By William Fisher
On September 11, 2001, a New York City police helicopter hovered above the World Trade Center.
Two minutes earlier, the first of the twin towers had collapsed. It would be twenty-one minutes before the second tower was to collapse.
“About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it’s glowing red,” the pilot of one helicopter radioed. “It’s inevitable.”
Seconds later a second pilot radioed, “I don’t think (the second tower) has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building.”
New York City police received the call to evacuate the buildings. Fire and
rescue personnel did not because they operated on a different radio system. As a result, dozens of police officers and several hundred fire and rescue personnel perished in the collapse.
At the Pentagon, where emergency personnel from 50 different public safety agencies in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia responded, no communication was possible between fire companies of different jurisdictions, or to the Arlington County, Virginia, fire chief who had overall command at the scene.
These failures bubbled back into people’s consciousness again four years after that fateful day with the release of thousands of pages of oral histories recorded by survivors and victims. The gut-wrenching tapes were obtained from the New York City Fire Department after The New York Times sued the city under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), passed over forty years ago to give citizens greater access to government documents.
Why did communications systems fail so totally in a country renowned for its technological prowess?
Public safety agencies including first responders, such as firefighters, police officers, and ambulance services, are heavily dependent on wireless radios.
Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity, known as spectrum, in order to function, and existing wireless technology is designed to work within specified frequency ranges. On 9/11 there was no spectrum allocated to public safety – and there still isn’t.
Different operations, different applications, different rules and standards, and
different radio frequencies are among the problems first responders faced in trying to communicate with each other. Interoperability, also referred to as compatibility or connectivity, refers to the capability for these different systems to readily contact each other.
As a result, there was little communication between New York City Police Department and fire department commands even though an Office of Emergency Management (OEM) had been set up after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. The OEM's command center was located on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center, a building near the twin towers.
When police officials concluded the twin towers were in danger of collapsing and ordered police to leave the complex, fire officials were not notified.
Four years on, families of victims, policy makers, and ordinary citizens are asking: ”Could it happen again”?
And, according to virtually every expert, the answer is ‘yes’.
Though literally scores of legislative proposals have been introduced in Congress, funding for the first steps in design of a robust architecture for emergency communications and allocation of essential radio spectrum was not signed into law until 2003. And neither job is completed as yet.
In fiscal 2006, the DHS plans to spend $1.7 billion on state and local preparedness, but only $20 million for radio interoperability funding for police, fire and medical first responders.
DHS claims it is making progress in achieving interoperability of emergency systems nationwide but acknowledges it is dealing with a long-term problem.
But, in a new report, “America’s First Responders and the Federal Budget: A Study of Rhetoric Versus Reality,” the First Response Coalition (FRC),says “first responders will be underfunded by $100.2 billion by 2008”. FRC is an advocacy group of 40,000 police, fire fighters, emergency workers and private citizens.
Todd Main, director of FRC, says, “The overall lack of resources is creating new hardships for police, fire, and EMS departments. We need to make sure that the promised money is available at that basic communication needs get squared away immediately. It is simply wrong for policymakers to promise needed funds to first responders and then fail to deliver.”
The magnitude of the task facing the DHS was underlined by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. In a 2004 survey of 192 cities, it found that 60% of respondents indicated that city public safety departments did not have interoperability with the state emergency operations center and 88% did not have interoperability with the DHS.
There are over 2.5 million first responders in the United States, comprising 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies, 26,000 fire departments, and more than 6,000 rescue departments.
Availability of radio spectrum remains among outstanding problems. The designated channels are currently held by TV broadcasters and are to be cleared as part of the move from analog to digital television (DTV). But this probably will not happen until 2009.
Making matters worse are a slew of human factors. Experts identify as most serious the turf wars relating to control issues that are ongoing between first responders in the same cities – in New York City, police and firefighters are still bickering over who’s in charge of what – not to mention the turfing at the state-federal level and among federal agencies.
“The key problem here is, and continues to be, the inability of people to put aside egos and address this on a regional basis, not on a stovepipe basis,” said William Jenkins, Director of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the congressional watchdog agency that has done a number of studies of the 9/11 communications breakdown.
Experts cite reluctance by local governments and states to have Washington “mandate” a solution from the top, especially one that would require more local spending for updated equipment. Unfortunately, neighboring communities often started out with requirements for systems with vastly different capabilities with interoperability being low on the list.
“We don't have another 20 years,” says Congressman Bart Stupak,
co-chairman of the House of Representatives Law Enforcement Caucus and a 12-year police veteran from Michigan.
“There has been a serious lack of commitment from this administration and from Congress,” he says.
The 9-11 Commission Report said there is "strong evidence that compatible and adequate communications among public safety organizations at the local, state and federal levels remains an important problem...Federal funding of such (interagency communication) units should be given high priority..."
That some progress is now being made, albeit at a pace many consider glacial, may provide little comfort to 9/11 families.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Friday, August 26, 2005
A Sensible Path to Arab Modernity
By Rami G. Khouri
The writer is Editor-at-Large for The Daily Star, Beirut.
What's wrong with the Arabs? Why do so many Islamic societies spawn terrorists? Why are our societies so violent and unstable? What is needed to transform the societies of the Middle East, North Africa and west-central Asia into stable, prosperous countries?
These are the sorts of sweeping, big sticker questions that many people within the Middle East ask every day, looking simultaneously at internal factors as well as external causes of our many excesses. It was heartening and instructive for me earlier this week to have the privilege of sharing in a panel discussion with two of the clearest thinking, most articulate analysts in the Arab world — George Corm and Clovis Maksoud, both Lebanese — as we discussed the impact of the last three Arab Human Development Reports published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The issues they raised and the analytical suggestions they made deserve a wider hearing than the students and staff participating in a summer course on conflict-resolution organised in Lebanon by UNDP and Lebanese American University. I suspect their way of thinking correctly identifies the key challenges facing the Arab world, reflects the views of the vast majority of Arabs, and offers a practical, realistic route out of the Arab world's current dilemma of stagnation, frustration and confrontation.
Corm, a professor of economics at St Joseph University in Beirut and a former Lebanese Cabinet minister, makes the point that the Arab region undoubtedly needs real reform, but there is no consensus on the reasons for this. Is current and historical foreign interference the main problem, he asks? Domestic power distortions? Patriarchal social culture? Polarised societies fragmenting into smaller and smaller units based on ethnicity, religion and ideology? Hostility among Arab states and leaderships?
A combination of these and other reasons explains the burdensome, humiliating fact that the Arab region is the only part of the world where foreign armies today still regularly invade, occupy, and try to remake societies. More troubling is his observation that Arabs today face virtually the same challenge that confronted our societies around 150 years ago, in the late Ottoman period: Why are Arab societies underdeveloped, and dominated by foreign influences, interests and forces?
Among the answers to his questions, Corm mentions the devastating impact of the Arab rentier economies that are not productive or creative, but live off “rent” derived from foreign payments or protection, or from oil and gas production. Rent economies make it impossible to develop liberal, democratic regimes, he says, and so must be replaced with job-creating, productive economies.
Arab nationalists never sufficiently focused on the economic dimension of nationalism, independence and statehood, he says, and Arab intellectuals today spend too much time responding to Western accusations and focus too much on day-to-day politics. Instead, our intellectuals and activists should ignore Samuel Huntington, Bernard Lewis and others of their ilk, and spend more time building our culture and society. We should especially draw on the rich but neglected Arab tradition of thinkers who have sought in the past century to prod reform, modernity, prosperity and genuine national sovereignty anchored in dignity.
The Arab people need and deserve a “second Nahda of Arab freedoms”, he says, referring to the broad intellectual, cultural, political and religious movement in parts of the Arab world around 1880-1920 that has been called the Arab Awakening or Renaissance, Al Nahda in Arabic. Our own continuous quest for modernity and liberalism can be compatible with key religious and cultural values. He defined modernity as that which allows you to promote prosperity, compete globally, defend yourself militarily, and defend the overall integrity of your society from foreign domination.
Maksoud, university professor, columnist, former Arab League ambassador and current director of the Centre for the Study of the Global South at American University in Washington, DC, approaches the same challenge through the eyes of the team that wrote the Arab Human Development Reports, of which he is a member.
“The Arabs are a wealthy nation of poor people,” he notes, who recklessly engage in either confrontation with the West or submission to it, with both options leading to self-destruction. We need to find a way to reconcile the legality of the modern Arab state system with the legitimacy of the wider Arab national idea, he says. The Arab Human Development Report offers an action-oriented analysis that aims to spark a dialogue between the Arab citizen, civil society and the state authorities.
One of our common weaknesses — very evident in Lebanon, he says — is that the individual Arab citizen does not have a direct relationship with his or her state except through the intermediation of ethnic, religious or tribal groups. The narrow identities and interests of sovereign states have come to dominate the two other important dimensions of people's lives in the Arab region — their rights as citizens of a state, and their sense of belonging to a larger Arab national identity of some sort.
He says that “the weakness of patrimonial Arab consciousness has given way to the strength of legal state sovereignty.” Consequently, Arab countries wave their flags vigorously, advocating “Jordan first”, “Lebanon first”, “Syria first” and “Egypt first”; yet their citizens steadily become increasingly angry with life conditions at home and the international double standards they suffer from Israel and the West.
“Anger is an invitation to dialogue,” he suggests, and one of the aims of the Arab Human Development Reports is to spark dialogue that can also plant the seeds of an Arab Renaissance.
Corm brings the argument back to the historical legacy of an Arab region that wants to change, reform and modernise, but has always resisted doing so under foreign pressure or threat. Totally adopting or rejecting Western reform agendas is not useful, he says, and instead we need to spur a genuine Arab reform agenda for modernity and freedoms that primarily builds on our own values, analyses, and priority goals.
These are sensible and timely ideas, doubly significant because they are not unique or unusual; they reflect the richness of the debates that take place every day in homes, schools, coffee shops and offices throughout the Arab world. They also provide a powerful, appropriate antidote to the prevailing nonsense that we hear from quarters of the West, especially the United States, about clashes of civilisation, the need for Islamic reformation, hatred of the West, the madrasa problem, or the inherent violence of Arab and Islamic culture.
The matter is much simpler, and should not be muddled by tangential intellectual fantasies or the silliness of confused, angry small town politicians from abroad: In the past century or so, citizenship and statehood in the Arab world have become mutually dysfunctional enterprises, due to a combination of local and foreign factors that must be treated simultaneously.
The writer is Editor-at-Large for The Daily Star, Beirut.
What's wrong with the Arabs? Why do so many Islamic societies spawn terrorists? Why are our societies so violent and unstable? What is needed to transform the societies of the Middle East, North Africa and west-central Asia into stable, prosperous countries?
These are the sorts of sweeping, big sticker questions that many people within the Middle East ask every day, looking simultaneously at internal factors as well as external causes of our many excesses. It was heartening and instructive for me earlier this week to have the privilege of sharing in a panel discussion with two of the clearest thinking, most articulate analysts in the Arab world — George Corm and Clovis Maksoud, both Lebanese — as we discussed the impact of the last three Arab Human Development Reports published by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The issues they raised and the analytical suggestions they made deserve a wider hearing than the students and staff participating in a summer course on conflict-resolution organised in Lebanon by UNDP and Lebanese American University. I suspect their way of thinking correctly identifies the key challenges facing the Arab world, reflects the views of the vast majority of Arabs, and offers a practical, realistic route out of the Arab world's current dilemma of stagnation, frustration and confrontation.
Corm, a professor of economics at St Joseph University in Beirut and a former Lebanese Cabinet minister, makes the point that the Arab region undoubtedly needs real reform, but there is no consensus on the reasons for this. Is current and historical foreign interference the main problem, he asks? Domestic power distortions? Patriarchal social culture? Polarised societies fragmenting into smaller and smaller units based on ethnicity, religion and ideology? Hostility among Arab states and leaderships?
A combination of these and other reasons explains the burdensome, humiliating fact that the Arab region is the only part of the world where foreign armies today still regularly invade, occupy, and try to remake societies. More troubling is his observation that Arabs today face virtually the same challenge that confronted our societies around 150 years ago, in the late Ottoman period: Why are Arab societies underdeveloped, and dominated by foreign influences, interests and forces?
Among the answers to his questions, Corm mentions the devastating impact of the Arab rentier economies that are not productive or creative, but live off “rent” derived from foreign payments or protection, or from oil and gas production. Rent economies make it impossible to develop liberal, democratic regimes, he says, and so must be replaced with job-creating, productive economies.
Arab nationalists never sufficiently focused on the economic dimension of nationalism, independence and statehood, he says, and Arab intellectuals today spend too much time responding to Western accusations and focus too much on day-to-day politics. Instead, our intellectuals and activists should ignore Samuel Huntington, Bernard Lewis and others of their ilk, and spend more time building our culture and society. We should especially draw on the rich but neglected Arab tradition of thinkers who have sought in the past century to prod reform, modernity, prosperity and genuine national sovereignty anchored in dignity.
The Arab people need and deserve a “second Nahda of Arab freedoms”, he says, referring to the broad intellectual, cultural, political and religious movement in parts of the Arab world around 1880-1920 that has been called the Arab Awakening or Renaissance, Al Nahda in Arabic. Our own continuous quest for modernity and liberalism can be compatible with key religious and cultural values. He defined modernity as that which allows you to promote prosperity, compete globally, defend yourself militarily, and defend the overall integrity of your society from foreign domination.
Maksoud, university professor, columnist, former Arab League ambassador and current director of the Centre for the Study of the Global South at American University in Washington, DC, approaches the same challenge through the eyes of the team that wrote the Arab Human Development Reports, of which he is a member.
“The Arabs are a wealthy nation of poor people,” he notes, who recklessly engage in either confrontation with the West or submission to it, with both options leading to self-destruction. We need to find a way to reconcile the legality of the modern Arab state system with the legitimacy of the wider Arab national idea, he says. The Arab Human Development Report offers an action-oriented analysis that aims to spark a dialogue between the Arab citizen, civil society and the state authorities.
One of our common weaknesses — very evident in Lebanon, he says — is that the individual Arab citizen does not have a direct relationship with his or her state except through the intermediation of ethnic, religious or tribal groups. The narrow identities and interests of sovereign states have come to dominate the two other important dimensions of people's lives in the Arab region — their rights as citizens of a state, and their sense of belonging to a larger Arab national identity of some sort.
He says that “the weakness of patrimonial Arab consciousness has given way to the strength of legal state sovereignty.” Consequently, Arab countries wave their flags vigorously, advocating “Jordan first”, “Lebanon first”, “Syria first” and “Egypt first”; yet their citizens steadily become increasingly angry with life conditions at home and the international double standards they suffer from Israel and the West.
“Anger is an invitation to dialogue,” he suggests, and one of the aims of the Arab Human Development Reports is to spark dialogue that can also plant the seeds of an Arab Renaissance.
Corm brings the argument back to the historical legacy of an Arab region that wants to change, reform and modernise, but has always resisted doing so under foreign pressure or threat. Totally adopting or rejecting Western reform agendas is not useful, he says, and instead we need to spur a genuine Arab reform agenda for modernity and freedoms that primarily builds on our own values, analyses, and priority goals.
These are sensible and timely ideas, doubly significant because they are not unique or unusual; they reflect the richness of the debates that take place every day in homes, schools, coffee shops and offices throughout the Arab world. They also provide a powerful, appropriate antidote to the prevailing nonsense that we hear from quarters of the West, especially the United States, about clashes of civilisation, the need for Islamic reformation, hatred of the West, the madrasa problem, or the inherent violence of Arab and Islamic culture.
The matter is much simpler, and should not be muddled by tangential intellectual fantasies or the silliness of confused, angry small town politicians from abroad: In the past century or so, citizenship and statehood in the Arab world have become mutually dysfunctional enterprises, due to a combination of local and foreign factors that must be treated simultaneously.
Monday, August 22, 2005
NGO SUES OVER PROSTITUTION POLICY
By William Fisher
A non-governmental organization is suing the U.S. Government’s “anti-prostitution” policy, charging that it is an ”unconstitutional infringement of speech” that is undermining international efforts to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The NGO, DKT International, filed the suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and its administrator, challenging the requirement that U.S. and foreign NGOs receiving USAID funding from adopt a policy “explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”
USAID adopted the rule requirement in June, as one of a number of policies advocated by the ‘pro-life’ religious right. Other Bush Administration initiatives include endorsement of the so-called Mexico Protocol, which forbids abortion counseling in family planning programs overseas.
U.S. observance of the protocol -- termed “the global gag rule” by family planning professionals -- was rescinded during the Clinton Administration but
re-authorized under President George W. Bush on his first day in office in January 2001.
Under the rule, foreign family planning agencies may not receive U.S. funds if, with their own funds, they counsel on or refer for abortion, advocate for more lenient abortion laws in their own country, or provide abortion services.
DKT’s president, Philip D. Harvey, said the anti-prostitution and sex trafficking policy “does a grave disservice to international AIDs-prevention programs and to those who carry them out. The policy does no good, and is clearly doing considerable harm.”
He added,” I have found that non-governmental organizations around the world really despise this anti-prostitution pledge. In addition to making their work harder, it undermines their integrity, insults them really.”
DKT International is a non-profit organization based in Washington DC. It manages contraceptive social marketing programs for family planning and AIDS prevention in eleven countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. DKT’s programs currently serve just under 10 million couples, with an operating budget of $50 million.
Harvey said ameliorating the impact of HIV/AIDS requires “work with persons at highest risk of infection, including those in the sex trades. We deal with sex workers as equals. We accept what they do as part of the reality of today’s world, and we do our best to empower them so they can adopt practices that will minimize the risk of HIV transmission for themselves and their partners and improve their chances of getting access to life-saving health services. To do this work under an ‘anti-prostitution’ policy would be dysfunctional.”
He added, “Such a policy further stigmatizes the very people we are trying to help. It requires us to condemn what sex workers do for a living, thus undermining the relationship of trust and mutual respect required to effectively conduct AIDS-prevention work. DKT will not allow its field workers to be put in that position.”
The U.S. policy, he declared, “harms America’s image and America’s interests abroad. No one pretends that such a policy will contain or ameliorate the darker aspects of the world’s oldest profession. It represents posturing by American politicians who are increasingly seen around the world as patronizing, bullying, and obsessed with sex.”
“By coercing the speech of private parties”, he added, “the policy violates the First Amendment rights -- and the integrity -- of the organizations that are forced into compliance.”
DKT’s programs are supported by the Packard, Hewlett, and Gates foundations, and by the German KfW, the British DFID, and the Dutch, Irish, and Indian Governments.
As a result of refusing to adopt (and certify) USAID’s policy on prostitution, DKT has lost USAID support for its AIDS-prevention work in Vietnam. Its lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to permit it to resume this work.
Meanwhile, in Kabul, Afghanistan, seven reproductive health care centers, formerly supported by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), were reopened this month with help from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
Run by a local NGO, the Afghan Family Guidance Association (AFGA), the clinics were forced to close in June due to IPPF “funding problems”. IPPF’s U.S. affiliate, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, did not respond to telephone calls or emails regarding the nature of its funding problems.
"The UNFPA funding, US $50,000 for the next six months, is a vital bridging assistance this year until we are fully registered with IPPF in 2006 and get our budget from its core fund," said Ahmad Zeya Yousufzai, AFGA’s executive director.
But according to AFGA, very little is happening on the issue of reproductive health care outside the capital, making the challenge and need for further funding even greater.
Afghanistan has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world and according to a recent Afghanistan national human development report, one woman dies in the country every 20 minutes.
According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), child mortality was very high in the war-ravaged country. Afghanistan’s first national human development report, released in early March, indicated that 20 percent of children died before the age of five.
Yousufzai believes one of the reasons behind maternal and child mortality, as well as morbidity, is a lack of family planning and giving birth to too many children without a gap of two to three years between each live birth.
AFGA centers receive more than 700 women visitors each day. The centers offer guidance and services on family planning, HIV/AIDS awareness, youth and adolescence, reproductive and sexual health and gender-based violence advocacy.
Meanwhile, the anti-abortion Population Research Institute (PRI) is making plans to establish a pro-life office in Afghanistan “to assist Afghan women and families in their fight against the anti-natal agenda of UN agencies and anti-child NGOs.”
PRI said, “The recent legalization of abortion by Kabul's interim government was the catalyst…Abortion in Afghanistan is now legal up to the third month of pregnancy. Although, according to reports, three doctors must certify that the abortion is a medical necessity, such regulations have quickly degenerated in other countries to abortion on demand.”
The Bush Administration has withheld, for the third consecutive year, funds earmarked for UNFPA. It said the $34 million would be used for other purposes.
The decision was not unexpected, given the administration's efforts to fire up its Christian-right-wing base in advance of last November's presidential election.
UNFPA says it does not support abortion. It believes that abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning. UNFPA promotes improved access to voluntary family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies and eliminate the need for abortion.
A non-governmental organization is suing the U.S. Government’s “anti-prostitution” policy, charging that it is an ”unconstitutional infringement of speech” that is undermining international efforts to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The NGO, DKT International, filed the suit in the District Court of the District of Columbia against the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and its administrator, challenging the requirement that U.S. and foreign NGOs receiving USAID funding from adopt a policy “explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.”
USAID adopted the rule requirement in June, as one of a number of policies advocated by the ‘pro-life’ religious right. Other Bush Administration initiatives include endorsement of the so-called Mexico Protocol, which forbids abortion counseling in family planning programs overseas.
U.S. observance of the protocol -- termed “the global gag rule” by family planning professionals -- was rescinded during the Clinton Administration but
re-authorized under President George W. Bush on his first day in office in January 2001.
Under the rule, foreign family planning agencies may not receive U.S. funds if, with their own funds, they counsel on or refer for abortion, advocate for more lenient abortion laws in their own country, or provide abortion services.
DKT’s president, Philip D. Harvey, said the anti-prostitution and sex trafficking policy “does a grave disservice to international AIDs-prevention programs and to those who carry them out. The policy does no good, and is clearly doing considerable harm.”
He added,” I have found that non-governmental organizations around the world really despise this anti-prostitution pledge. In addition to making their work harder, it undermines their integrity, insults them really.”
DKT International is a non-profit organization based in Washington DC. It manages contraceptive social marketing programs for family planning and AIDS prevention in eleven countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. DKT’s programs currently serve just under 10 million couples, with an operating budget of $50 million.
Harvey said ameliorating the impact of HIV/AIDS requires “work with persons at highest risk of infection, including those in the sex trades. We deal with sex workers as equals. We accept what they do as part of the reality of today’s world, and we do our best to empower them so they can adopt practices that will minimize the risk of HIV transmission for themselves and their partners and improve their chances of getting access to life-saving health services. To do this work under an ‘anti-prostitution’ policy would be dysfunctional.”
He added, “Such a policy further stigmatizes the very people we are trying to help. It requires us to condemn what sex workers do for a living, thus undermining the relationship of trust and mutual respect required to effectively conduct AIDS-prevention work. DKT will not allow its field workers to be put in that position.”
The U.S. policy, he declared, “harms America’s image and America’s interests abroad. No one pretends that such a policy will contain or ameliorate the darker aspects of the world’s oldest profession. It represents posturing by American politicians who are increasingly seen around the world as patronizing, bullying, and obsessed with sex.”
“By coercing the speech of private parties”, he added, “the policy violates the First Amendment rights -- and the integrity -- of the organizations that are forced into compliance.”
DKT’s programs are supported by the Packard, Hewlett, and Gates foundations, and by the German KfW, the British DFID, and the Dutch, Irish, and Indian Governments.
As a result of refusing to adopt (and certify) USAID’s policy on prostitution, DKT has lost USAID support for its AIDS-prevention work in Vietnam. Its lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to permit it to resume this work.
Meanwhile, in Kabul, Afghanistan, seven reproductive health care centers, formerly supported by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), were reopened this month with help from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
Run by a local NGO, the Afghan Family Guidance Association (AFGA), the clinics were forced to close in June due to IPPF “funding problems”. IPPF’s U.S. affiliate, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, did not respond to telephone calls or emails regarding the nature of its funding problems.
"The UNFPA funding, US $50,000 for the next six months, is a vital bridging assistance this year until we are fully registered with IPPF in 2006 and get our budget from its core fund," said Ahmad Zeya Yousufzai, AFGA’s executive director.
But according to AFGA, very little is happening on the issue of reproductive health care outside the capital, making the challenge and need for further funding even greater.
Afghanistan has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world and according to a recent Afghanistan national human development report, one woman dies in the country every 20 minutes.
According to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), child mortality was very high in the war-ravaged country. Afghanistan’s first national human development report, released in early March, indicated that 20 percent of children died before the age of five.
Yousufzai believes one of the reasons behind maternal and child mortality, as well as morbidity, is a lack of family planning and giving birth to too many children without a gap of two to three years between each live birth.
AFGA centers receive more than 700 women visitors each day. The centers offer guidance and services on family planning, HIV/AIDS awareness, youth and adolescence, reproductive and sexual health and gender-based violence advocacy.
Meanwhile, the anti-abortion Population Research Institute (PRI) is making plans to establish a pro-life office in Afghanistan “to assist Afghan women and families in their fight against the anti-natal agenda of UN agencies and anti-child NGOs.”
PRI said, “The recent legalization of abortion by Kabul's interim government was the catalyst…Abortion in Afghanistan is now legal up to the third month of pregnancy. Although, according to reports, three doctors must certify that the abortion is a medical necessity, such regulations have quickly degenerated in other countries to abortion on demand.”
The Bush Administration has withheld, for the third consecutive year, funds earmarked for UNFPA. It said the $34 million would be used for other purposes.
The decision was not unexpected, given the administration's efforts to fire up its Christian-right-wing base in advance of last November's presidential election.
UNFPA says it does not support abortion. It believes that abortion should not be promoted as a method of family planning. UNFPA promotes improved access to voluntary family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies and eliminate the need for abortion.
HOT BUTTON CONGRESS
By William Fisher
When Congress returns to work in early September, it will face debate on a number of hot-button issues likely to inflame passions on the political left and right and deepen the country’s ideological divide.
The probable agenda includes reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, immigration and border control, embryonic stem cell research, a number of critical legal reforms, consideration of a new report from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) detailing its handling of pre-9/11 intelligence – and, of course, the confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Groups on the political right and left have been busy loading their heavy artillery for the Roberts hearings. During August, they have been poring over some 60,000 pages of documents provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the government and the Reagan Library, looking for clues to Roberts’s judicial, social, and political views. Key areas of concern include civil rights, affirmative action, privacy, separation of church and state, a woman’s right to choose abortion, federal versus states’ rights, the authority of the judiciary branch of government, and the powers of the president and the executive branch versus those of congress.
Roberts was nominated by President George W. Bush in July. Confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee are scheduled to begin September 6. Roberts would be replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, who announced she would retire when her replacement was confirmed.
Advocacy groups on the left and right have raised tens of millions of dollars to make their views known to the senate and the people. One of them, the pro-choice NARAL, stumbled early in the process by launching – and then withdrawing -- a series of television ads implying that Roberts sided with violent extremists and a convicted abortion clinic bomber while serving in the Solicitor General's office, an accusation that Roberts's supporters immediately condemned as a flagrant distortion. The group fears that Roberts would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.
A second major controversy will surround the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. Hurriedly passed with little debate five weeks after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the measure gave law enforcement sweeping new powers to investigate and prosecute suspected terrorists and those who support them. A number of its provisions are due to expire at the end of this year.
Both houses of Congress have passed bills to renew the expiring parts of the Patriot Act. House and Senate leaders will meet to reconcile the considerable differences between the two bills.
In general, the House version would not only renew the expiring provisions, but would give law enforcement expanded new authorities. The Senate version is titled more toward reform of provisions that civil libertarians find troubling.
For example, it would require statements of fact on the relevancy of personal records in foreign intelligence investigations, offer suspects a right to challenge orders for personal records, provide more judicial oversight and checks on abuse in personal record searches, and mandate shorter delays for notification of secret "sneak and peek" searches.
Immigration will be another major issue facing Congress. The Judiciary Committee will be grappling with two conflicting approaches. One, introduced by two border-state Republicans, Sens. John Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, would require workers in the U.S. illegally to return home before being permitted to participate in a new guest worker program. It would also allocate substantial new money for border control, interior and workplace enforcement, emphasizing "mandatory return" of an estimated 10 million illegal workers, and the other a authorizing a ‘guest worker’ program to provide undocumented immigrants a way to gain legal status. The other, introduced by Sens. Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, proposes a guest worker program while beefing up enforcement.
President Bush proposed a guest worker program over a year and a half ago, but ran into stiff opposition from House Republicans, who attacked it as an "amnesty" and demanded an enforcement crackdown.
Both sides acknowledge that the current system is dysfunctional. The wide availability of jobs in the United States, and the large pool of willing workers from Latin America and elsewhere, has swamped the availability of legal slots, leading to rampant violation of immigration laws and overwhelming the government's ability to enforce them.
There are some 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the U.S. and the number is believed to be growing rapidly.
Congress will also be focusing on the CIA’s pre-9/11 failures, with delivery of the long-overdue inspector general's report, now been completed nearly two years after the deadline set by congress.
The report has yet to be sent to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees because CIA Director Porter J. Goss is still deciding how to respond to its findings, according to administration and congressional sources. It is expected to
go to Congress shortly.
The CIA director was mandated to report to Congress on steps taken to assign
responsibility for poor performance and to reward excellence.
Appropriating federal funds for embryonic stem cell research is also likely to raise the congressional temperature and mobilizing advocacy groups on the right and the left. Senate Major Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and cardiac surgeon, announced just before recess that he would break with President Bush and authorize the use of federal money to fund research on embryos due to be discarded by fertility clinics and hospitals.
This initiative is fiercely opposed by groups on the religious right and endorsed by most physicians and scientists. President Bush has said he would veto such a measure because he believes it would “destroy life to create life”.
Another civil liberties-related bill, the so-called Streamlined Procedures Act, is also likely to provoke controversy and attract media attention because it would limit the centuries-old right to habeas corpus by barring federal courts from reviewing most capital sentencing, creating shorter timetables for appeals, or imposing onerous procedural roadblocks to prevent federal courts from considering key issues.
Habeas corpus, through which inmates challenge the legality of their detentions, has become the essential vehicle by which convicts on death row or serving lengthy prison terms attack their state-court convictions. Many innocent people owe their freedom to their ability to file habeas petitions.
When Congress returns to work in early September, it will face debate on a number of hot-button issues likely to inflame passions on the political left and right and deepen the country’s ideological divide.
The probable agenda includes reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, immigration and border control, embryonic stem cell research, a number of critical legal reforms, consideration of a new report from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) detailing its handling of pre-9/11 intelligence – and, of course, the confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Groups on the political right and left have been busy loading their heavy artillery for the Roberts hearings. During August, they have been poring over some 60,000 pages of documents provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the government and the Reagan Library, looking for clues to Roberts’s judicial, social, and political views. Key areas of concern include civil rights, affirmative action, privacy, separation of church and state, a woman’s right to choose abortion, federal versus states’ rights, the authority of the judiciary branch of government, and the powers of the president and the executive branch versus those of congress.
Roberts was nominated by President George W. Bush in July. Confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee are scheduled to begin September 6. Roberts would be replacing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, who announced she would retire when her replacement was confirmed.
Advocacy groups on the left and right have raised tens of millions of dollars to make their views known to the senate and the people. One of them, the pro-choice NARAL, stumbled early in the process by launching – and then withdrawing -- a series of television ads implying that Roberts sided with violent extremists and a convicted abortion clinic bomber while serving in the Solicitor General's office, an accusation that Roberts's supporters immediately condemned as a flagrant distortion. The group fears that Roberts would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.
A second major controversy will surround the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. Hurriedly passed with little debate five weeks after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the measure gave law enforcement sweeping new powers to investigate and prosecute suspected terrorists and those who support them. A number of its provisions are due to expire at the end of this year.
Both houses of Congress have passed bills to renew the expiring parts of the Patriot Act. House and Senate leaders will meet to reconcile the considerable differences between the two bills.
In general, the House version would not only renew the expiring provisions, but would give law enforcement expanded new authorities. The Senate version is titled more toward reform of provisions that civil libertarians find troubling.
For example, it would require statements of fact on the relevancy of personal records in foreign intelligence investigations, offer suspects a right to challenge orders for personal records, provide more judicial oversight and checks on abuse in personal record searches, and mandate shorter delays for notification of secret "sneak and peek" searches.
Immigration will be another major issue facing Congress. The Judiciary Committee will be grappling with two conflicting approaches. One, introduced by two border-state Republicans, Sens. John Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, would require workers in the U.S. illegally to return home before being permitted to participate in a new guest worker program. It would also allocate substantial new money for border control, interior and workplace enforcement, emphasizing "mandatory return" of an estimated 10 million illegal workers, and the other a authorizing a ‘guest worker’ program to provide undocumented immigrants a way to gain legal status. The other, introduced by Sens. Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, proposes a guest worker program while beefing up enforcement.
President Bush proposed a guest worker program over a year and a half ago, but ran into stiff opposition from House Republicans, who attacked it as an "amnesty" and demanded an enforcement crackdown.
Both sides acknowledge that the current system is dysfunctional. The wide availability of jobs in the United States, and the large pool of willing workers from Latin America and elsewhere, has swamped the availability of legal slots, leading to rampant violation of immigration laws and overwhelming the government's ability to enforce them.
There are some 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the U.S. and the number is believed to be growing rapidly.
Congress will also be focusing on the CIA’s pre-9/11 failures, with delivery of the long-overdue inspector general's report, now been completed nearly two years after the deadline set by congress.
The report has yet to be sent to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees because CIA Director Porter J. Goss is still deciding how to respond to its findings, according to administration and congressional sources. It is expected to
go to Congress shortly.
The CIA director was mandated to report to Congress on steps taken to assign
responsibility for poor performance and to reward excellence.
Appropriating federal funds for embryonic stem cell research is also likely to raise the congressional temperature and mobilizing advocacy groups on the right and the left. Senate Major Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and cardiac surgeon, announced just before recess that he would break with President Bush and authorize the use of federal money to fund research on embryos due to be discarded by fertility clinics and hospitals.
This initiative is fiercely opposed by groups on the religious right and endorsed by most physicians and scientists. President Bush has said he would veto such a measure because he believes it would “destroy life to create life”.
Another civil liberties-related bill, the so-called Streamlined Procedures Act, is also likely to provoke controversy and attract media attention because it would limit the centuries-old right to habeas corpus by barring federal courts from reviewing most capital sentencing, creating shorter timetables for appeals, or imposing onerous procedural roadblocks to prevent federal courts from considering key issues.
Habeas corpus, through which inmates challenge the legality of their detentions, has become the essential vehicle by which convicts on death row or serving lengthy prison terms attack their state-court convictions. Many innocent people owe their freedom to their ability to file habeas petitions.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
DIPLOMATIC ASSURANCES: WORTHLESS
By William Fisher
Countries that rely on ‘diplomatic assurances’ that other countries won’t torture transferred prisoners “are either engaging in wishful thinking or using the assurances as a figleaf to cover their complicity,” a new report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) charges.
HRW said, “There is substantial evidence that in the course of the global “war on terrorism,” an increasing number of governments have transferred, or proposed sending, alleged terrorist suspects to countries where they know the suspects will be at risk of torture or ill-treatment.”
In countries with “a serious and persistent” history of prisoner abuse, “diplomatic assurances do not and cannot prevent torture. The practice should stop,” the report said.
Recipient countries have included Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Yemen, where torture is a systemic human rights problem. Transfers have also been carried out or proposed to Algeria, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia, and Turkey, “where members of particular groups — Islamists, Chechens, Kurds — are routinely singled out for the worst forms of abuse”.
The HRW report comes on the heels of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s proposal, following the London underground bombings, to deport people who advocate violence.
HRW said “the use of diplomatic assurances against torture is a global phenomenon, with sending countries in North America and Europe leading the charge”.
It added, “The issue of diplomatic assurances against torture gained notoriety recently when U.S. officials acknowledged a large number of transfers of suspects to countries where torture is a serious human rights problem, claiming that U.S. authorities regularly sought and received diplomatic assurances of humane treatment from receiving governments prior to the transfers. In an increasing number of those cases, the suspects have credibly alleged that they were tortured.”
In a separate statement, HRW criticized the August 10th ‘memorandum of understanding’ reached between the United Kingdom and Jordan.
It said the U.K. “cannot deport security suspects to Jordan without violating the international prohibition against sending persons to countries where they face a serious risk of torture.”
.
The agreement, HRW said, “does nothing to reduce that risk or to change the obligation not to expose people to torture”.
“There is still torture in Jordan, especially with regard to security suspects,”
said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division.
“All the good reasons that prevented the U.K. from deporting people to Jordan
before August 10 remain unchanged by this agreement.”
The U.K. and Jordan are both parties to the Convention against Torture and
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. “Under international law, the prohibition against torture is absolute and cannot be waived under any circumstances”, HRW said.
Britain recently detained several foreign residents who may now face deportation. Jordan’s State Security Court, composed of two military and one civilian judge, had sentenced two of the men in absentia to 15-year and life sentences respectively for involvement in terrorist activities in 2000 and 2001.
HRW pointed out that “criminals convicted in absentia have the right to a full retrial once they come into Jordanian custody.”
HRW said that the U.K.-Jordan agreement “represents an effort to get around the Convention against Torture’s strict non-refoulement obligation and
has no mechanism for accountability”.
“Jordan stands to gain custody of criminal suspects while Britain rids itself of unwelcome persons, and neither country has any incentive to monitor treatment or investigate allegations of abuse.”
HRW’s Stork said, “Jordan’s General Intelligence Department, prisons and ordinary police stations all have known records of abuse. By seeking Jordanian promises to treat these returned persons differently, the U.K. is confirming that the risk of torture continues.”
In September 2004, the National Human Rights Center, an official body, announced that Abdullah al-Mushaqaba had died in Juwaida Prison as a result of torture. Detainees of that same prison told the Arab Organization for Human Rights in Jordan, a local non-governmental organization, in August 2005 that that they were severely beaten.
Last year, the Center received 250 allegations of torture or ill-treatment in Jordanian detentions. These numbers do not include the General Intelligence Directorate, which did not allow any visits by non-governmental human rights monitors. The Intelligence Directorate is often the first place of detention for security detainees.
Human Rights Watch said that the U.K. plans to conclude similar agreements with other countries across the region, including Egypt and Algeria.
“Jordan, Egypt and Algeria all have a documented history of torture,” said
Stork. “Neither Britain nor any other country should consider returning people
to such countries where they face the risk of torture.”
The HRW report, “Still At Risk”, says, “The global effort to apprehend, interrogate, and prosecute persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities is a vital project. It is incumbent on states to work individually and collectively to ensure that such persons, if proven guilty, are brought to justice. It is also incumbent on them, however, to ensure that basic rights are upheld”.
The past two years have seen widespread exposure of the once-secret practice of “rendition’ – sending or taking prisoners to third countries.
The December 2001 expulsions of two Egyptian asylum seekers from Sweden based on assurances against torture caused a national scandal after the men alleged that they had been tortured and ill-treated in Egyptian custody. It has been reliably reported that the men were kidnapped from Sweden by the CIA and flown to Egypt n the agency’s leased Gulfstream jet.
The U.S. is also faulted for its pervasive use of diplomatic assurances in rendition and immigration cases, and to effect returns of detainees from Guantánamo Bay.
HRW also says that in Europe there is “an alarming and growing trend toward securing diplomatic assurances against torture and ill-treatment to effect extraditions, deportations, and expulsions, despite Europe’s claim to having the most advanced human rights protection system in the world”.
Countries that rely on ‘diplomatic assurances’ that other countries won’t torture transferred prisoners “are either engaging in wishful thinking or using the assurances as a figleaf to cover their complicity,” a new report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) charges.
HRW said, “There is substantial evidence that in the course of the global “war on terrorism,” an increasing number of governments have transferred, or proposed sending, alleged terrorist suspects to countries where they know the suspects will be at risk of torture or ill-treatment.”
In countries with “a serious and persistent” history of prisoner abuse, “diplomatic assurances do not and cannot prevent torture. The practice should stop,” the report said.
Recipient countries have included Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Yemen, where torture is a systemic human rights problem. Transfers have also been carried out or proposed to Algeria, Morocco, Russia, Tunisia, and Turkey, “where members of particular groups — Islamists, Chechens, Kurds — are routinely singled out for the worst forms of abuse”.
The HRW report comes on the heels of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s proposal, following the London underground bombings, to deport people who advocate violence.
HRW said “the use of diplomatic assurances against torture is a global phenomenon, with sending countries in North America and Europe leading the charge”.
It added, “The issue of diplomatic assurances against torture gained notoriety recently when U.S. officials acknowledged a large number of transfers of suspects to countries where torture is a serious human rights problem, claiming that U.S. authorities regularly sought and received diplomatic assurances of humane treatment from receiving governments prior to the transfers. In an increasing number of those cases, the suspects have credibly alleged that they were tortured.”
In a separate statement, HRW criticized the August 10th ‘memorandum of understanding’ reached between the United Kingdom and Jordan.
It said the U.K. “cannot deport security suspects to Jordan without violating the international prohibition against sending persons to countries where they face a serious risk of torture.”
.
The agreement, HRW said, “does nothing to reduce that risk or to change the obligation not to expose people to torture”.
“There is still torture in Jordan, especially with regard to security suspects,”
said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division.
“All the good reasons that prevented the U.K. from deporting people to Jordan
before August 10 remain unchanged by this agreement.”
The U.K. and Jordan are both parties to the Convention against Torture and
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. “Under international law, the prohibition against torture is absolute and cannot be waived under any circumstances”, HRW said.
Britain recently detained several foreign residents who may now face deportation. Jordan’s State Security Court, composed of two military and one civilian judge, had sentenced two of the men in absentia to 15-year and life sentences respectively for involvement in terrorist activities in 2000 and 2001.
HRW pointed out that “criminals convicted in absentia have the right to a full retrial once they come into Jordanian custody.”
HRW said that the U.K.-Jordan agreement “represents an effort to get around the Convention against Torture’s strict non-refoulement obligation and
has no mechanism for accountability”.
“Jordan stands to gain custody of criminal suspects while Britain rids itself of unwelcome persons, and neither country has any incentive to monitor treatment or investigate allegations of abuse.”
HRW’s Stork said, “Jordan’s General Intelligence Department, prisons and ordinary police stations all have known records of abuse. By seeking Jordanian promises to treat these returned persons differently, the U.K. is confirming that the risk of torture continues.”
In September 2004, the National Human Rights Center, an official body, announced that Abdullah al-Mushaqaba had died in Juwaida Prison as a result of torture. Detainees of that same prison told the Arab Organization for Human Rights in Jordan, a local non-governmental organization, in August 2005 that that they were severely beaten.
Last year, the Center received 250 allegations of torture or ill-treatment in Jordanian detentions. These numbers do not include the General Intelligence Directorate, which did not allow any visits by non-governmental human rights monitors. The Intelligence Directorate is often the first place of detention for security detainees.
Human Rights Watch said that the U.K. plans to conclude similar agreements with other countries across the region, including Egypt and Algeria.
“Jordan, Egypt and Algeria all have a documented history of torture,” said
Stork. “Neither Britain nor any other country should consider returning people
to such countries where they face the risk of torture.”
The HRW report, “Still At Risk”, says, “The global effort to apprehend, interrogate, and prosecute persons suspected of involvement in terrorist activities is a vital project. It is incumbent on states to work individually and collectively to ensure that such persons, if proven guilty, are brought to justice. It is also incumbent on them, however, to ensure that basic rights are upheld”.
The past two years have seen widespread exposure of the once-secret practice of “rendition’ – sending or taking prisoners to third countries.
The December 2001 expulsions of two Egyptian asylum seekers from Sweden based on assurances against torture caused a national scandal after the men alleged that they had been tortured and ill-treated in Egyptian custody. It has been reliably reported that the men were kidnapped from Sweden by the CIA and flown to Egypt n the agency’s leased Gulfstream jet.
The U.S. is also faulted for its pervasive use of diplomatic assurances in rendition and immigration cases, and to effect returns of detainees from Guantánamo Bay.
HRW also says that in Europe there is “an alarming and growing trend toward securing diplomatic assurances against torture and ill-treatment to effect extraditions, deportations, and expulsions, despite Europe’s claim to having the most advanced human rights protection system in the world”.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
AIR FORCE ACADEMY (AGAIN)
By William Fisher
A retired Army major general is throwing fuel on the hot issue of religious discrimination at the U.S. Air Force Academy by writing to commanders there to urge their backing a Christian evangelical rally for military personnel sponsored by Rev. Billy Graham's ministry – and signing his letters “Your Partner in the Gospel”.
The academy, which has been dogged by allegations of harassment against non-Christian cadets, charged that Bob Dees has sent promotional literature to commanders at the Academy, saying the event “will spiritually refresh you and equip you to share your faith in Jesus Christ with your brothers and sisters in arms.”
In his letter, Dees, wrote, “We wholeheartedly recommend that you give (the event) the widest possible distribution within your command…This seminar is designed to provide assistance to chaplains and other military personnel who are followers of Jesus Christ to enable them more effectively serve their religious faith groups while serving their country…Your support in making this known to your chaplains for dissemination.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), an advocacy group that has played a leading role in exposing religious bias at the Academy, warned military officials not to promote a Christian evangelistic rally for military personnel sponsored by Billy Graham's ministry, now run by Rev. Graham’s son, Franklin Graham.
AU said it took action after learning that Dees, who is now executive director
of the Military Ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ International, had sent
e-mails to installation commanders nationwide, not only at the Air Force Academy, informing them of a Sept. 9-11 “Serving God and Country” seminar in Asheville, N.C.
Promotional material for the event says other speakers will include U.S. Army
General Robert Van Antwerp, who will speak about how “to lead and influence others with the character and life of Jesus Christ.”
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, AU’s executive director, said, “The military must never favor one faith over others. The Graham Ministries' event is intended to teach Christian evangelism, and that's not something the military should be involved in.”
In a letter sent to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and base
commanders nationwide today, AU's Lynn pointed out that the Constitution forbids government to promote religion.
Lynn’s letter said that promoting this Christian event to members of the military “could convey an unconstitutional message of governmental endorsement
of religion, and to therefore urge you to ensure that military leaders do not encourage members of the military or their spouses to attend the event or
otherwise promote it in any way.”
Lynn’s letter says it would be “highly inappropriate for the military to
endorse a rally sponsored by Franklin Graham, a harsh and controversial
critic of Islam, at a time when the nation is fighting a war in a Muslim region
of the world.”
The 4000-cadet Air Force Academy, which trains future officers, is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, a town that is also home to a number of the nation’s
most high-profile Christian evangelical organizations.
In response to recent accusation of religious discrimination at the Academy, a military task force led by Lt. Gen. Roger Brady reported that the Academy
failed to accommodate the diverse religious needs of cadets and staff.
“Religious slurs and disparaging remarks have no place at the Air Force Academy”, Gen. Brady said.
Retired Chaplain Jack C. Williamson told legislators that the current problems
at the academy were result of “years of practice that have gone unchallenged”,
adding that the problem “goes far beyond tolerance”.
Dr. Christian Leslie, an ordained minister who is a professor at the Yale University Divinity School, said she was concerned about the power relationship between teachers and students.
“There is a problem when a chaplain defends saying ‘Jesus will be with you, Jesus will save you’ with the response ‘That’s the way we do it here – we promote Jesus’.”
Patrick Mrotek, founder of the new Christian Alliance for Progress, told IPS in an email, “Separation of church and state has been a fundamental American value that both protects us from the government imposing a particular religion while also guaranteeing our freedom from that government in our place of worship. The Christian Right seeks to institutionalize and impose their beliefs on all Americans when our country’s political and religious traditions honor precisely the opposite values.”
The Alliance is a religious organization advocating moderation and the separation of church and state.
The furor exploded this summer when a chaplain at the academy, Capt. Melinda Morton, charged that the religious problem at the academy was "pervasive."
Captain Morton was given an unwanted transfer, but resigned from the Air Force saying she did not believe her superiors genuinely wanted her to stay on to help resolve the problem. Before she resigned, she lodged a formal complaint, which is currently being investigated by the Air Force Inspector General.
Among the incidents highlighted in the task force report were fliers that advertised a screening of "The Passion of the Christ" at every seat in the dining hall, more than 250 people at the academy signing an annual Christmas message in the base newspaper that said, "Jesus Christ is the only real hope for the world" and an atheist student who was forbidden to organize a club for "Freethinkers."
The commandant of cadets, Brig. Gen. Johnny A. Weida, came in for particular
scrutiny by the Air Force panel. He sent an academy wide e-mail message to announce the National Day of Prayer, instructed cadets that they were "accountable to their God" and invented a call-and-response chant with the cadets that went, "Jesus ... Rocks."
Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville, told IPS, “We are often told that the reason we spend more than any other country on our armed forces is because our military exists to 'protect our freedoms.' If the allegations about the Air Force Academy are true, then the Air Force must immediately move to protect its own future officers' constitutional right to freedom of religion. These brave and talented young men and women, who have committed to risk their lives to defend their country, deserve the ability to practice their religion, or no religion at all, free from government pressure and coercion, and free from the government's supporting one religion over other religions.”
A retired Army major general is throwing fuel on the hot issue of religious discrimination at the U.S. Air Force Academy by writing to commanders there to urge their backing a Christian evangelical rally for military personnel sponsored by Rev. Billy Graham's ministry – and signing his letters “Your Partner in the Gospel”.
The academy, which has been dogged by allegations of harassment against non-Christian cadets, charged that Bob Dees has sent promotional literature to commanders at the Academy, saying the event “will spiritually refresh you and equip you to share your faith in Jesus Christ with your brothers and sisters in arms.”
In his letter, Dees, wrote, “We wholeheartedly recommend that you give (the event) the widest possible distribution within your command…This seminar is designed to provide assistance to chaplains and other military personnel who are followers of Jesus Christ to enable them more effectively serve their religious faith groups while serving their country…Your support in making this known to your chaplains for dissemination.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), an advocacy group that has played a leading role in exposing religious bias at the Academy, warned military officials not to promote a Christian evangelistic rally for military personnel sponsored by Billy Graham's ministry, now run by Rev. Graham’s son, Franklin Graham.
AU said it took action after learning that Dees, who is now executive director
of the Military Ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ International, had sent
e-mails to installation commanders nationwide, not only at the Air Force Academy, informing them of a Sept. 9-11 “Serving God and Country” seminar in Asheville, N.C.
Promotional material for the event says other speakers will include U.S. Army
General Robert Van Antwerp, who will speak about how “to lead and influence others with the character and life of Jesus Christ.”
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, AU’s executive director, said, “The military must never favor one faith over others. The Graham Ministries' event is intended to teach Christian evangelism, and that's not something the military should be involved in.”
In a letter sent to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and base
commanders nationwide today, AU's Lynn pointed out that the Constitution forbids government to promote religion.
Lynn’s letter said that promoting this Christian event to members of the military “could convey an unconstitutional message of governmental endorsement
of religion, and to therefore urge you to ensure that military leaders do not encourage members of the military or their spouses to attend the event or
otherwise promote it in any way.”
Lynn’s letter says it would be “highly inappropriate for the military to
endorse a rally sponsored by Franklin Graham, a harsh and controversial
critic of Islam, at a time when the nation is fighting a war in a Muslim region
of the world.”
The 4000-cadet Air Force Academy, which trains future officers, is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, a town that is also home to a number of the nation’s
most high-profile Christian evangelical organizations.
In response to recent accusation of religious discrimination at the Academy, a military task force led by Lt. Gen. Roger Brady reported that the Academy
failed to accommodate the diverse religious needs of cadets and staff.
“Religious slurs and disparaging remarks have no place at the Air Force Academy”, Gen. Brady said.
Retired Chaplain Jack C. Williamson told legislators that the current problems
at the academy were result of “years of practice that have gone unchallenged”,
adding that the problem “goes far beyond tolerance”.
Dr. Christian Leslie, an ordained minister who is a professor at the Yale University Divinity School, said she was concerned about the power relationship between teachers and students.
“There is a problem when a chaplain defends saying ‘Jesus will be with you, Jesus will save you’ with the response ‘That’s the way we do it here – we promote Jesus’.”
Patrick Mrotek, founder of the new Christian Alliance for Progress, told IPS in an email, “Separation of church and state has been a fundamental American value that both protects us from the government imposing a particular religion while also guaranteeing our freedom from that government in our place of worship. The Christian Right seeks to institutionalize and impose their beliefs on all Americans when our country’s political and religious traditions honor precisely the opposite values.”
The Alliance is a religious organization advocating moderation and the separation of church and state.
The furor exploded this summer when a chaplain at the academy, Capt. Melinda Morton, charged that the religious problem at the academy was "pervasive."
Captain Morton was given an unwanted transfer, but resigned from the Air Force saying she did not believe her superiors genuinely wanted her to stay on to help resolve the problem. Before she resigned, she lodged a formal complaint, which is currently being investigated by the Air Force Inspector General.
Among the incidents highlighted in the task force report were fliers that advertised a screening of "The Passion of the Christ" at every seat in the dining hall, more than 250 people at the academy signing an annual Christmas message in the base newspaper that said, "Jesus Christ is the only real hope for the world" and an atheist student who was forbidden to organize a club for "Freethinkers."
The commandant of cadets, Brig. Gen. Johnny A. Weida, came in for particular
scrutiny by the Air Force panel. He sent an academy wide e-mail message to announce the National Day of Prayer, instructed cadets that they were "accountable to their God" and invented a call-and-response chant with the cadets that went, "Jesus ... Rocks."
Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law in Jacksonville, told IPS, “We are often told that the reason we spend more than any other country on our armed forces is because our military exists to 'protect our freedoms.' If the allegations about the Air Force Academy are true, then the Air Force must immediately move to protect its own future officers' constitutional right to freedom of religion. These brave and talented young men and women, who have committed to risk their lives to defend their country, deserve the ability to practice their religion, or no religion at all, free from government pressure and coercion, and free from the government's supporting one religion over other religions.”
MORE ABU GHRAIB
By William Fisher
Civil libertarians and the Pentagon appear headed for yet another trainwreck in the ongoing dispute over the so-called ‘second batch’ of photos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
In response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and a number of medical and veterans groups demanding release of 87 new videos and photographs depicting detainee abuse at the now infamous prison, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, said the release would result in "riots, violence and attacks by insurgents.”
In court papers filed to contest the lawsuit, Gen. Myers said he consulted with Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the United States Central Command, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of the American forces in Iraq. Both officers also opposed the release, General Myers said.
Gen. Myers said he believes “release of the photos would “incite public opinion in the Muslim world and put the lives of American soldiers and officials at risk”, according to documents unsealed in federal court in New York.
"The situation on the ground in Iraq is dynamic and dangerous," Myers added,
with 70 insurgent attacks daily. He also said there was evidence that the
Taliban was gaining ground because of popular discontent in Afghanistan.
General Myers cited the violence that erupted in some Muslim countries in May
after Newsweek published an item, which it later retracted, saying that a Koran had been thrown in a toilet in the United States detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He also said the images could fuel terrorist disinformation campaigns.
"It is probable that Al Qaeda and other groups will seize upon these images and
videos as grist for their propaganda mill, which will result in, besides violent
attacks, increased terrorist recruitment, continued financial support and
exacerbation of tensions between Iraqi and Afghani populaces and U.S. and
coalition forces," he said.
The 87 “new” photos and four videotapes taken at Abu Ghraib were among those turned over to Army investigators last year by Specialist Joseph M. Darby, a reservist who was posted at the prison.
In legal papers unsealed last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allied groups urged the court to order the release of photographs and videos, and also asked the court to reject the government's attempt to file some of its legal arguments in secret.
It said that until the first photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib were made public in April 2004, the government had consistently denied that any wrongdoing had taken place despite news reports to the contrary. Since then, the ACLU has obtained, through a court order, more than 60,000 pages of government documents regarding torture and abuse of detainees.
At a court hearing on Monday, the judge said he generally ruled in favor of public disclosure and ordered the government to reveal some redacted parts of its argument for blocking the release of pictures and videotapes.
U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said his rulings pertained to arguments by Gen. Myers. "By and large, I ruled in favor of public disclosure," he said.
The judge said he believes photographs "are the best evidence the public can have of what occurred" at the prison.
He scheduled arguments on the question of whether the photographs and videos should be released for Aug. 30, saying a speedy decision is important so the public's right to know isn't compromised.
The ACLU has also called for an independent counsel with subpoena power to investigate the torture scandal, including the role of senior policymakers, and has filed a separate lawsuit to hold Secretary Rumsfeld and high-ranking military officers accountable.
Reed Brody, head of international programs for Human Rights Watch (HRW), told IPS, "The problem is not the photos but the policy of abuse. The release of the first photos last year led us to the revelations that senior U.S. officials had secretly sidelined the Geneva Conventions, re-defined ‘torture’, and approved illegal coercive interrogation methods. The release of new photos showing crimes perpetrated on detainees could create new impetus to expose and prosecute those ultimately responsible and hopefully prevent these practices
from being repeated."
Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS,
“The administration's response to the release of the photos is to kill the messenger, rather then to investigate and prosecute the real culprits: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Generals Miller and Sanchez, and others.”
He agreed that “the photos will be upsetting to anyone who cares about humane treatment and particularly to those in the Muslim world, but the photos reflect the reality of the type of treatment detainees were subjected to. Rather than suppress the best evidence of widespread torture of Muslim detainees, the Administration ought to launch a fully independent investigation and ought to see that an independent prosecutor is appointed.”
He added, “Ensuring accountability for the torture conspiracy is the best way of demonstrating to the Muslim world that this outrage has come to an end and will not be repeated”.
The government initially objected to the release of the images on the grounds that it would violate the Geneva Conventions rights of the detainees depicted in the images. That concern was addressed by court order on June 1 directing the government to redact any personally identifying characteristics from the images. The ACLU did not object to those redactions.
The ACLU said the government has repeatedly taken the position that the detainees themselves cannot rely on the Geneva Conventions in legal proceedings to challenge their mistreatment by American personnel.
In a court declaration, former U.S. Army Colonel Michael E. Pheneger, a retired military intelligence expert, responded to the government's "cause-and-effect" argument that release of the images would spark violence abroad.
“Our enemies seek to prevent the United States from achieving its objectives in the Middle East," he said. "They do not need specific provocations to justify their actions."
Attacks by insurgents “will continue regardless of whether the photos and tapes are released, " he added.
The case arose from a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace.
Civil libertarians and the Pentagon appear headed for yet another trainwreck in the ongoing dispute over the so-called ‘second batch’ of photos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
In response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and a number of medical and veterans groups demanding release of 87 new videos and photographs depicting detainee abuse at the now infamous prison, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, said the release would result in "riots, violence and attacks by insurgents.”
In court papers filed to contest the lawsuit, Gen. Myers said he consulted with Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the United States Central Command, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of the American forces in Iraq. Both officers also opposed the release, General Myers said.
Gen. Myers said he believes “release of the photos would “incite public opinion in the Muslim world and put the lives of American soldiers and officials at risk”, according to documents unsealed in federal court in New York.
"The situation on the ground in Iraq is dynamic and dangerous," Myers added,
with 70 insurgent attacks daily. He also said there was evidence that the
Taliban was gaining ground because of popular discontent in Afghanistan.
General Myers cited the violence that erupted in some Muslim countries in May
after Newsweek published an item, which it later retracted, saying that a Koran had been thrown in a toilet in the United States detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He also said the images could fuel terrorist disinformation campaigns.
"It is probable that Al Qaeda and other groups will seize upon these images and
videos as grist for their propaganda mill, which will result in, besides violent
attacks, increased terrorist recruitment, continued financial support and
exacerbation of tensions between Iraqi and Afghani populaces and U.S. and
coalition forces," he said.
The 87 “new” photos and four videotapes taken at Abu Ghraib were among those turned over to Army investigators last year by Specialist Joseph M. Darby, a reservist who was posted at the prison.
In legal papers unsealed last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its allied groups urged the court to order the release of photographs and videos, and also asked the court to reject the government's attempt to file some of its legal arguments in secret.
It said that until the first photos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib were made public in April 2004, the government had consistently denied that any wrongdoing had taken place despite news reports to the contrary. Since then, the ACLU has obtained, through a court order, more than 60,000 pages of government documents regarding torture and abuse of detainees.
At a court hearing on Monday, the judge said he generally ruled in favor of public disclosure and ordered the government to reveal some redacted parts of its argument for blocking the release of pictures and videotapes.
U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said his rulings pertained to arguments by Gen. Myers. "By and large, I ruled in favor of public disclosure," he said.
The judge said he believes photographs "are the best evidence the public can have of what occurred" at the prison.
He scheduled arguments on the question of whether the photographs and videos should be released for Aug. 30, saying a speedy decision is important so the public's right to know isn't compromised.
The ACLU has also called for an independent counsel with subpoena power to investigate the torture scandal, including the role of senior policymakers, and has filed a separate lawsuit to hold Secretary Rumsfeld and high-ranking military officers accountable.
Reed Brody, head of international programs for Human Rights Watch (HRW), told IPS, "The problem is not the photos but the policy of abuse. The release of the first photos last year led us to the revelations that senior U.S. officials had secretly sidelined the Geneva Conventions, re-defined ‘torture’, and approved illegal coercive interrogation methods. The release of new photos showing crimes perpetrated on detainees could create new impetus to expose and prosecute those ultimately responsible and hopefully prevent these practices
from being repeated."
Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, told IPS,
“The administration's response to the release of the photos is to kill the messenger, rather then to investigate and prosecute the real culprits: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Generals Miller and Sanchez, and others.”
He agreed that “the photos will be upsetting to anyone who cares about humane treatment and particularly to those in the Muslim world, but the photos reflect the reality of the type of treatment detainees were subjected to. Rather than suppress the best evidence of widespread torture of Muslim detainees, the Administration ought to launch a fully independent investigation and ought to see that an independent prosecutor is appointed.”
He added, “Ensuring accountability for the torture conspiracy is the best way of demonstrating to the Muslim world that this outrage has come to an end and will not be repeated”.
The government initially objected to the release of the images on the grounds that it would violate the Geneva Conventions rights of the detainees depicted in the images. That concern was addressed by court order on June 1 directing the government to redact any personally identifying characteristics from the images. The ACLU did not object to those redactions.
The ACLU said the government has repeatedly taken the position that the detainees themselves cannot rely on the Geneva Conventions in legal proceedings to challenge their mistreatment by American personnel.
In a court declaration, former U.S. Army Colonel Michael E. Pheneger, a retired military intelligence expert, responded to the government's "cause-and-effect" argument that release of the images would spark violence abroad.
“Our enemies seek to prevent the United States from achieving its objectives in the Middle East," he said. "They do not need specific provocations to justify their actions."
Attacks by insurgents “will continue regardless of whether the photos and tapes are released, " he added.
The case arose from a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
