyalty". After
the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the federal government first employed curfews
as a means to marshal control of the "enemy within". Eventually, they made
the decision to move 110,000 people of Japanese descent into ten
"relocation centers" throughout the United States. Most of them were
American citizens born on American soil, and they were imprisoned without
a trial and without being charged with a crime. Guantanamo Bay now makes
America a repeat offender.
America is still drunk with power, arrogance, and an insatiable appetite
for the accumulation of wealth. Based on a statement of principles drafted
in 1997, and a think-tank created to formulate ways to implement the
principles, The Project for the New American Century paved the way for
George Bush and his pack of so-called "neo-cons" to launch the unprovoked
and unsubstantiated invasion of Iraq. Several of the war hungry neo-cons,
like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, signed the statement of principles,
and 9/11 gave them the excuse they needed to initiate their aggression.
Their imperial intentions are clearly outlined at
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm. Their
concluding paragraph states:
"Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be
fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on
the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our
greatness in the next."
The Bush administration has demonstrated its commitment to making the
Twenty First Century the "American Century". However, the reality is, the
invasion of a small country like Iraq has stretched our military to its
limits, and two years later there is still strong resistance to the
American imposed government, and much chaos. The sun is setting on the
"American Empire" as Bush and his people desperately struggle to fan the
dying embers and rekindle the flames. There are multiple countries with
nuclear capabilities. China is rivalling the US both as an economic and
military power. Terrorism has proven to be the David to our Goliath. With
a $7.5 trillion deficit, America is bleeding red ink, and the effort in
Iraq is costing billions that this country does not have.
Bush has launched a war with no end in sight against the "evil
terrorists", an elusive, shadow target which cannot be definitively
beaten. Perpetual fear and hatred of the "terrorists" motivate Americans
to support a seemingly endless war, and enable Karl Rove to manipulate the
masses, leaving the neo-cons free to pursue their policy of military
proliferation of American interests to their hearts' content. However, the
waning strength of this nation, coupled with the rising strength of
nations like China, make this model unsustainable.
In 1997, with the advent of The Project for the New American Century,
America laid out a publicly available plan for global domination.
Historically, Americans have pursued a policy of aggressive global
expansionism under the guise of altruism, the "right of manifest destiny",
or under the pretext of protecting its regional interests. The United
States flaunts its lofty Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet with each
passing day continues to deny basic civil rights to homosexuals (who make
up 5% of the population), defies the UN and Geneva Convention, earns an
annual per capita income of $34,000.00 (compared to the world per capita
of $7,000.00), and consumes 25% of the world's fossil fuels (while 2
billion people in the world have no access to electricity and Bush has
elected to withdraw from the Kyoto Treaty). In 2000, the Bush regime
installed itself to rule our Executive branch by manipulating the voting
process. This regime has engaged in a consistent pattern of false
propaganda to manipulate public opinion, unilateral decision-making
without regard for relationships with allies or the UN, and has rewarded
and promoted its staff members in spite of acts of incompetence and war
crimes. The US Senate is now considering a bill, the Constitution
Restoration Act, promoted by America's own religious radicals. The CRA
would, for the purposes of judicial review, recognize "God as the
sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." And Americans thought
the Muslim theocracies were frightening?
Why were Americans surprised at the attack of 9/11? Certainly it shattered
our illusion of invulnerability. However, there are deeper psychological
forces at work. As Ward Churchill stated in "Some People Push Back",
"America's indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of
self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world's
peoples ample cause to be at war with it." It is time for America to stop
considering itself the center of the universe. America was not an innocent
victim on 9/11. The people who died that day were innocent victims, but
America as a nation was not innocent, and had been asking to be attacked
for many years. Our nation has oppressed and provoked people and other
nations since its founding, and has faced few consequences. 9/11 was a
wake up call. It is time for America to come down from its pedestal and
take its place amongst the world community, as equals, rather than as
condescending tyrants.
I will conclude by stating that I still believe in the inherent decency of
many of the people in the United States. My opinion is that the
Constitution and Bill of Rights represent a contract between citizens and
government that is unparalleled in its capacity to create a government
that represents and protects the rights and interests of its people. I
believe in an economic system based on capitalism, provided there are
reasonable government restraints on the power of businesses, and
government safety nets for the poor and under-privileged. Despite the ugly
stains on our history, we as Americans had been making great evolutionary
strides in the areas of civil rights, inclusion, justice, and toning down
our aggressive foreign policy. However, I am seeing many signs of that
progress eroding. America is a nation comprised of millions of people and
dynamics, and to expect it to live up to the idealized notions of truth,
justice, and the American way would be unrealistic. Yet, the fact that the
ideal is unattainable does not give us license to abandon the principles
of our Constitution to the extent that we have. Today, I have written
about the dark side of our nation to motivate those of us who are willing
to look at the uglier aspects of our nature to continue to work toward a
more spiritually evolved and enlightened place.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
DOUBLE TROUBLE FOR HALLIBURTON
By William Fisher
The Halliburton Corporation, already the Iraq war’s poster child for ‘waste, fraud and abuse’, got a double-whammy this week. A new report from the U.S. State Department accused the company of “poor performance” in its $1.2 billion contract to repair Iraq's vital southern oil fields. And a powerful California congressman charged that new Department of Defense audits showing additional over-charges totaling $212 million were concealed from United Nations monitors by the Bush Administration.
The new over-charges bring to $2 billion, or 42 per cent of the contract amounts, the total of questionable billings from Halliburton.
Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Government Reform, charged that “both the amount of Halliburton's overcharges and the extent of the information withheld from the auditors at the UN’s International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) were much greater than previously known.”
Waxman said the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which monitors all Defense Department contracts, had identified Halliburton overcharges and questionable costs of totaling $212.3 million -- double the total amount of known overcharges under Halliburton's Iraq oil contract. In one case, Waxman said, the overcharges exceeded 47% of the total value of the task order.
But DOD – at Halliburton’s request – withheld the new amount from the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB), the U.N. audit oversight body for the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), Waxman charged.
In letters to government auditors, Halliburton subsidiary KBR explained that it redacted statements it considered proprietary or "factually inaccurate or misleading" and gave consent for the release of the audits to international auditors "in redacted form." The Administration then sent the heavily redacted report to the IAMB overseeing the DFI.
Rep. Waxman’s letter to Subcommittee Chairman Shays says, “The extensive redactions in the audit were apparently made at the specific request of Halliburton…the withholding of this information is highly unusual and raises serious issues. The evidence suggests that the U.S. used Iraqi oil proceeds to overpay Halliburton and then sought to hide the evidence of these overcharges from the international auditors.” Waxman also renewed his request that the Subcommittee hold hearings on the Administration's “mismanagement of the Development Fund for Iraq”.
Previously, Waxman disclosed that DOD auditors found $108 million in fuel-related overcharges by Halliburton for work in Iraq under one of several Halliburton task orders for the importation of fuel into Iraq. He also revealed that, although Halliburton was paid in significant part from Iraqi oil proceeds in the DFI, the Administration — acting at Halliburton’s request — concealed these overcharges from the international auditors charged by the United Nations with monitoring the expenditures from the DFI, Waxman alleges.
In these new audit reports, he says, “extensive additional information has been withheld by the Administration from the IAMB. A review of these audits shows that references to overcharges and other questioned costs were blacked out over 450 times in the versions of audits sent to the IAMB.”
Rick Blum of advocacy group ‘OpenTheGovernment.org’, said, “Once again, the secrecy system fails us. They wouldn't have done it if they thought anyone cared or would find out. If the public had known about this earlier, we could stop it, better protect our troops, and better use our taxpayer dollars to make our families safer. This should be a wake up call to ensure more openness to strengthen our national defense.”
And Scott H. Amey,General Counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, a non-partisan government watchdog, declared, “DCAA’s audit reports document a total of approximately $2 billion (approximately 37% of the total proposed value of the contracts) in questioned, unresolved, or unsupported costs. If a taxpayer was able to support only 63% of their tax-return, he or she would be brought to justice. In the case of Halliburton, however, the government continues to let it slide.”
The State Department’s report focused on Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), the Halliburton subsidiary contracted to repair Iraq's southern oil fields.
The report does not provide detail about what it called “poor performance and excess spending”, but it says that the American Embassy had issued a "Cure Notice," a threat to terminate the contract unless Kellogg, Brown & Root replaced some senior managers. It says the government remains dissatisfied.
As a consequence, one of KBR’s competitors, Parsons Corporation, has been asked "to execute some of the remaining work" in the south, originally meant for KBR. KBR has previously been criticized for excess spending in its multibillion-dollar contract to provide logistical support for the military and in an earlier, $2.2 billion contract for oil repairs and fuel imports that was granted secretly as the Iraq invasion began. KBR won the contract to work on northern oil fields.
The Embassy has reallocated an additional $832 million in planned spending away from huge projects managed by American companies toward smaller repairs using local businesses and the training of Iraqis to maintain power and water systems.
Halliburton has attributed its slow progress to attacks by insurgents, years of neglect and lack of investment in the country’s oil facilities, and delays in repairs. The State Department report says Iraq's oil output of 2.1 million barrels a day in February was lower than it was last fall.
Halliburton – of which Vice President Dick Cheney was formerly chief executive officer -- is the largest single contractor in Iraq. The Pentagon has already awarded the company contracts worth up to $18 billion for its work in Iraq. Many of them were no-bid contracts that drew widespread criticism on Capitol Hill and in the press.
The company says it performed well under difficult circumstances in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and that cost disputes "are part of the normal contracting process." But former Halliburton employees have alleged intentional and systemic waste.
Lower-than-expected oil exports are exacerbating the Iraqi government's budget deficit, which the report estimates could reach $5 billion this year. A quarterly update on Iraqi reconstruction that was delivered to Congress last week.
A former Halliburton employee, Marie deYoung, audited accounts for Halliburton subsidiary KBR. She claims there was no effort to hold down costs because all costs were passed on directly to taxpayers. She repeatedly complained to superiors of waste and fraud. The company's response, according to deYoung was: "We can be as dumb and stupid as we want in the first year of a war, nobody’s going to care."
The former Army chaplain produced documents detailing alleged waste even on routine services: $50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case; $1 million a month to clean clothes — or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry.
"That money could have been used to take care of soldiers," she said.
Another former employee, Mike West, says he was paid $82,000 a year to be a labor foreman in Iraq, but never had any laborers to supervise. "They said just log 12 hours a day and walk around and look busy," he said.
The Halliburton Corporation, already the Iraq war’s poster child for ‘waste, fraud and abuse’, got a double-whammy this week. A new report from the U.S. State Department accused the company of “poor performance” in its $1.2 billion contract to repair Iraq's vital southern oil fields. And a powerful California congressman charged that new Department of Defense audits showing additional over-charges totaling $212 million were concealed from United Nations monitors by the Bush Administration.
The new over-charges bring to $2 billion, or 42 per cent of the contract amounts, the total of questionable billings from Halliburton.
Rep. Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Government Reform, charged that “both the amount of Halliburton's overcharges and the extent of the information withheld from the auditors at the UN’s International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) were much greater than previously known.”
Waxman said the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which monitors all Defense Department contracts, had identified Halliburton overcharges and questionable costs of totaling $212.3 million -- double the total amount of known overcharges under Halliburton's Iraq oil contract. In one case, Waxman said, the overcharges exceeded 47% of the total value of the task order.
But DOD – at Halliburton’s request – withheld the new amount from the International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB), the U.N. audit oversight body for the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), Waxman charged.
In letters to government auditors, Halliburton subsidiary KBR explained that it redacted statements it considered proprietary or "factually inaccurate or misleading" and gave consent for the release of the audits to international auditors "in redacted form." The Administration then sent the heavily redacted report to the IAMB overseeing the DFI.
Rep. Waxman’s letter to Subcommittee Chairman Shays says, “The extensive redactions in the audit were apparently made at the specific request of Halliburton…the withholding of this information is highly unusual and raises serious issues. The evidence suggests that the U.S. used Iraqi oil proceeds to overpay Halliburton and then sought to hide the evidence of these overcharges from the international auditors.” Waxman also renewed his request that the Subcommittee hold hearings on the Administration's “mismanagement of the Development Fund for Iraq”.
Previously, Waxman disclosed that DOD auditors found $108 million in fuel-related overcharges by Halliburton for work in Iraq under one of several Halliburton task orders for the importation of fuel into Iraq. He also revealed that, although Halliburton was paid in significant part from Iraqi oil proceeds in the DFI, the Administration — acting at Halliburton’s request — concealed these overcharges from the international auditors charged by the United Nations with monitoring the expenditures from the DFI, Waxman alleges.
In these new audit reports, he says, “extensive additional information has been withheld by the Administration from the IAMB. A review of these audits shows that references to overcharges and other questioned costs were blacked out over 450 times in the versions of audits sent to the IAMB.”
Rick Blum of advocacy group ‘OpenTheGovernment.org’, said, “Once again, the secrecy system fails us. They wouldn't have done it if they thought anyone cared or would find out. If the public had known about this earlier, we could stop it, better protect our troops, and better use our taxpayer dollars to make our families safer. This should be a wake up call to ensure more openness to strengthen our national defense.”
And Scott H. Amey,General Counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, a non-partisan government watchdog, declared, “DCAA’s audit reports document a total of approximately $2 billion (approximately 37% of the total proposed value of the contracts) in questioned, unresolved, or unsupported costs. If a taxpayer was able to support only 63% of their tax-return, he or she would be brought to justice. In the case of Halliburton, however, the government continues to let it slide.”
The State Department’s report focused on Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR), the Halliburton subsidiary contracted to repair Iraq's southern oil fields.
The report does not provide detail about what it called “poor performance and excess spending”, but it says that the American Embassy had issued a "Cure Notice," a threat to terminate the contract unless Kellogg, Brown & Root replaced some senior managers. It says the government remains dissatisfied.
As a consequence, one of KBR’s competitors, Parsons Corporation, has been asked "to execute some of the remaining work" in the south, originally meant for KBR. KBR has previously been criticized for excess spending in its multibillion-dollar contract to provide logistical support for the military and in an earlier, $2.2 billion contract for oil repairs and fuel imports that was granted secretly as the Iraq invasion began. KBR won the contract to work on northern oil fields.
The Embassy has reallocated an additional $832 million in planned spending away from huge projects managed by American companies toward smaller repairs using local businesses and the training of Iraqis to maintain power and water systems.
Halliburton has attributed its slow progress to attacks by insurgents, years of neglect and lack of investment in the country’s oil facilities, and delays in repairs. The State Department report says Iraq's oil output of 2.1 million barrels a day in February was lower than it was last fall.
Halliburton – of which Vice President Dick Cheney was formerly chief executive officer -- is the largest single contractor in Iraq. The Pentagon has already awarded the company contracts worth up to $18 billion for its work in Iraq. Many of them were no-bid contracts that drew widespread criticism on Capitol Hill and in the press.
The company says it performed well under difficult circumstances in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and that cost disputes "are part of the normal contracting process." But former Halliburton employees have alleged intentional and systemic waste.
Lower-than-expected oil exports are exacerbating the Iraqi government's budget deficit, which the report estimates could reach $5 billion this year. A quarterly update on Iraqi reconstruction that was delivered to Congress last week.
A former Halliburton employee, Marie deYoung, audited accounts for Halliburton subsidiary KBR. She claims there was no effort to hold down costs because all costs were passed on directly to taxpayers. She repeatedly complained to superiors of waste and fraud. The company's response, according to deYoung was: "We can be as dumb and stupid as we want in the first year of a war, nobody’s going to care."
The former Army chaplain produced documents detailing alleged waste even on routine services: $50,000 a month for soda, at $45 a case; $1 million a month to clean clothes — or $100 for each 15-pound bag of laundry.
"That money could have been used to take care of soldiers," she said.
Another former employee, Mike West, says he was paid $82,000 a year to be a labor foreman in Iraq, but never had any laborers to supervise. "They said just log 12 hours a day and walk around and look busy," he said.
LISTEN TO THE VOTERS
William Fisher
Three quarters of American voters “support comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform proposal that combines toughness, fairness, a guest worker program, family reunification, and a path to legal residency for undocumented immigrants who are already here”, according to results of an opinion poll conducted by two leading immigration advocacy groups.
Sponsors of the survey, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the National Immigration Forum, said, “Americans understand that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. We cannot continue with the status quo.”
Judith Golub, Senior Director of Advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, declared, “We decided to see what the American people really thought about immigration given all the heat and noise portrayed in the media. The opinion research confirmed what we thought -- that American voters are ready for comprehensive immigration reform. We hope that the President and the Congress follow the American people's lead and put something concrete into action soon.”
AILA said in a statement, “The public supports the kind of reform promoted by President Bush and Congressional leaders, not the extreme proposals from the anti-immigrant lobby. Such reform will create a safe, orderly, and legal system – one that is characterized by just and reasonable rules, consistent with basic American values of fairness and equal treatment under the law. Our current system keeps families separated for long periods of time, makes it difficult for U.S. businesses to employ needed workers, and forces people to live underground, fearful that our government will separate them from their families and jobs. The current enforcement system fails to prevent illegal immigration and wastes precious resources that should be spent on enhancing our security on stopping hard-working people from filling our labor market needs.”
Among the survey’s key findings:
Support for (a Bush-style) proposal is solid across party, regional and demographic lines.
Voters support each component of the proposal as well as the overall package.
Support for the proposal holds firm after voters hear positive and negative messages.
Most voters do not base their support for political candidates on the immigration issue. However, even those that do are solidly in favor of this immigration reform proposal.
Over two thirds of all voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports this type of immigration proposal.
Voters overwhelmingly believe the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. They want a controlled system that would replace an illegal immigration flow with a legal immigration flow.
The vast majority of voters believe that deporting the 10 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States is unrealistic.
More than 8 in 10 believe that if an immigrant has been in this country working, paying taxes, and learning English, there should be a way for them to become a citizen.
These poll results, based on a telephone survey of 800 likely voters nationwide, appear to indicate that most American voters reject the piecemeal approach contained in the so-called REAL I.D. bill. That bill passed the House of Representatives and is now awaiting action by the Senate.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, wants his bill attached to a massive “must pass” spending measure now wending its way through the Senate. The bill would provide support for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and help for tsunami victims.
But Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist appears to be resisting this move, and President Bush is also saying he prefers a more comprehensive approach to the whole immigration issue.
The REAL I.D. Act would establish stronger security standards for the issuance of drivers’ licenses, including proof of lawful presence in the U.S. All states would be required to comply, to “eliminate weak links in domestic identity security.” It would also set up tough physical security requirements to reduce counterfeiting, have drivers’ licenses expire when an alien’s visa expires, and close the three-mile hole in the fortified U.S./Mexico border fence near San Diego, California.
The bill also contains asylum provisions that have drawn fire from human rights organizations. These would tighten the asylum system, which Rep. Sensenbrenner says have been “abused by terrorists”, allow immigration judges to determine witness credibility in asylum cases, and keep terrorists out of U.S. by making all terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility causes for deportation.
Mark Dow, author of "American Gulag: Inside U.S. Immigration Prisons", said, "Sensenbrenner continues the congressional tradition of targeting genuine asylum-seekers to score rhetorical points against terrorists. He is simply unconcerned with the damage that his political maneuvering may do to human beings and their families."
Tim Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), declared, “It is deeply unfortunate that Chairman Sensenbrenner has made his top priority an unwarranted attack on immigrants and would even consider attaching such divisive ‘poison pill’ provisions to critical ‘must-pass’ legislation such as the Tsunami relief bill or supplemental funding for the troops in Iraq.”
Most of the Sensenbrenner immigration provisions were included in the House version of the Intelligence Reorganization Act at the end of 2004, but were removed because of strong opposition from the Senate and the White House. The intelligence measure enacted into law many of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission.
Rep. Sensenbrenner rejects the idea of putting the President’s proposals and his own together. He believes Congress should act first to prevent illegal immigrants from getting driver's licenses and pass other immigration restrictions. "I think it's important to get this legislation enacted and we ought to divide the debate between security and immigration. If we mix the two, the word will get out that immigrants are a security threat," Sensenbrenner said.
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, said, “The federal government must prove it can protect the nation's borders before Congress can pass a guest-worker program. He vowed that the House will insist that the emergency war-spending bill contain the immigration security provisions that passed in the chamber.
Thus, House Republicans and some conservative Democrats appear to be on a collision course with much of the Senate as well as the White House.
.
Three quarters of American voters “support comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform proposal that combines toughness, fairness, a guest worker program, family reunification, and a path to legal residency for undocumented immigrants who are already here”, according to results of an opinion poll conducted by two leading immigration advocacy groups.
Sponsors of the survey, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the National Immigration Forum, said, “Americans understand that our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. We cannot continue with the status quo.”
Judith Golub, Senior Director of Advocacy at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, declared, “We decided to see what the American people really thought about immigration given all the heat and noise portrayed in the media. The opinion research confirmed what we thought -- that American voters are ready for comprehensive immigration reform. We hope that the President and the Congress follow the American people's lead and put something concrete into action soon.”
AILA said in a statement, “The public supports the kind of reform promoted by President Bush and Congressional leaders, not the extreme proposals from the anti-immigrant lobby. Such reform will create a safe, orderly, and legal system – one that is characterized by just and reasonable rules, consistent with basic American values of fairness and equal treatment under the law. Our current system keeps families separated for long periods of time, makes it difficult for U.S. businesses to employ needed workers, and forces people to live underground, fearful that our government will separate them from their families and jobs. The current enforcement system fails to prevent illegal immigration and wastes precious resources that should be spent on enhancing our security on stopping hard-working people from filling our labor market needs.”
Among the survey’s key findings:
Support for (a Bush-style) proposal is solid across party, regional and demographic lines.
Voters support each component of the proposal as well as the overall package.
Support for the proposal holds firm after voters hear positive and negative messages.
Most voters do not base their support for political candidates on the immigration issue. However, even those that do are solidly in favor of this immigration reform proposal.
Over two thirds of all voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports this type of immigration proposal.
Voters overwhelmingly believe the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. They want a controlled system that would replace an illegal immigration flow with a legal immigration flow.
The vast majority of voters believe that deporting the 10 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States is unrealistic.
More than 8 in 10 believe that if an immigrant has been in this country working, paying taxes, and learning English, there should be a way for them to become a citizen.
These poll results, based on a telephone survey of 800 likely voters nationwide, appear to indicate that most American voters reject the piecemeal approach contained in the so-called REAL I.D. bill. That bill passed the House of Representatives and is now awaiting action by the Senate.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, wants his bill attached to a massive “must pass” spending measure now wending its way through the Senate. The bill would provide support for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and help for tsunami victims.
But Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist appears to be resisting this move, and President Bush is also saying he prefers a more comprehensive approach to the whole immigration issue.
The REAL I.D. Act would establish stronger security standards for the issuance of drivers’ licenses, including proof of lawful presence in the U.S. All states would be required to comply, to “eliminate weak links in domestic identity security.” It would also set up tough physical security requirements to reduce counterfeiting, have drivers’ licenses expire when an alien’s visa expires, and close the three-mile hole in the fortified U.S./Mexico border fence near San Diego, California.
The bill also contains asylum provisions that have drawn fire from human rights organizations. These would tighten the asylum system, which Rep. Sensenbrenner says have been “abused by terrorists”, allow immigration judges to determine witness credibility in asylum cases, and keep terrorists out of U.S. by making all terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility causes for deportation.
Mark Dow, author of "American Gulag: Inside U.S. Immigration Prisons", said, "Sensenbrenner continues the congressional tradition of targeting genuine asylum-seekers to score rhetorical points against terrorists. He is simply unconcerned with the damage that his political maneuvering may do to human beings and their families."
Tim Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), declared, “It is deeply unfortunate that Chairman Sensenbrenner has made his top priority an unwarranted attack on immigrants and would even consider attaching such divisive ‘poison pill’ provisions to critical ‘must-pass’ legislation such as the Tsunami relief bill or supplemental funding for the troops in Iraq.”
Most of the Sensenbrenner immigration provisions were included in the House version of the Intelligence Reorganization Act at the end of 2004, but were removed because of strong opposition from the Senate and the White House. The intelligence measure enacted into law many of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission.
Rep. Sensenbrenner rejects the idea of putting the President’s proposals and his own together. He believes Congress should act first to prevent illegal immigrants from getting driver's licenses and pass other immigration restrictions. "I think it's important to get this legislation enacted and we ought to divide the debate between security and immigration. If we mix the two, the word will get out that immigrants are a security threat," Sensenbrenner said.
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, said, “The federal government must prove it can protect the nation's borders before Congress can pass a guest-worker program. He vowed that the House will insist that the emergency war-spending bill contain the immigration security provisions that passed in the chamber.
Thus, House Republicans and some conservative Democrats appear to be on a collision course with much of the Senate as well as the White House.
.
MORE ADVICE FOR KAREN HUGHES
By William Fisher
In March 2003, Dr. John Brown resigned from the U.S. State Department after 20 years as a senior Foreign Service officer, telling then Secretary of State Colin Powell he could not "in good conscience" support President George W. Bush's war plans against Iraq.
In his letter of resignation, Brown wrote: "The president has failed to explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time... (and) to take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration."
Recently, I conducted an email interview with Brown, now a research associate at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University in Washington. Here are excerpts.
Q: All the polling I’ve seen suggests that Arabs and other Muslims don't hate the United States -- they hate our policies. If that's true, can we ever conduct an effective public diplomacy program?
A: It's clear that Muslims and the Arab world admire many aspects of America, including its educational system and technological achievements. American popular culture also fascinates -- but at times repels -- them. As for US foreign policy, both its style and substance have angered the Middle East and elsewhere.
In formulating its confused and confusing policies, the Bush administration has failed to take foreign public opinion into serious consideration. Its current calls for democratizing Arab countries are viewed with suspicion in the region, given the way it imposed "democracy" in Iraq -- from the barrel of a gun. America the hypocrite -- that's how we're seen abroad.
As a practitioner of public diplomacy for many years, I'm aware that it's not the magic bullet that'll solve all our policy problems in the Middle East. What is terribly important, however, is that U.S. policymakers consider public diplomacy not after they've come to a decision, but in the process of reaching it. The old-fashioned mindset toward public diplomacy -- here's the policy, now sell it -- simply doesn't work anymore.
Q: Much of our public diplomacy energy goes into "overhead" communications, i.e. TV and radio, etc. versus "on the ground" communications at the embassy level. How important are these "on the ground" efforts?
A: Person-to-person contact continues to be the most important work of public diplomacy. For America to be understood abroad, it's essential that our diplomats come into close contact with the key players in the countries where they're posted. Really knowing "who's who" in a given society -- and knowing how to communicate with them -- is what defines success for a practitioner of public diplomacy.
This involvement in the local scene requires an in-depth knowledge of its culture and language. Unfortunately, the way the State Department is currently organized doesn't encourage Foreign Service officers (FSOs) to develop in-depth expertise about individual countries or regions. With some largely accidental exceptions, FSOs are moved from one post to another like pawns on a global chess board, and by the end of their career all too often have been just about everywhere and thus practically nowhere.
Q: Do you have views on the content of Al Hurra, Sawa, etc? They are widely seen as "propaganda". What should we be showing Arab and other Muslim audiences?
A: Some time ago I took my Georgetown undergraduate class on public diplomacy for a visit to Radio Sawa, where the Sawa reps played the music aired over the station -- a mixture of U.S. and Arabic pop music. It was interesting to see how the class came alive when listening to this sound, which was to them "goofy but kinda cool." I suppose many Arab youth react in much the same way.
But "pop-aganda" over a music station should be only an auxiliary means to "win hearts and minds" in the Middle East. Most important, to obtain meaningful public-diplomacy results in the region, are long-term educational exchanges, in-depth information programs, and serious (but not solemn) cultural presentations that make participants in such activities really discover the US rather than just "feel good" about it for a few moments.
I'm not a great fan of US Government television stations for overseas audiences, for the simple reason that our government, given the way it's funded and organized, can't produce quality, round-the-clock television.
So, if we're going to have special TV programs for the Arab world, I'd forget about winning the ratings race with Al-Jazeera and other local outlets. Instead of trying to overtake Arab "competitors," why not focus on C-Span-type programming that -- granted -- wouldn't automatically appeal to large audiences but could provide a unique window to the Arab chattering classes of admittedly "dull" American democracy in action.
More generally, the USG should approach the problem of media "market share" in the Middle East modestly. With so many media in the region, it's an illusion to think that USG broadcasts can play the role in the Arab world that Voice of America and Radio Free Europe played in the USSR and Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
Q: Some critics of our public diplomacy efforts have said we should be working with local media rather than creating media of our own. Given our shortage of Arabic speakers, is this feasible?
A: As a rule I believe that working with local media is far more effective than creating our own. My experience in cooperating with the opposition station B-92 when I was posted in Belgrade (1995-1998) convinced me of this. B-92 was effective because, while accepting US support (e.g., free equipment), its bright young staff was saying what it wanted to say -- and doing its own thing. Their programs were fresh, innovative, and informative in ways no government media, with its bureaucratic strictures, can ever be.
Q: Do you think non-governmental organizations (NGOs) could make more of a contribution to our public diplomacy?
A: NGOs can bring people together in ways no formal US government program can. At the same time, the USG "label" on public diplomacy should not be abandoned. It's been my experience in some countries that it certainly isn't against American interests to publicize programs -- a State Department-funded art exhibit, for example -- that were made possible by the United States government. Indeed, such open sponsorship is seen by local audiences as a sign of the interest that the American people, through their government, takes in them.
Q: If you were an advisor to Karen Hughes, what would you counsel her to do?
A: Get real! Face the fact that the Bush administration's foreign policy is leading to an anti-American century, unless strong corrective measures are taken.
Don't assume the world is like (or likes) America, and that what worked in getting George W. Bush elected will work in "selling" America's policies abroad. Don't treat foreigners as just potential Republicans. Listen to what they have to say about the U.S.
Q: Is there something about our PD efforts that really keeps you awake at night?
A: I do worry about the declining respect toward America throughout the world that, sooner than we think, will come to haunt us. The failure of American public diplomacy is part of a much greater problem: America's inability -- despite (because of?) its enormous power -- to admit that an outside world really exists, except as an enemy or overseas market.
We can't afford such an attitude in the 21st century, when the world is becoming smaller by the minute. We need a more human approach to our relations with the rest of mankind, on both a governmental and non-governmental level. That's where public diplomacy, at its best, can make a lasting contribution.
In March 2003, Dr. John Brown resigned from the U.S. State Department after 20 years as a senior Foreign Service officer, telling then Secretary of State Colin Powell he could not "in good conscience" support President George W. Bush's war plans against Iraq.
In his letter of resignation, Brown wrote: "The president has failed to explain clearly why our brave men and women in uniform should be ready to sacrifice their lives in a war on Iraq at this time... (and) to take international public opinion against the war into serious consideration."
Recently, I conducted an email interview with Brown, now a research associate at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University in Washington. Here are excerpts.
Q: All the polling I’ve seen suggests that Arabs and other Muslims don't hate the United States -- they hate our policies. If that's true, can we ever conduct an effective public diplomacy program?
A: It's clear that Muslims and the Arab world admire many aspects of America, including its educational system and technological achievements. American popular culture also fascinates -- but at times repels -- them. As for US foreign policy, both its style and substance have angered the Middle East and elsewhere.
In formulating its confused and confusing policies, the Bush administration has failed to take foreign public opinion into serious consideration. Its current calls for democratizing Arab countries are viewed with suspicion in the region, given the way it imposed "democracy" in Iraq -- from the barrel of a gun. America the hypocrite -- that's how we're seen abroad.
As a practitioner of public diplomacy for many years, I'm aware that it's not the magic bullet that'll solve all our policy problems in the Middle East. What is terribly important, however, is that U.S. policymakers consider public diplomacy not after they've come to a decision, but in the process of reaching it. The old-fashioned mindset toward public diplomacy -- here's the policy, now sell it -- simply doesn't work anymore.
Q: Much of our public diplomacy energy goes into "overhead" communications, i.e. TV and radio, etc. versus "on the ground" communications at the embassy level. How important are these "on the ground" efforts?
A: Person-to-person contact continues to be the most important work of public diplomacy. For America to be understood abroad, it's essential that our diplomats come into close contact with the key players in the countries where they're posted. Really knowing "who's who" in a given society -- and knowing how to communicate with them -- is what defines success for a practitioner of public diplomacy.
This involvement in the local scene requires an in-depth knowledge of its culture and language. Unfortunately, the way the State Department is currently organized doesn't encourage Foreign Service officers (FSOs) to develop in-depth expertise about individual countries or regions. With some largely accidental exceptions, FSOs are moved from one post to another like pawns on a global chess board, and by the end of their career all too often have been just about everywhere and thus practically nowhere.
Q: Do you have views on the content of Al Hurra, Sawa, etc? They are widely seen as "propaganda". What should we be showing Arab and other Muslim audiences?
A: Some time ago I took my Georgetown undergraduate class on public diplomacy for a visit to Radio Sawa, where the Sawa reps played the music aired over the station -- a mixture of U.S. and Arabic pop music. It was interesting to see how the class came alive when listening to this sound, which was to them "goofy but kinda cool." I suppose many Arab youth react in much the same way.
But "pop-aganda" over a music station should be only an auxiliary means to "win hearts and minds" in the Middle East. Most important, to obtain meaningful public-diplomacy results in the region, are long-term educational exchanges, in-depth information programs, and serious (but not solemn) cultural presentations that make participants in such activities really discover the US rather than just "feel good" about it for a few moments.
I'm not a great fan of US Government television stations for overseas audiences, for the simple reason that our government, given the way it's funded and organized, can't produce quality, round-the-clock television.
So, if we're going to have special TV programs for the Arab world, I'd forget about winning the ratings race with Al-Jazeera and other local outlets. Instead of trying to overtake Arab "competitors," why not focus on C-Span-type programming that -- granted -- wouldn't automatically appeal to large audiences but could provide a unique window to the Arab chattering classes of admittedly "dull" American democracy in action.
More generally, the USG should approach the problem of media "market share" in the Middle East modestly. With so many media in the region, it's an illusion to think that USG broadcasts can play the role in the Arab world that Voice of America and Radio Free Europe played in the USSR and Eastern Europe during the Cold War.
Q: Some critics of our public diplomacy efforts have said we should be working with local media rather than creating media of our own. Given our shortage of Arabic speakers, is this feasible?
A: As a rule I believe that working with local media is far more effective than creating our own. My experience in cooperating with the opposition station B-92 when I was posted in Belgrade (1995-1998) convinced me of this. B-92 was effective because, while accepting US support (e.g., free equipment), its bright young staff was saying what it wanted to say -- and doing its own thing. Their programs were fresh, innovative, and informative in ways no government media, with its bureaucratic strictures, can ever be.
Q: Do you think non-governmental organizations (NGOs) could make more of a contribution to our public diplomacy?
A: NGOs can bring people together in ways no formal US government program can. At the same time, the USG "label" on public diplomacy should not be abandoned. It's been my experience in some countries that it certainly isn't against American interests to publicize programs -- a State Department-funded art exhibit, for example -- that were made possible by the United States government. Indeed, such open sponsorship is seen by local audiences as a sign of the interest that the American people, through their government, takes in them.
Q: If you were an advisor to Karen Hughes, what would you counsel her to do?
A: Get real! Face the fact that the Bush administration's foreign policy is leading to an anti-American century, unless strong corrective measures are taken.
Don't assume the world is like (or likes) America, and that what worked in getting George W. Bush elected will work in "selling" America's policies abroad. Don't treat foreigners as just potential Republicans. Listen to what they have to say about the U.S.
Q: Is there something about our PD efforts that really keeps you awake at night?
A: I do worry about the declining respect toward America throughout the world that, sooner than we think, will come to haunt us. The failure of American public diplomacy is part of a much greater problem: America's inability -- despite (because of?) its enormous power -- to admit that an outside world really exists, except as an enemy or overseas market.
We can't afford such an attitude in the 21st century, when the world is becoming smaller by the minute. We need a more human approach to our relations with the rest of mankind, on both a governmental and non-governmental level. That's where public diplomacy, at its best, can make a lasting contribution.
Monday, April 11, 2005
GUANTANAMO AGAIN
William Fisher
The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military’s most senior leaders, are asking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to approve new guidelines that will formalize the Bush Administration’s policy of imprisoning ‘enemy combatants’ without the protections of the Geneva Conventions and enable the Pentagon to hold ‘ghost detainees’, a human rights group is charging.
In a letter to Rumsfeld, advocacy group Human Rights Watch (HRW) said, “Denying the protections of the Geneva Conventions to persons apprehended in the global war on terror is unsupported as a matter of law, represents a radical deviation from the standards that have traditionally guided U.S. military operations, and places U.S. service members and civilians detained by enemy forces at greater risk of mistreatment.”
The new memorandum, now in final draft, is known as the “Joint Doctrine for Detainee Operations: Joint Publication 3-63”, March 23, 2005.
The letter to Rumsfeld, signed by HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth, says if the Defense Department (DOD) acts on the new guidelines “U.S. military personnel may be committing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and placing themselves at risk of prosecution for war crimes.”
The organization is critical of the U.S. government’s “decision in January 2002 to disavow the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in the global war on terror and the effective creation of a ‘new category of detainee’ has been at the root of the widespread and serious mistreatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay.”
HRW says the new rules “will send a message to the world that the Geneva Conventions are not law, but mere policies that can be changed according to tastes of a particular government. Disregarding fundamental principles will in particular suggest that all provisions of the Conventions are subject to unilateral modification. Whether or not this would affect the behavior of terrorist organizations, it will have a profound impact on future armed conflicts between states and the soldiers and civilians affected by them, including Americans.”
The group urges that the draft to “be modified to conform in full to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions.” It says that “among the most troubling features” are provisions creating a category of detainee, “enemy combatant,” that is denied the protections of the Geneva Conventions; overly broad criteria for designating an ‘enemy combatant’ as anyone who appears on a government list that “contains generalized names and aliases (for instance, ‘Mohammad Zia’ and ‘Abdullah Ahmed) that are shared by tens of thousands of persons worldwide” and including “individuals that may not be affiliated with the listed organizations; the claim that enemy combatants “are still entitled to be treated humanely, subject to military necessity”, while the Geneva Conventions offer no exception for military necessity; and provides a basis for denying access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to all detainees in contravention of the Geneva Conventions. “
The new policies ”include a directive that would allow the military to hold enemy combatants as “ghost detainees,” by denying access to them by the International Committee of the Red Cross,” HRW says.
The letter to Rumsfeld charges that “instead of returning to the legal framework that would have ensured that detainees in U.S. custody would not have been abused, the Department of Defense (DOD) is simply changing the manuals.”
“The Pentagon document has not yet been publicly released, and is set to be submitted to Secretary Rumsfeld for approval on April 16,” HRW says.
On June 28, 2004, the US Supreme Court handed down two decisions related to the detention of 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the first one, 03-6696: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the US Supreme Court, held that "although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker."
In the second case, 03-334: Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court held, among other things, that "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay." The US Administration had, prior to the decision, held that, though Guantanamo Bay was leased, run, administered, and controlled by the United States, the land was still effectively Cuban, and that therefore U.S. courts should not have jurisdiction over that tract of Cuban territory.
The DOD then created ‘military tribunals’ to determine which Guantanamo prisoners posed threats to the U.S. These bodies were criticized for denying detainees the most basic due process, including attorney-client confidentiality.
Little information about those held at Guantánamo has been released through official government channels. But stories of 60 or more are spelled out in detail in thousands of pages of transcripts filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, where detainees have filed lawsuits challenging their detentions.
Court documents reviewed by The Associated Press last week are giving dozens of Guantánamo detainees what the Bush administration had sought to keep from public view: identities and voices. The government is holding about 550 terrorist suspects at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba. An additional 214 have been released since the facility opened in January 2002 - some into the custody of their home governments, others freed outright.
In the transcripts, the previously anonymous detainees provide accounts of their imprisonment and impressions of U.S. justice. Some express defiance, others stoic acceptance of their fate.
The detainees appeared last year before military tribunals that, after quick reviews, confirmed their status as "enemy combatants" who could be held indefinitely.
A federal has ruled that the Bush administration must allow prisoners at Guantanamo to contest their detention in U.S. courts, and that concluding that special military reviews established by the Pentagon as an alternative are illegal. She said the approximately 550 men held as "enemy combatants" are entitled to the advice of lawyers and to confront the evidence against them in those proceedings. She ruled that the DOD has largely denied them these "most basic fundamental rights" during the reviews conducted at Guantanamo.
Green's ruling directly conflicts with one issued by another federal court judge, who heard the case of a smaller group of detainees. He wrote that their bid for freedom is supported by "no viable legal theory." The conflict underscored the confusion about how to implement a Supreme Court ruling last summer that gave the detainees the right to contest U.S. accusations and challenge their indefinite detentions. The case will now be heard by higher courts.
The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military’s most senior leaders, are asking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to approve new guidelines that will formalize the Bush Administration’s policy of imprisoning ‘enemy combatants’ without the protections of the Geneva Conventions and enable the Pentagon to hold ‘ghost detainees’, a human rights group is charging.
In a letter to Rumsfeld, advocacy group Human Rights Watch (HRW) said, “Denying the protections of the Geneva Conventions to persons apprehended in the global war on terror is unsupported as a matter of law, represents a radical deviation from the standards that have traditionally guided U.S. military operations, and places U.S. service members and civilians detained by enemy forces at greater risk of mistreatment.”
The new memorandum, now in final draft, is known as the “Joint Doctrine for Detainee Operations: Joint Publication 3-63”, March 23, 2005.
The letter to Rumsfeld, signed by HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth, says if the Defense Department (DOD) acts on the new guidelines “U.S. military personnel may be committing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and placing themselves at risk of prosecution for war crimes.”
The organization is critical of the U.S. government’s “decision in January 2002 to disavow the applicability of the Geneva Conventions in the global war on terror and the effective creation of a ‘new category of detainee’ has been at the root of the widespread and serious mistreatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay.”
HRW says the new rules “will send a message to the world that the Geneva Conventions are not law, but mere policies that can be changed according to tastes of a particular government. Disregarding fundamental principles will in particular suggest that all provisions of the Conventions are subject to unilateral modification. Whether or not this would affect the behavior of terrorist organizations, it will have a profound impact on future armed conflicts between states and the soldiers and civilians affected by them, including Americans.”
The group urges that the draft to “be modified to conform in full to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions.” It says that “among the most troubling features” are provisions creating a category of detainee, “enemy combatant,” that is denied the protections of the Geneva Conventions; overly broad criteria for designating an ‘enemy combatant’ as anyone who appears on a government list that “contains generalized names and aliases (for instance, ‘Mohammad Zia’ and ‘Abdullah Ahmed) that are shared by tens of thousands of persons worldwide” and including “individuals that may not be affiliated with the listed organizations; the claim that enemy combatants “are still entitled to be treated humanely, subject to military necessity”, while the Geneva Conventions offer no exception for military necessity; and provides a basis for denying access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to all detainees in contravention of the Geneva Conventions. “
The new policies ”include a directive that would allow the military to hold enemy combatants as “ghost detainees,” by denying access to them by the International Committee of the Red Cross,” HRW says.
The letter to Rumsfeld charges that “instead of returning to the legal framework that would have ensured that detainees in U.S. custody would not have been abused, the Department of Defense (DOD) is simply changing the manuals.”
“The Pentagon document has not yet been publicly released, and is set to be submitted to Secretary Rumsfeld for approval on April 16,” HRW says.
On June 28, 2004, the US Supreme Court handed down two decisions related to the detention of 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the first one, 03-6696: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the US Supreme Court, held that "although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker."
In the second case, 03-334: Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court held, among other things, that "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay." The US Administration had, prior to the decision, held that, though Guantanamo Bay was leased, run, administered, and controlled by the United States, the land was still effectively Cuban, and that therefore U.S. courts should not have jurisdiction over that tract of Cuban territory.
The DOD then created ‘military tribunals’ to determine which Guantanamo prisoners posed threats to the U.S. These bodies were criticized for denying detainees the most basic due process, including attorney-client confidentiality.
Little information about those held at Guantánamo has been released through official government channels. But stories of 60 or more are spelled out in detail in thousands of pages of transcripts filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, where detainees have filed lawsuits challenging their detentions.
Court documents reviewed by The Associated Press last week are giving dozens of Guantánamo detainees what the Bush administration had sought to keep from public view: identities and voices. The government is holding about 550 terrorist suspects at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba. An additional 214 have been released since the facility opened in January 2002 - some into the custody of their home governments, others freed outright.
In the transcripts, the previously anonymous detainees provide accounts of their imprisonment and impressions of U.S. justice. Some express defiance, others stoic acceptance of their fate.
The detainees appeared last year before military tribunals that, after quick reviews, confirmed their status as "enemy combatants" who could be held indefinitely.
A federal has ruled that the Bush administration must allow prisoners at Guantanamo to contest their detention in U.S. courts, and that concluding that special military reviews established by the Pentagon as an alternative are illegal. She said the approximately 550 men held as "enemy combatants" are entitled to the advice of lawyers and to confront the evidence against them in those proceedings. She ruled that the DOD has largely denied them these "most basic fundamental rights" during the reviews conducted at Guantanamo.
Green's ruling directly conflicts with one issued by another federal court judge, who heard the case of a smaller group of detainees. He wrote that their bid for freedom is supported by "no viable legal theory." The conflict underscored the confusion about how to implement a Supreme Court ruling last summer that gave the detainees the right to contest U.S. accusations and challenge their indefinite detentions. The case will now be heard by higher courts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
