Meet the U.S.

[armjan]

That is the point. It is being denied.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

so why is spraying drug fields such a bad idea?

and for those who got sick, shame on them, by locality they are working/contributing to the 1st phase of drug production, and they should carry the guilt/burden of millions of ppl that have died or been affected by the drugs they produce. and plz, don't tell me that those areas are not producing drugs. this has been documented and agreed upon by all.

Edited March 6, 2005 by armjan

[Stormig]

so why is spraying drug fields such a bad idea?

style_images/master/snapback.png

Because it affects the health of local populations and may have deleterious effects on the environment. There are other ways of going about this to ensure the health of local communities, including the very persons that produce the raw material and intermediate produces. If drug producing moves to the Amazon, you do not spray the Amazon forest. There is also the case where American-backed operations spray coca fields in Columbia, but coca is used for many more domestic purposes besides cocaine - shampoos, medicinal teas, chewing, etc. Such reckless behaviour leads to impoverishment if programs to allow the transition aren't instated - which they are not.

To sum up, spraying in the absolute affects human health, the environment, and livelihood.

[Stormig]

its kind of interesting, I have seen so many anti-us threads by ppl like storming, etc...

but i haven't seen threads on islamic fundementalism and the threat they pose to our (civilized world's) way of life.

 

some may respond by saying "well, we hold the U.S. accountable b/c they are supposed to know better", well yes, but if your intention is to address the troubles facing our current times and not just mouth off like Chirac then plz keep in mind & address the threats facing all of us.

 

it's amazing to me how some of you focus on the wrong part of the story. Wahabi's have declared/proclaimed for years to want to kill all of us, yet you go and mouth off on the ppl that are protecting your way of life. maybe u haven't realized what the word kill means.

 

and if u think that islamic fundementalism is only against the U.S., then plz visit or talk to any suni wahabi, and ask them what jihad means. it means to kill all of us who are not wahabis. 

 

the way i c it, is pick a side and stay loyal to it. when pointing out injustices that have been perpetrated, please keep in mind the nature/tactics of our enemy and the circumstances under which the armed services are facing(urban warfare).

style_images/master/snapback.png

There are no sides as far as I am concerned, and, by all means, keep on fooling yourself. If there had to be sides, the m-f-ers that keep people incommunicado in Guantanamo are the same scum as those that cry "jihad"!

[armjan]

Because it affects the health of local populations and may have deleterious effects on the environment. There are other ways of going about this to ensure the health of local communities, including the very persons that produce the raw material and intermediate produces. If drug producing moves to the Amazon, you do not spray the Amazon forest. There is also the case where American-backed operations spray coca fields in Columbia, but coca is used for many more domestic purposes besides cocaine - shampoos, medicinal teas, chewing, etc. Such reckless behaviour leads to impoverishment if programs to allow the transition aren't instated - which they are not.

To sum up, spraying in the absolute affects human health, the environment, and livelihood.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

your right. I am trying to think of the alternatives. you have a region armed to the teeth by warlords and it will take huge # of casualties trying to go there just to kill some plants in some contained form.

 

So if not killing a plant that produces drugs, how/what else can we do? You got to kill the thing either way. either spray/burn/whatever gets it killed. So how do we stop this drug production in that region?

Edited March 6, 2005 by armjan

[armjan]

There are no sides

A conflict by defn is between atleast 2 or more entities in conflict b/c of their differences.

It also depends on how we define sides. are we talking about countries, ideologies, religion or what?

but no matter how I try to define this problem statement, I don't see how one formulates a description of the conflict without clear/distinct differences which naturally imply => sides.

 

if you care to elaborate on formulating a description of the conflict without implication of sides, not for my sake, but for the sake of your arguments, it will be appreciated.

 

keep people incommunicado in Guantanamo are the same scum as those that cry "jihad"

everyone is responsible for the courses of actions they take, if u can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen philosophy.

 

if i rape someone, i should/expect to be prosecuted no matter if I am U.S citizen or Islamic Fundemental. So it's defined by the course of action you take, and NOT who you are.

If a soldier is out on a battle field, then expect the possiblity of death or injury.

I think a more worthwhile argument is for the torturous methods used on gitmo occupants & if terrorists should recieve the treatement that captured soldiers get. it's a matter of classification. just b/c you engage an enemy are they all to be treated the same?

Edited March 6, 2005 by armjan

[Stormig]

your right. I am trying to think of the alternatives. you have a region armed to the teeth by warlords and it will take huge # of casualties trying to go there just to kill some plants in some contained form.

 

So if not killing a plant that produces drugs, how/what else can we do? You got to kill the thing either way. either spray/burn/whatever gets it killed. So how do we stop this drug production in that region?

style_images/master/snapback.png

Coca production is a valid industry. It is cocaine that needs to be tackled. In any event, spraying high and low in a manner that contaminates both the target and the non-target, solution to current drug trafficking does not constitute.

[Stormig]

A conflict by defn is between atleast 2 or more entities in conflict b/c of their differences.

It also depends on how we define sides. are we talking about countries, ideologies, religion or what?

but no matter how I try to define this problem statement, I don't see how one formulates a description of the conflict without clear/distinct differences which naturally imply => sides.

 

if you care to elaborate on formulating a description of the conflict without implication of sides, not for my sake, but for the sake of your arguments, it will be appreciated.

everyone is responsible for the courses of actions they take, if u can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen philosophy.

 

if i rape someone, i should/expect to be prosecuted no matter if I am U.S citizen or Islamic Fundemental. So it's defined by the course of action you take, and NOT who you are.

If a soldier is out on a battle field, then expect the possiblity of death or injury.

I think a more worthwhile argument is for the torturous methods used on gitmo occupants & if terrorists should recieve the treatement that captured soldiers get. it's a matter of classification. just b/c you engage an enemy are they all to be treated the same?

style_images/master/snapback.png

What conflict if there are under-aged persons, i.e., children, on Guantanamo? And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a person as uninformed as yourself never heard of the Geneva Conventions.

[armjan]

What conflict if there are under-aged persons, i.e., children, on Guantanamo? And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a person as uninformed as yourself never heard of the Geneva Conventions.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

you disappoint me. instead of trying to enrich/further the quality of your arguments/posts, you defend your argument by personally attacking those who disagree with you. can u defend your arguments without getting personal? this will be a test of maturity, let's c how it goes.

 

i raised this point in the last reply, should terrorists be treated as enemy soldiers?

Edited March 7, 2005 by armjan

[nairi]

I think INFORMATION is the best way to go about drug-control.

There will always be addicts and people prone to use drugs (just like there are people prone to become addicts or users of alcohol).

 

There is no need to stop these people from using drugs. It won't work anyway. If they can't get cocaine, they'll get something else that is as harmful.

 

What you want to do is to stop the increase of drug-use. You want to decrease the number of potential addicts.

 

One way is INFORMATION. Teach about these drugs, the effects, the consequences and how to use them safely. Don't stop experimentation!! Don't encourage it either, but don't stop it either.

 

Forbidden fruits are attractive, we all know this. Don't forbid it; it won't be as attractive. Some teens might experiment once or twice and realize it's a waste of time, money and effect and will never do it again.

 

We don't realize this. There is this fear that you only need to use drugs once and you'll be an addict. It's not true!

 

Compare this with alcohol. Please.

 

And don't tell me that drinking a bottle vodka a day is healthier than shooting heroine up your arm every day!

[armjan]

the war on drugs has many fronts.

Dissemenating information is one of those fronts, but let's not limit ourselves to just that front.

[armjan]

Coca production is a valid industry. It is cocaine that needs to be tackled. In any event, spraying high and low in a manner that contaminates both the target and the non-target, solution to current drug trafficking does not constitute.

style_images/master/snapback.png

so if u have a better idea, then suggest an alternative.

leaving/avoiding one of the sources of harvest for the drug production continues to generate great amounts of cocaine.

there are two fronts: Supply & Demand.

got to tackle on both those issues, and eliminating those fields reduces supply. the challenge remains on how to reduce demand.

 

 

you disappoint me. instead of trying to enrich/further the quality of your arguments/posts, you defend your argument by personally attacking those who disagree with you. can u defend your arguments without getting personal? this will be a test of maturity, let's c how it goes.

Edited March 7, 2005 by armjan

[Med]

Don't stop experimentation!! Don't encourage it either, but don't stop it either.

 

That doesn't make sense. The Dutch can only convince themselves with these arguments. But it might make sense depending on your viewpoint and sense of responsibility for others. In a park here in Zürich the authorities give out free heroin and sterilised needles to stop the spread of disease. They put conditions however for the addicts to visit a rehab clinic. Looking the other way and letting people "experiment" is not an option. Information by itself won't do anything. It goes hand in hand with reprobation.

 

Then there are those who advocate the spread of heroin-like substances such as china white and meperedine to kill first-time users at an instant in order for a lesson. They are slightly exaggerating.

[nairi]

I'm not Dutch, and your IP goes back to Bilkent University, Ankara..

 

As far as I'm concerned hard drugs are still considered illegal here. I'm just speaking of the little experience that I have.

 

Don't know about Zurich, but if it's true then they got that idea from Holland. Rotterdam has been doing that since the early 90s.

[Stormig]

you disappoint me. instead of trying to enrich/further the quality of your arguments/posts, you defend your argument by personally attacking those who disagree with you. can u defend your arguments without getting personal? this will be a test of maturity, let's c how it goes.

 

i raised this point in the last reply, should terrorists be treated as enemy soldiers?

style_images/master/snapback.png

That is the whole point. Enemy soldiers have rights, too. So you disappointed me by overlooking my reference to the Geneva Conventions.

[Stormig]

so if u have a better idea, then suggest an alternative.

leaving/avoiding one of the sources of harvest for the drug production continues to generate great amounts of cocaine.

there are two fronts: Supply & Demand.

got to tackle on both those issues, and eliminating those fields reduces supply. the challenge remains on how to reduce demand.

you disappoint me. instead of trying to enrich/further the quality of your arguments/posts, you defend your argument by personally attacking those who disagree with you. can u defend your arguments without getting personal? this will be a test of maturity, let's c how it goes.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Supply and demand. Let's take a look at that...

You can clean up your own back yard by trying to get in the way of the demand. It's the only legit and clean thing to do. To interfere with the supply is to interfere with a sovereign nation's domestic goings-on, even if sanctioned by the corresponding government. Now that shyte don't fly.

[Stormig]

US bars Nicaragua heroine as 'terrorist'

 

Writers and academics voice anger as state department refuses visa to let Sandinista revolutionary take up post as Harvard professor

 

Duncan Campbell

Friday March 4, 2005

The Guardian

 

The woman who epitomised the 1979 Nicaraguan revolution that overthrew the dictator Anastasio Somoza has been denied entry to the US to take up her post as a Harvard professor on the grounds that she had been involved in "terrorism".

The decision to bar Dora Maria Tellez, one of the best-known figures in recent Latin American history, who has frequently visited the US in the past, has been attacked by academics and writers.

 

It comes at a time when President George Bush has appointed as his new intelligence chief a man associated with the "dirty war" against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

 

A spokeswoman for Harvard University said it was "very disappointed" that she would not be taking up her appointment.

 

Ms Tellez was a young medical student when she became a commandante with the leftwing Sandinistas in their campaign to topple the dictator.

 

She was Commander 2' in 1978 when a group of guerrillas took over the National Palace and held 2,000 government officials hostage in a two-day standoff. After negotiations, she and the other guerrillas were allowed to leave the country. The event was seen as a key moment that indicated the Somoza regime could be overthrown.

 

She later led the brigade that took Leon, the first city to fall to the Sandinistas in the revolution, and she is celebrated as one of the popular figures of the revolution. She became minister of health in the first elected Sandinista administration.

 

Last year Ms Tellez, now a historian, was appointed as the Robert F Kennedy visiting professor in Latin American studies in the divinity department at Harvard, a post which is shared with the Rockefeller Centre for Latin American Studies. She was due to start teaching students this spring.

 

The US state department has told her she is ineligible because of involvement in "terrorist acts". A spokesman for the department confirmed yesterday that she had been denied a visa under a section making those who had been involved in terrorist acts ineligible. He said he could not comment further on the reasons for the ban.

 

"I have no idea why they are refusing me a visa," said Ms Tellez from her home in Managua yesterday. "I have been in the US many times before - on holidays, at conferences, on official business."

 

A number of academics and writers are protesting against the ban. "It is absurd," said Gioconda Belli, the Nicaraguan writer who was also an active member of the Sandinistas and is now based in Los Angeles. "Dora Maria is an outstanding woman who fought against a dictatorship. If fighting against tyranny is 'terrorism' how does the United States justify the invasion of Iraq? It is an insult."

 

Ms Belli, whose memoirs of her time as a Sandinista, The Country Under My Skin, was published two years ago, said many people were puzzled and angry about the decision.

 

Professor Andres Perez Baltodano, a Nicaraguan sociologist based in Toronto, said: "Dora Maria is as much a terrorist as George Washington." He described the taking of the National Palace as a heroic act which had helped to lead to the overthrow of a dictator.

 

The US, under President Ronald Reagan, opposed the Sandinistas even after they had been elected in 1984 and supported the contras, or counter-revolutionaries in their attempts to overthrow them.

 

In the 1987 Irangate scandal, it was discovered that the US was secretly supplying arms to Iran in exchange for money being channelled to the contras. When Mr Bush took office he rehabilitated a number of people associated with the contras and one, John Negroponte, is now his chief of intelligence responsible for dealing with terrorism.

[Stormig]

Thousands die since US regime change in Haiti

 

by Congresswoman Maxine Waters

 

 

Congresswoman Maxine Waters, at mic, long a strong supporter of democracy in Haiti and of its democratically-elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, left, led a delegation to bring him to Jamaica from the Central African Republic, where the U.S. had left him after kidnapping him last Feb. 29.

One year ago today, our government was a party to a coup d’état in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the democratically-elected president of Haiti, was forced to leave Haiti in a regime change supported by the United States. President Aristide left the country on Feb. 29, 2004, on board a U.S. airplane when U.S. Marines and embassy officials came to his home in the wee hours of the morning and told him to leave immediately or he and thousands of other Haitians would be killed.

 

One year later, the tragic results of regime change in Haiti are clear. Haiti is in total chaos. The interim government, which was put in power by the United States and has received unprecedented support from our government, is a complete failure. Violence is widespread, and security is non-existent. Schools are shut down, hospitals are not operating, and roads and infrastructure are in disrepair. Dead bodies are found lying in the streets.

 

Heavily-armed gangs roam Haiti freely. Many of these gangs consist of former soldiers from the brutal Haitian army, which was disbanded 10 years ago. Residents of poor neighborhoods and members of Lavalas, President Aristide’s political party, are murdered without any legal consequences. Members of Haiti’s wealthy elite, including American citizen Andy Apaid, are widely suspected of financing the former soldiers and paying gangs to kill Lavalas supporters. In some neighborhoods, Lavalas supporters have taken up arms and begun to fight back against this oppression. So the violence is escalating in Haiti, and no one is safe.

 

 

Police murders are occurring nearly every day in poor neighborhoods in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, where residents are protesting daily for the return of President Aristide. This young man was one of two killed Friday in Bel Air.

Photo: K.M. Ives

The interim government has been unable to enforce the rule of law, disarm the gangs, or restore the government’s authority in the cities controlled by former soldiers. When Interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue set a deadline of Sept. 15 of last year for all groups holding illegal weapons to disarm, the deadline came and went, but nothing happened.

 

After the interim government failed to disarm the former soldiers, it resorted to bribing them. According to press reports in January, the interim government agreed to provide payments over a three-month period to all of the estimated 6,000 former members of the Haitian army. The payments will average about $4,800 per person – in a country where most people live on less than a dollar a day.

 

The cost of these payments was estimated to be $29 million. The interim government never explained where the funds for these payments would be obtained, but Interim Prime Minister Latortue has already distributed checks to dozens of armed individuals who claim to be former soldiers and who still refuse to turn in their weapons. Is this the conduct of a government that wants to disarm the thugs, or a government that supports them?

 

Human rights violations are commonplace throughout Haiti. Amnesty International has expressed serious concerns about arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment in detention centers and summary executions attributed to members of the Haitian National Police. Several members of President Aristide’s government and prominent supporters of Lavalas have been detained illegally, including former Prime Minister Yvon Neptune, former Interior Minister Jocelerme Privert and Haitian singer Anne Auguste.

 

As of Feb. 18, there were over 700 political prisoners in Haiti’s jails. Most of these prisoners have been held illegally for months without formal charges.

 

The incompetence of the interim government has manifested itself in other ways as well. Haiti’s government was the only government in the path of Hurricane Jeanne that did not warn or evacuate its citizens when the storm came racing through the Caribbean last September. Jeanne pummeled the United States, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and Barbados as a full-blown hurricane, and killed 34 people in all of those countries combined. She was only a tropical storm when she hit Haiti, but she killed over 3,000 Haitians and left thousands more hungry and homeless, because the interim government was unprepared to protect the Haitian people.

 

The Provisional Electoral Council, which is responsible for organizing elections, has been discredited by corruption. Roselor Julien, the former president of the council, resigned last November, warning that other panel members were trying to rig the ballot and the council was not capable of ensuring the elections would be free and fair. The council also does not include any representatives of Lavalas, which continues to enjoy widespread support among the Haitian people despite the imprisonment of its leaders.

 

It is abundantly clear that the council is incapable of organizing free and fair elections. If the current council does manage to organize elections, only the winners will accept the result.

 

The people of Haiti have suffered tremendously over the past year. They deserve better. They deserve to live in peace and security. They deserve to be warned when hurricanes are headed for their homes. They deserve to know that they can walk to work or buy groceries without having gangs kill them for the food they carry. And they deserve free, fair and democratic elections in which all political parties can participate.

 

When President Aristide was forced to leave Haiti a year ago, he was told that if he refused to leave, thousands of Haitians would die. Yet, in the 12 months that followed his departure, thousands of Haitians have died, and as long as the interim government continues to fail, there will be no end to the suffering and violence facing the Haitian people.

 

It is time for the United States government to accept the fact that regime change has failed in Haiti. The United States must ensure that Haiti disarms the thugs, immediately frees political prisoners, and organizes free and fair elections in order to restore security and democracy to the Haitian people. The United States must also provide the necessary assistance to enable Haiti to reopen schools and hospitals and rebuild Haiti’s infrastructure.

 

It is time for the United States to clean up its mess.

 

Contact Rep. Waters at 2344 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC 20515-2201, (202) 225-2201.

[Stormig]

Protecting A Regime With Blood On Its Hands

 

John Pilger

 

03/04/05 "New Statesman" - - Almost eight years ago, the choir of British liberalism celebrated a new age. Tony Blair, wrote the liberal thinker Hugo Young, "wants to create a world none of us have known", a world which "ideology has surrendered entirely to 'values' [and where] there are no sacred cows . . . no fossilised limits to the ground over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain". Besotted minds ranged far. In a Tonier-than-thou piece for the Guardian, Martin Kettle hilariously declared Blair an honorary Australian. "He is not in awe of the past," he wrote. "He is not intimidated by class. He is a meritocrat, a doer... He is simply happy making his own history.... It would be nice to think that one day these would be thought of as British characteristics, too." Former Labour Party deputy leader Roy Hattersley described one of the most ideological regimes in modern British history as "untainted by dogma"; Blair was "taking the politics out of politics"."Goodbye, xenophobia," was the Observer's post-election front page, and "The Foreign Office says, Hello world, remember us?". The Blair government, said the paper, would push for "new worldwide rules on human rights" and implement "tough new limits on arms sales".

 

Lets pause to consider the truth. When Blair demonstrably lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to help an extremist regime launch an unprovoked attack on Iraq, a defenceless country, the Foreign Office's deputy legal adviser Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned, calling it, correctly, a "crime of aggression". The blood shed by more than 100,000 civilians killed and 300,000 injured is her and our witness. Now consider the "tough new limits on arms sales". A study by ActionAid reveals that the Blair government has sold weapons to 14 impoverished African countries where there is internal conflict. The people of Aceh, stricken by last year's tsunami, have been terrorised by British-supplied Hawk fighter jets, machine-guns and ammunition. Britain is a world leader in the export of small arms, even depleted uranium.

 

Almost everything about a Blair regime was known before it was elected. Blair's Vichy-like devotion to Washington was known: read his speeches about a new order led by America. His devotion to Rupert Murdoch, who flew him and Cherie Booth around the world first class, was known. His devotion to an extreme neoliberal Thatcherite economics was known, spelled out in Peter Mandelson's and Roger Liddle's The Blair Revolution: can new Labour deliver?, in which Britain's "economic strengths" are listed as multinational corporations, the "aerospace" (arms) industry and "the pre-eminence of the City of London". His class contempt for the poor was known; his pre-election attacks on single mothers passed quickly into law, assisted by the majority of his new, opportunistic female MPs.

 

Those trying to cover for Blair and "move on" from Iraq refer to the reduction of poverty as one of his "achievements". In fact, relative poverty in childless households in the UK has reached record levels under Blair, up to 13 per cent - and a greater number than under Margaret Thatcher or John Major. A certain PC-ism, such as the sound and fury over dropping the gay age of consent, adds to the illusion of a Labour government that, had it not fallen in with the awful Bush, would be celebrated as "progressive". Tell that to the people of a faraway country, more than half of whom are children, whose lives have been devastated by the fanatical Blair and his court of apologists. Read the robotic Hoon's statement on the use of cluster bombs - how Iraqi mothers would one day be "grateful" for the use of weapons that killed their children - and Ministry of Defence letters to the public that lie about depleted uranium and its Hiroshima effect. The silence of those who regard themselves as commissars of this country's and Europe's respectable, moral, liberal class is quite disgusting.

 

In a superb piece in the Guardian (24 February), Victoria Brittain asked: "How can it be that not one mainstream public figure in Europe has denounced [bush's systematic torture regime]?" She points out that The Torture Papers - more than 1,200 pages of government memos and reports, edited at New York University - shows systematic torture, approved and directed from on high. Such is the regime of a man with whom Blair "shares values". I thought of this when I noted the current debate in the Church of England about the "rift" caused by the "issue" of gay marriage. Compare that with the "issue" of the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people, about which not a word is heard from those who claim moral courage as a deity. Read the searing account of Dr Salam Ismael, who took aid to Fallujah in January. He describes the ordeal of a 17-year-old girl, Hudda Fawzi. Her father opened the door to US marines who shot him and a friend dead, then shot her elder sister, having beaten her senseless, then destroyed the family's furniture. Wounded people were dragged from their homes and run over by tanks; a clinic was destroyed by missiles. "It became clear to us," Ismael wrote, "that we were witnessing the aftermath of a massacre, the cold-blooded butchery of helpless and defenceless civilians."

 

It is not surprising that the Blair government has refused Ismael fresh permission to visit and speak out in Britain. His testimony, and that of many other reliable witnesses, is known and feared. Last April, the US command agreed that it may well have slaughtered as many as 600 people in Fallujah. When a listener asked Judy Swallow, presenter of the BBC World Service Newshour programme, why the BBC continued to suppress this truth, Swallow sent this email to a colleague: "Oh god Mike - do you take care of these sorts of things, or do we ignore them?"

 

On the BBC website, she describes Newshour as "exposing injustice and challenging lies". The silence is almost never broken by those paid to "expose injustice and challenge lies", let alone set the record straight. On Channel 5, a member of the public, Neil Coppendale from Shoreham-by-Sea, confronted Blair with this question: "Bearing in mind that tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children have died as a result of the invasion of Iraq, how do you sleep at night, Mr Blair?" When did a journalist, one with privileged access to Blair, ever ask that? For their part, the BBC's Downing Street man Andrew Marr (apparently together with his wife) and his colleague from the Today programme James Naughtie have been over to the Prime Minister's country home, Chequers, to sup with the killer Blair. It was Marr who, at the fall of Baghdad, told viewers that Blair had "said they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating, and on both these points he has been proved conclusively right". And it is Naughtie who has played a leading role in the British American Project, set up by Ronald Reagan to find a "successor generation" to those who propagated the cold war on America's behalf.

 

If shame has no place in what is called "public life", then the rest of us should break their silence for them. The Guardian says the electorate is "cross" with Blair. Cross? Such a genteel word. Supporting Blair, in his propaganda and his contemptuous need for another term of office, is supporting mass murder.

 

First published in the New Statesman - www.newstatesman.co.uk

 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

[Stormig]

America looks the other way

The New York Times

Friday, March 4, 2005

 

 

The Bush administration enthusiastically congratulated itself this week for including abuses by Iraqi authorities in its annual report on human rights violations. One State Department official called it proof that "we don't look the other way." But the report did look away - from American involvement in the mistreatment it decried.

 

In the end it was another sad reminder of the heavy price the United States has paid for ignoring fundamental human rights in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo; in the secret cells where the CIA holds its unaccounted-for prisoners; and at home, where President George W. Bush continues to claim the power to hold Americans in jail indefinitely without the right to trial.

 

The administration's refusal to remedy these abuses - or even acknowledge most of them - leaves the 2004 human rights report heavy with irony and saps its authority.

 

Not only did the report fail to mention that the Iraqi government it criticized was appointed and controlled by the United States, but it also chastised the local security forces for the same kinds of arbitrary detentions, abusive treatment and torture that have been widespread in U.S. military and intelligence prison camps.

 

Indeed, some of the practices which the report labeled as torture when employed by foreign governments were approved at one point for U.S. detention centers by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

 

The horrible abuses at Abu Ghraib and other American prison camps badly damaged the image of the United States as a defender of human rights. The administration then worsened the damage by refusing to deal with the issue openly and forcefully. Just Wednesday, Douglas Jehl of The New York Times reported that the Senate Intelligence Committee's Republican chairman, Pat Roberts of Kansas, is blocking a serious inquiry into the CIA's abuse of prisoners.

 

Meanwhile, on the same day the State Department issued its human rights report, the administration said it would fight a third federal court order to end the illegal detention of José Padilla, an American citizen who has been held for nearly three years without charges because Bush has declared him an "enemy combatant."

 

A district court judge in South Carolina, Henry Floyd, who was appointed by Bush in 2003, said the president's claim that he could order such detentions was "deeply troubling." He said endorsing that view "would totally eviscerate the limits placed on presidential authority to protect the citizenry's individual liberties."

 

His ruling echoed earlier decisions by federal courts in New York, which were mooted when the Supreme Court said Padilla's case should have been heard in South Carolina, where he is held in a Navy brig. Now that has happened, and still Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says the administration will not accept the decision.

 

Gonzales continues to cling to the fiction that combating terrorism somehow gives Bush the power to violate Americans' constitutional rights. The administration's appeal will needlessly further delay Padilla's day in court. But we hope it will lead finally to a Supreme Court ruling against the White House's abuse of power.

 

That would be a good step toward restoring America's moral authority on the rule of law and human rights.

 

 

 

See more of the world that matters - click here for home delivery of the International Herald Tribune.

 

< < Back to Start of Article

[Stormig]

Venezuela’s Vice-President Says U.S. is “Out of Control”

 

Thursday, Mar 03, 2005 Print format

Send by email

 

 

By: Gregory Wilpert – Venezuelanalysis.com

 

 

Venezuelan Vice President José Vicente Rangel.

Credit: Archive

Caracas, Venezuela, March 3, 2005—The U.S. government “is completely out of control with regard to Venezuela,” said Venezuela’s Vice-President José Vicente Rangel today, in response to the latest statements by State Department Sub-Secretary for the Western Hemisphere, Roger Noriega. Noriega, during a U.S. Senate Committee hearing had said that the Bush administration would launch a campaign to “increase awareness among Venezuela’s neighbors of President Chavez’s destabilizing acts with the expectation that they will join us in defending regional stability, security, and prosperity.”

 

In what appears to be a further escalation or at least continuation of the diplomatic confrontation between the U.S. and Venezuela, Noriega added that the Bush administration is concerned that, “Chavez’s very personal agenda may undermine democratic institutions at home and among his neighbors.” Specifically, Noriega mentioned, Chavez’s “efforts to concentrate power at home, his suspect relationship with destabilizing forces in the region, and his plans for arms purchases,” as the main causes for concern.

 

The response from the Chavez administration did not take long, especially since many Venezuelan newspapers opened their front page with Noriega’s announcement that the U.S. was engaged in a campaign to “increase awareness” about Venezuela among other Latin American countries. Vice-President Rangel said, “It is time to issue a call—if they want some sort of advice—that they reflect on this chain of stupidities which they are getting involved in.”

 

“To speak of destabilizing acts [of the Chavez government] is to consider the extraordinary meetings between Presidents Chavez, Lula, Kirchner, Tabaré Vasquez, Lagos, and Uribe as destabilizing,” added Rangel, in reference to the numerous meetings and agreements Chavez has recently signed with the governments of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and Colombia.

 

The chairman of the foreign relations committee of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Saul Ortega, also added his objection to this newest State Department statement, saying, “This is a confession that the U.S. will pressure Venezuela’s neighboring countries so that it might find political results related with their imperialist position. The hawks have definitely taken over the State Department and have assumed a war-like position.”

 

Ortega also announced that Venezuela would send a delegation of Venezuelan lawmakers to the US to meet with members of the U.S. Congress to discuss relations between the two countries.

 

During the testimony at the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Noreiga also said that the Bush administration would continue to support “democratic elements” in Venezuela, so that these “can continue to maintain the political space to which they are entitled.”

 

According to investigations conducted by the Brooklyn civil rights lawyer Eva Golinger and the activist Jeremy Bigwood, US government funded agencies such as the National Endowment for Democracy and US AID (Agency for International Development) have provided over $5 million per year to opposition groups in Venezuela since 1999.

[Stormig]

Chavez renews threat to cut oil to US

 

 

Friday 04 March 2005, 13:22 Makka Time, 10:22 GMT

 

 

The Venezuelan leader accuses the US of trying to kill him

 

 

 

 

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has renewed a threat to halt oil supplies to the United States if Washington hurts the Latin American country.

 

 

Relations between Washington and Venezuela - which exports the bulk of its oil to the US - have been badly strained since Chavez last month accused Washington of plotting to have him assassinated.

 

"If there is any aggression, there will be no oil," Chavez, who is in New Delhi on a four-day visit, was quoted by the Press Trust of India as saying on Friday.

 

"We want to supply oil to the US. We're not going to avoid this supply of oil unless US government gets a little bit crazy and tries to hurt us," he said after a ceremonial welcome at the Indian president's palace.

 

The US State Department has dismissed Chavez's accusations that Washington is seeking to have him killed as "ridiculous and untrue".

 

Venezuela is the world's fifth-biggest oil exporter and is among the largest providers to the US.

 

Deeply troubling

 

Chavez, who is on a trip to India where energy will top the agenda, started alleging Washington was planning his death after the US criticised some of his government's actions as "deeply troubling".

 

 

Chavez said the oil price increase

had nothing to do with Opec

 

 

Earlier this month, Chavez told a news conference in Uruguay that the US would not receive a drop of oil if he were to be killed.

 

Asked whether the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), of which Venezuela is a member, will increase output to cool near-record prices, Chavez said on Friday that the cartel was "producing enough".

 

"[The] increasing price of oil has nothing to do with Opec. It is the structure of the market," he said, adding Opec was evaluating the situation.

 

Chavez has signed oil deals with various countries including China since last year and is due to approve an energy agreement intended to enhance cooperation with India during his visit.

 

Energy-hungry India, which imports nearly 70% of its fuel needs, has been scouring the world for new supplies to keep its fast-growing economy on track.

 

 

AFP

[armjan]

That is the whole point. Enemy soldiers have rights, too. So you disappointed me by overlooking my reference to the Geneva Conventions.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

here is the first provision in the Geneva Conventions...

 

"(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

 

Please tell me how/where a terrorist fits in this description? you can make references to anywhere in the document, but please quote the text in its entirity so that we can get the context which it's used.

 

initially, I raised the ? whether a terrorist should/should be treated under the GC.

and according to my understanding of GC, I believe that they are entitled to rights, but no those offered by GC. We should IMO keep are options open for interrogation methods when it comes to terrorists since they may/will have knowledge of pending acts of terrorism. A soldier wears a uniform so they can be identified, but a terrorist is camoflagued (mispelled probably) as a civilian.

[Stormig]

here is the first provision in the Geneva Conventions...

 

"(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

 

Please tell me how/where a terrorist fits in this description? you can make references to anywhere in the document, but please quote the text in its entirity so that we can get the context which it's used.

 

initially, I raised the ? whether a terrorist should/should be treated under the GC.

and according to my understanding of GC, I believe that they are entitled to rights, but no those offered by GC.  We should IMO keep are options open for interrogation methods when it comes to terrorists since they may/will have knowledge of pending acts of terrorism. A soldier wears a uniform so they can be identified, but a terrorist is camoflagued (mispelled probably) as a civilian.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Too bad you didn't make it past Article 3. Yes, a terrorist is a prisoner of war... the war being, of course, started by none other than the U.S. of A. And of course I'm not even sure that the few Brits sent home and the few children were terrorists after all. Therefore, according to the Convention:

 

Article 13

 

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

 

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

 

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

 

Article 14

 

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

 

Full civil capacity on Guantanamo - hm.

 

Article 12

 

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.

 

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.

 

Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

I'm not too certain that Syria, where Canadian Marer was shipped off, is capable of being a responsible Power (capital "p").

 

I could go on, but this much shall suffice.

[armjan]

Too bad you didn't make it past Article 3. Yes, a terrorist is a prisoner of war... the war being, of course, started by none other than the U.S. of A. And of course I'm not even sure that the few Brits sent home and the few children were terrorists after all. Therefore, according to the Convention:

Full civil capacity on Guantanamo - hm.

I'm not too certain that Syria, where Canadian Marer was shipped off, is capable of being a responsible Power (capital "p").

 

I could go on, but this much shall suffice.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I think I c what the difference is.

 

where does the GC indicate that terrorists are prisoners of war. as i understand it, the 1st provision states clearly to which groups of ppl's the GC applies for(prisoners of war).

 

are there differences between a soldier and a terrorist?

 

is the difference enough to deny/or prmote one the right to certain freedoms?

 

i think my & your answers to these ?'s differ substantially.

Edited March 7, 2005 by armjan

[Solaris]

I think I c what the difference is.

 

where does the GC indicate that terrorists are prisoners of war. as i understand it, the 1st provision states clearly to which groups of ppl's the GC applies for(prisoners of war).

are there between a soldier and a terrorist?

is the difference enough to deny/or prmote one the right to certain freedoms?

i think my & your answers to these ?'s differ substantially.

 

We should IMO keep are options open for interrogation methods when it comes to terrorists since they may/will have knowledge of pending acts of terrorism.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Armjan, international law definitely isn't your element. I just don't quite understand why anyone would be so keen on arguing over a subject if he doesn't have the foggiest notion of it.

 

Firstly, what you have quoted is not the "1st provision of GC" (???) but para. 1 of the so-called "common Article 3" of four GCs. It actually applies to non-international armed conflicts, i.e. civil war in the wider sense of the word.

 

If you wanted to show which categories of persons belong to the category of POWs under GCs and Prots, you should have quoted GC 3 Art. 4:

 

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

 

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

 

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

( a ) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

( b ) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

( c ) that of carrying arms openly;

( d ) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

 

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

 

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

 

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

 

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

 

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

 

(2) …..

 

So while none of the GCs or protocols protects terrorists per se, it not quite so unlikely that a great many persons belonging to the above categories have automatically been branded "terrorists" and locked up in Guantanamo without any consideration or scrutiny. In fact, the bulk of the international criticism leveled at the US for the reported violations of GCs has been exactly for this reason. If so, the violations are not only very serious human rights violations but also amount to "grave breaches" of GCs under GC 3 Art 130, which are crimes under international law:

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment , including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or  wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.

As far as the rights of "real" terrorists are concerned, in our context it doesn't matter who "terrorists" are and what they have done. Current international law contains no comprehensive definition of terrorism, despite the considerable number of anti-terrorism conventions, hence the wide possibilities for abuse of the concept by branding a terrorist whoever has taken up arms. However, according to GC 3 Art 5:

 

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Strictly speaking, GCs and Prots deal with the victims of armed conflicts and POWs and not with the rights of "ordinary" detainees, prisoners, or the accused. These latter categories are protected by international customary law and international human rights law. What is important here is that they are entitled to humane treatment as of absolute right. In other words, the prohibition torture and inhuman treatment is absolute under current international law irrespective of the victim's former conduct. Accordingly your justification of "keeping options open for interrogation methods when it comes to terrorists" totters on the brink of justifying a jus cogens crime.

 

The International Court of Justice, in its celebrated Barcelona Traction decision, stated that the "rules concerning the basic rights of the human person" are erga omnes obligations, and therefore their violations constitute international crimes that rise to the level of jus cogens. The term "jus cogens" means "the compelling law" and, as such, a jus cogens norm holds the highest hierarchical position among all other legal norms and principles – domestic or international. As a consequence of that standing, jus cogens norms are deemed to be "peremptory" and non-derogable.

 

According to the UN anti-torture Convention:

"Torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Art 2 para 2 of the Convention states that :

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

The European Court of Human Rights has also dealt extensively with the use of certain interrogation techniques in the context of terrorism, notably in cases against the UK (IRA) and Turkey (PKK), ruling consistently that there can be no derogation from the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.

 

I could quote a dozen other treaties, including the Statute of the new International Criminal Court and a hundred or so pages of international case law. But one doesn't need all that to figure out (and I guess that's what Stormy has been saying all this time) that the current US administration doesn't give a rat's arse about international law, or, if comes to that, for the lives of those who can't be possibly be cozened into voting Republican during the next elections.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Solaris