Murdering Khader Adnan

Murdering Khader Adnan

by Stephen Lendman

February 10, 2012 Adnan's a political prisoner hunger striker against gross Israeli repression and injustice. Two previous articles discussed his case and grave health condition after 55 days without food. Irish republican/British MP Bobby Sands lasted 66 before expiring at age 27. Global marches, strikes and riots followed his death. In France, many towns and cities named streets after him. Iran renamed Winston Churchill Street Bobby Sands Street. New Jersey's legislature passed a resolution 34 - 29 honoring his "courage and commitment." The night he died, the Grateful Dead held a Nassau Coliseum concert on his behalf. Guitarist Bob Weir dedicated his song "He's Gone" to him. Instead of expressing remorse, Britain's Margaret Thatcher shamelessly vilified him. The Hindustan Times condemned her, calling it unprecedented "in a civilized country" to let a fellow MP die of starvation. The New York Times contemptuously said: "Britain's prime minister Thatcher is right in refusing to yield political status to Bobby Sands (but by appearing) unfeeling and unresponsive (she gave Sands) the crown of martyrdom." In Adnan's own words: "My dignity is more precious than food." He's willing to die courageously defending it. West Bank, Gaza, and other protesters joined Adnan's strike supportively. Global tweets circulate on his behalf. Expect much more if he dies. On February 8, Amnesty International said Israel uses "administrative detention to lock up Palestinian activists without charge, violating their rights to a fair trial." AI said "Israel must release or try Palestinian detainee on prolonged hunger strike." After examining him on January 29 (his only medical contact since arrested), Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) said: "His clothes were dirty. His finger(nails) were not trimmed for a long time, and he started to lose his hair." Not having showed since arrested, "(h)is body odor was unpleasant, and (he) lost a third of his weight." He's fading fast, "suffers from chest pains, and feels he has days, maybe hours, to live." Hospitalized, he's shackled painfully to his bed. Prison guards monitor him constantly. Israel's administrative detention practice violates fundamental human rights. PHR-I demanded he be released. Expect Israel callously to let him die. Rogue states show no mercy nor afford justice to victims. Condemning Adnan to death fits its degenerate pattern. On February 8, human rights organization Al-Haq expressed solidarity with him, saying: "Throughout his detention, (he) was subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment, including physical abuse, prolonged periods of interrogation, isolation and unsanitary conditions of detention." His condition's now extremely grave. Yet prison authorities shamelessly called his health "acceptable." They found no grounds for shortening his detention or releasing him. Al-Haq said Israel's administrative detention practice without charge "constitutes a serious breach of international humanitarian and human rights law." Permitted only under exceptional conditions, Israel uses it abusively against political and human rights activists to hold them indefinitely. As a result, hundreds of Palestinians suffer abusively in Israeli prisons under horrendous conditions, including isolation and brutalizing torture. Amid growing concerns for Adnan's health, the Palestinian Council of Human Rights Organizations (PCHRO) demanded Israel immediately release him so he'll get proper medical treatment. PCHRO urged international community members to act on his behalf and abide by their legal obligation to do so. In light of the European Parliament's position on Palestinian prisoners, it asked MEPs to confront Israeli authorities and send a fact-finding mission to examine other arbitrarily detained Palestinians. Global Media React Major media rarely mention Palestinian prisoners, never truthfully with full disclosure. On February 8, BBC reported his "critical condition" without explaining Israel's appalling injustice. Like US media scoundrels, BBC displays distorted, one-sided pro-Israeli bias and hostile Palestinian antipathy. Its inglorious tradition continues on all major world and national issues, especially those related to wealth, power, and imperial lawlessness. On February 9, AP did no better. It spuriously called him a West Bank spokesman for "an Iranian-backed militant group that has killed dozens of Israelis in suicide bombings and other attacks...." In fact, he's a Palestinian activist/political prisoner willing to die expressing opposition to Israeli injustice. A Final Comment On February 9, Israel's Military Court will hold a special final appeal session bedside at Safad Hospital where Adnan's held, shackled to his bed, near death. Moving him to court could hasten it. On February 8, the Palestinian Authority called for his immediate release. The Addameer prisoner support/human rights group expressed "its utmost concern" for his health and holds Israel responsible, adding: Extreme weight loss left him "incredibly small and his clothes haven't been changed and he hasn't showered since being arrested. His nails haven't been cut and there were blotches on his face and teeth." Samidoun, the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, said Tommy McKearney, a former Irish republican hunger striker sent Adnan a solidarity video message. His wife Randa said he's targeted for "assassination," but his spirit's high and determination resolute to strike against Israel's "illegitimate and inhumane policies." Along with global actions on his behalf, dozens of Ofer prisoners began hunger striking in solidarity. Adnan's a national hero headed for martyrdom for a just cause.

Audacious propels drones, cowardice perishes intone!

Audacious propels drones, cowardice perishes intone!

Maimuna Ashraf

February 10, 2012 A verity well recognised has been officially acknowledged now; President Obama has admitted that US drone aircraft have hit Taliban and al-Qaeda targets within Pakistan. In October, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged the CIA’s drone programme but without specifically indicating where they were used in Pakistan, however now Obama has indicated that most of the strikes were in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), 'Pakistan’s lawless tribal zone, a region where the capacities of the military in that country may not be able to get them’. The all lately said by Obama about use of drones in a chat with web users on Google + and YouTube, tells about Obama’s endeavour to better the notorious status of drones, to justify the 'blind weapon’, to tell its people that drone is perfectly hitting the extensive targets and to give an impression that American strategies and soldiers are really showing upshots. Nevertheless other than these, there are numerous other pros and cons implied by several queries.It is said by Obama "drones are the targeted focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases and so on". If it is such an American centred strategy, then are we supposed to express joy that these drones are killing American enemies and securing Americans? What’s about Pakistan’s security? The drones are falling on Pakistan’s territory so what safety it is bringing for Pakistan? These drones are stated as targeted focused effort, so have these drones always focused its target and never killed any one beyond its target?Drone is an Unmanned Aircraft System or a remotely piloted aircraft. It functions either by the remote control of a navigator or pilot autonomously, as a self-directing entity. However using a pilotless machine to execute terrorists is a scariest move as drone warfare is becoming more automated and the lines of accountability becoming less clear. Many familiar with robotic warfare are incredulous about this claim. It is estimated that in near future drones with artificial intelligence would be able to take decision about a human whether the person is terrorist or not and to shoot the target or not. It will indeed be a dangerous escalation, as the human error in any machine can’t be neglected. It is said by a robot expert that 'some critics have worried that UAV operators – controlling drones from half a world away – could become detached and less caring about killing, given the distance, and this may lead to more unjustified strikes and collateral damage’. Isn’t the drone domination fanning the blind and dirty war? The man versus machine antagonism willresult in unpardonable, unlawful human homicides?In last year, 64 US missile strikes were reported in Pakistan’s tribal belt, down from 101 reported in 2010, according to AFP tallies. Aren’t these drone strikes less meddling than troop’s incursion? Isn’t it a cross border violation? Aren’t they infringing national and international law? Pakistan’s Foreign Office in response to Obama statement has called the strikes unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable, however just condemning the act shows the dubious position of Pakistan on drones. Pakistan’s Prime Minister in a recent TV interview stated: 'It’s a wrong impression that Pakistan is supporting drone attacks, we have never allowed US to throw drones on us’. Does the PM statement somehow alternatively means that we have told them not to throw drones on us? Did we ever respond their infringement? Obama’s statement has somehow unveiled double standards of Pakistani government that kept on silently nodding on US drone attacks. Pakistani government that seems verbally assertive for making new provinces, why don’t make FATA a separate province and try to practise the writ of government and some laws so the others may not find any reason to say that 'Pakistan’s lawless tribal zone was the target’. US is targeting lawless zone but by violating international and domestic law, a fact internationally highlighted as well, recently The Sydney Morning Herald published a column of Justin Randle, that criticised United States spy agency CIA’s drone attacks inside Pakistan as illegal and outside the law. Likewise New York Times reporter, David Rohde who was kidnapped for seven months in Pakistan, avowed drones as a "terrifying presence". Obama stated 'drones had not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’. The statement strongly contradicts the reality. The lethal drones outfitted with Hellfire missiles mainly operates in north-west Pakistan. According to their own New America Foundation, an unbiased think tank in Washington, has figured out that these drone smacks have immensely shoot up under Obama’s administration, over past eight years the drone strikes in Pakistan have massacred at least 1,715 people, and injured 2,680. Another report published last year by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism demonstrated the figures killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan from 2004-mid 2011, it showed, between 392 and 781 killings were civilians and 175 were children (estimates a 32 per cent civilian death rate), while the CIA made claims that approximately 45 civilian were killed only. However the agency claimed 'we never make mistakes’.People of Pakhtun tribal belt have also spoken about the constant fear of death due to ongoing drone presence. Some months back, a 16-year-old Tariq Aziz with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan, were blown up by drones while they were travelling in car. Tariq was accumulating photographic evidence of the damage of drones’ strikes for the UK legal charity Reprieve. Was Tariq a militant or threat to Americans? Did he make a mistake to choose this work to do? Was he killed for some self-interest? When CIA relies on the reports of ground operatives and informants, chances of unreliable reports and innocent fatalities grows double. Study tells about many of such informants seeking their own interests by naming their opponents. Hence this strategy is not reliable, as said by a former director of US National Intelligence, Dennis Blair: "Drone strikes are no longer the most effective strategy for eliminating al-Qaeda’s ability to attack us."Defence Secretary once stated that al-Qaeda is no more stronger in Afghan-Pak tribal areas; its operational wing has been shifted to African countries, so whom they are killing here other than civilians? On one side, the US is seeking dialogues with the Taliban and on the other seeking their deaths by drone attacks. For US, calling civilian deaths as collateral damage is not justified and on our side calling it 'cowards’ war’ is not justified too, US drones cannot be a coward action; the US Military is impudently fighting its wars as designed. Cowardice lies nearer home, we need to charge our own establishment with cowardice and treason for foreign invasion and death of Pakistan’s citizens. Nonetheless, our weakness is frequently turning them more audacious and piercing us persistently.