US: Military Commission Trials for 9/11 Suspects a Blow to Justice

US: Military Commission Trials for 9/11 Suspects a Blow to Justice

April 4, 2011

US Attorney General Eric Holder.

(New York) - The Obama administration's decision to prosecute the five men accused of plotting the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States before a military commission is a serious setback for justice, Human Rights Watch said today. Reversing his November 2009 announcement that the men would be tried in federal court in New York, Attorney General Eric Holder announced on April 4, 2011 that the suspects will face trials before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay.
"The Obama administration has squandered a key opportunity to reject the unlawful counterterrorism policies of the past," said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. "It has sacrificed fundamental protections under the US constitution and international law in what may be the single most important case of President Obama's tenure."
The military commissions at Guantanamo have been marred by procedural irregularities, the use of evidence obtained by coercion, inconsistent application of ever-changing rules of evidence, inadequate defense resources, poor translation, and lack of public access. Although the Military Commissions Act of 2009 made significant improvements over the Bush administration's system, the law still departs in fundamental ways from fair trial procedures used in US federal courts and under international law binding on the United States.
"Any trial in the military commission system will carry the stigma of Guantanamo and be subject to challenge and delay," Prasow said. "It will keep the world focused on how the defendants were treated rather than the crimes they are accused of committing. A verdict in the federal court system, by contrast, would be recognized throughout the world as legitimate."
According to federal rules relating to the location of a case, a murder trial must take place in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. In the case of the 9/11 attacks, the trials could have been held in the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, or the Western District of Pennsylvania.
In November 2009, Holder announced that the five 9/11 defendants would be moved from Guantanamo to stand trial in federal district court in New York City, a site of the attacks. In December 2009, prosecutors in New York obtained a sealed grand jury indictment against the five co-accused. After New York City officials raised objections based on purported security and cost concerns, the Obama administration put the decision as to the trial location on hold.
In December 2010, Congress passed restrictions on the use of Defense Department funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the US, either for prosecution or detention. The restrictions made it more difficult for the Obama administration to hold the 9/11 trials in the US, but not impossible. The restrictions expire at the end of this year and the administration still could have used Department of Justice or Homeland Security funds for the same purpose, Human Rights Watch said.
In a prepared statement, Holder said that, although he still believes federal court is the right venue to try the 9/11 case and that he could have proved the defendant's guilt in that forum, congressional restrictions gave him no choice but to bring the case in the military commissions. "Members of Congress [...] have taken one of the nation's most tested counterterrorism tools of the table and tied our hands in a way that could have serious ramifications," Holder said.
"The Obama administration blamed congressional restrictions for the decision to try the 9/11 suspects in a military commission, but in fact it had two years to bring the case to trial in US federal courts," Prasow said. "The congressional restrictions on Guantanamo transfers are no excuse for failing to prosecute the case in US federal courts."
Because federal courts are governed by over 200 years of precedent, verdicts obtained in them are more likely to withstand evidentiary, procedural, and constitutional challenges. Military commission proceedings also progress much more slowly than federal court terrorism cases. During the nine years since the military commissions were first announced, military prosecutors have brought only six cases to completion, four of them by plea bargain. Two convictions from 2008 are still only at the first level of appeal. Federal courts, by contrast, have prosecuted hundreds of terrorism-related offenses during the same period, convicting 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, among many others.
Many family members of 9/11 victims have spoken out in favor of civilian trials both because they support fair trials in the time-tested federal system and also because they want to be able to witness the proceedings.
"Trying the 9/11 case in New York made sense because it is where the crime happened and where most of the family members of the victims live," Prasow said. "Now with the trial taking on a military base, far away, many of those affected will be shut out of the process."

Iraq: Security Forces Raid Press Freedom Group

Iraq: Security Forces Raid Press Freedom Group

Equipment, Documents Seized in 2 a.m. Break-In

(New York) - Iraqi authorities should immediately investigate a raid by security forces on the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory (JFO), a prominent Iraqi press freedom group, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch also called on the government to ensure the speedy and safe return of all seized equipment and documents.

At about 2 a.m. on February 23, 2011, more than 20 armed men, some of them wearing brown military uniforms and red berets, and others wearing black military uniforms with skull-and-cross-bones insignia on their helmets, pulled up in Humvees outside the group's office in Baghdad and broke in, a witness told Human Rights Watch. The security forces conducted a destructive search of the office that lasted more than an hour and seized the organization's computers, external hard drives, cameras, cell phones, CDs, documents, and several flak jackets and helmets marked "Press," the witness said.
"This raid on the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory shows the contempt of Iraqi authorities for groups that challenge the state's human rights record," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch.
A spokesman for the Baghdad Operations Command confirmed to Human Rights Watch that the men were part of the Iraqi army but gave few other details.
Ziyad al-Ajili, the group's executive director, told Human Rights Watch that the authorities "were obviously sending us a message to stop our work of supporting journalists.... This kind of governmental intimidation is precisely what we try to shed light on." In Iraqi television interviews over the days leading up to the raid, al-Ajili voiced support for the right of Iraqis to protest peacefully and the media's right to report on the protests.
Human Rights Watch visited the group's office the morning after the raid and saw extensive damage, including broken furniture, destroyed equipment, kicked-in doors, and ripped-up posters and literature for the organization's events, such as their annual "Press Courage Awards." Framed photographs of journalists killed in Iraq since 2003 were strewn on the floor, covered in broken glass.
Human Rights Watch expressed concern that authorities would not return the computer hard drives and other electronic data storage devices seized from the group.
Al-Ajili said he fears that the authorities used the raid as a pretext to close the office, which serves as an informal gathering point for local journalists. In late January, the group held an awards ceremony in Baghdad, honoring investigative journalists who had uncovered corruption and other wrongdoing.
Although improvements in security since 2008 have reduced the assaults against media workers, journalists and press freedom advocates remain at risk in Iraq. On February 21, Human Rights Watch released a survey report, "At a Crossroads: Human Rights in Iraq Eight Years After the US-led Invasion," which documents attacks against media and press restrictions. The report calls on the government to protect the rights of journalists and to amend its penal code and other laws that violate freedom of speech.

Stop the presses, literally in Iraq

Stop the presses, literally in Iraq

The US military praises Iraqi security forces as they crack down on press freedom.

The US has remained largely silent following Iraq's recent crackdown on press freedom [GALLO/GETTY] The first months of this year have been grim for free speech in Iraq. As revolts swept across the Middle East and North Africa, they spread to Iraqi cities and towns, but took on a very different cast. In February, in places like Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul and Tikrit, protesters took to the streets, intent on reform - focused on ending corruption and the chronic shortages of food, water, electricity and jobs - but not toppling the government of prime minister Nuri al-Maliki. The response by government security forces, who have arrested, beaten, and shot protesters, leaving hundreds dead or wounded, however, was similar to that of other autocratic rulers around the region. Attacks by Iraqi forces on freedom of the press, in the form of harassment, detention, and assaults on individual journalists, raids of radio stations, the offices of newspapers and press freedom groups have also shown the dark side of Maliki's regime. Many journalists have been prevented from covering protests or have curtailed their reporting in response to brutality, raising the spectre of a return to the days of Saddam Hussein's regime when press freedom was a fiction. Maliki's US allies, however, have turned a blind eye to the violence and repression, with the top spokesman for the US military in Iraq praising the same Iraqi units which eyewitnesses have identified as key players in the crackdown while ignoring the outrages attributed to them. In addition to providing training to these units, the US military is currently focused on upgrading the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, including the creation a national intelligence and operations centre and more sophisticated use and understanding of social media, which some fear may further increase state repression. Maliki cracks down After ousting long-time dictator Saddam Hussein from power in April 2003, the US government pumped an estimated half a billion dollars or more, much of it by way of the US defence department, into the development of a national press in Iraq. The Pentagon's plan, as documents obtained by the National Security Archive show, was to dominate the media landscape in cooperation with a friendly Iraqi national government. In spite of this, an initial bloom of independent media outlets created a vibrant environment for journalism in post-Saddam Iraq. Sectarian divisions, a lethal insurgency, and governmental interference followed, however, and took an increasing toll on the free press. "Even before February's surge of violence, the deteriorating situation had caught the attention of the world's media monitors," writes Sherry Ricchiardi, an expert on the press in the Middle East, in a newly issued report to the Centre for International Media Assistance on "Iraq's News Media After Saddam". Samer Muscati, a researcher for Human Rights Watch's Middle East division who just completed a fact-finding mission in Iraq, echoed this, noting that - while more journalists were killed in attacks during the height of Iraq's insurgency - the strengthening of the Iraqi government has led to different hazards for reporters. "They're at more risk, now, of being harassed or interrogated or targeted by security forces or their proxies," he told me by telephone. Reports suggest that Maliki is now intent on dismantling much of what remains of the free press in Iraq. At 2 a.m. on February 23, 20 armed men, clad in distinctive uniforms topped by red berets or helmets bearing a skull and cross-bones, burst into the Baghdad offices of the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory, an Iraqi press freedom group. For more than an hour they tore apart the facility and confiscated computers, external hard drives, cameras, cell phones and documents, according to a detailed report by Human Rights Watch. Forty-eight hours later, on what was billed as a "Day of Rage", Iraqi security forces detained 300 leading journalists, lawyers, artists and intellectuals who took part in or covered the protests over domestic issues and government accountability. Four journalists who were picked up long after leaving the protests in Baghdad's Tahrir Square told the Washington Post that troops operating out of the headquarters of an army intelligence unit had beaten them and threatened them with execution. Reporters also had their cameras and memory cards confiscated, Muscati told me. Other assaults on press freedom, including attacks on radio and television stations and the roughing up of reporters, took place all across the country. In early March, following another round of demonstrations, members of Iraq's Federal Police Force and the Baghdad Operation Command, a special force controlled by Maliki, arrived at offices of the Iraqi Nation party and the Iraqi Communist party – two political parties critical of the prime minister. They were told they had 24 hours to vacate the premises. The publicly-owned buildings were being turned over to the Iraqi Ministry of Defence. Jassin Helfi, a leader of the Communist party, said that their offices and the headquarters of the party's newspaper were targeted following a summit between Maliki's party and the Communist party's leadership. "The objective of the meeting was to try and convince us not to participate in the demonstrations, and when we did, our punishment was the order to close our offices," Helfi told the New York Times. National pride In the days after the crackdown, I talked with Major General Jeffrey Buchanan, the chief spokesman for the United States Forces-Iraq (USF-I), and asked him about Iraq's army intelligence units and Federal Police Force. He had a markedly different view of the US-trained security forces that have reportedly been deployed to squelch dissent and talked to me about his own personal relationship with one of the units. Involved in training Iraqi forces almost every year since 2003 (the only exception being 2007), Buchanan told me by telephone: "I personally was involved in training the Federal Police a number of years ago and it's pretty inspirational seeing them on several subsequent tours and how much progress they have made." Buchanan also made special reference to the instruction provided by NATO advisers to both street-level federal policemen and leaders in higher headquarters, singling out Italy's Carabinieri for their contribution.  "They have helped to build a Federal Police Force that is the pride of the country," he said. Seen by the US military as a key to freeing up the Iraqi Army from policing duties, the Federal Police have received instruction, according to Buchanan, "on everything from marksmanship, patrolling procedures, arrest procedures, etc. all the way up to counter-terrorism operations." As for the Iraqi Army's intelligence units, Buchanan told me that, at this very moment, the US is heavily involved in upgrading their capabilities. "This is actually one of our major focus areas for the remainder of 2011," he said. The Iraqi government already has an impressive intelligence gathering capability when it comes to human intelligence (called HUMINT by the US military), Buchanan explained to me, but lacks a comprehensive, national computer-based system for collecting, analysing and disseminating that information. "Somebody who may be running sources as part of a HUMINT network in Mosul," he said offering an example, might keep that information in notebook and might never send it on to authorities in Baghdad. As a result, the US military is helping the Iraqi security forces develop a national intelligence and operations centre to share information across agencies and throughout the country, creating a massive government database. Samer Muscati says there are definite accountability issues, even if US forces are scheduled to leave Iraq this year. "If the US is training these troops it has a responsibility to make sure that they're trained in ways that respect people's human rights, respect due process, and don't lead to abusive behaviours or coercive methods," he told me. In an email interview, Sherry Ricchiardi suggested that the US military could better train Iraqi security forces on how to deal with the media, specifically breaking news situations where military and police have often focused on thwarting reporters' efforts to cover stories. Facebook friends Like other countries across the region, social media has played a major role in activist organising in Iraq. The Washington Post noted that the same progressive young Iraqis who organised the February 25 "Day of Rage" that brought tens of thousands, from all across the country, into the streets saw their Facebook group leap from 700 followers to 4,000 in a country with extremely limited internet access (another group they started had, by mid-March, 10,000 members). Since then, Facebook has played a widening role in the protest movement. In Egypt, the Mubarak regime shut down the internet in an attempt to squelch dissent. In Libya, Tunisia and Bahrain, the governments have all taken steps to censor or stifle internet-aided activism. In Iraq, the US military is currently instructing the Iraqi government on more effective and sophisticated use of the internet. "We, right now, are dealing with the ministry of defence to help them understand how to employ Facebook," said Buchanan. The goal, he said, was for the Iraqi military to more effectively engage with Iraqi citizens, but as with the training offered to Iraqi police, fears exist that it could be employed for more sinister purposes. Human Rights Watch's Muscati explained that protest organisers in Baghdad said that they've seen on-line countermeasures employed against their organising efforts on Facebook. "People are being targeted via social media," Muscati said. "Abuses by the security forces and others are happening now. Even though Iraq is not as sophisticated as other governments in terms of its use of social media, it seems to be effectively countering the protests to some extent." Facts on the ground "Conditions on the ground continue to worsen for Iraq's journalists," Sherry Ricchiardi told me. This is backed up by figures released, last month, by the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory which counted more than 160 attacks on reporters, including 33 arrests or detentions and 40 instances of obstruction or the confiscation or damaging of equipment, over just two weeks. Additionally, according to Muscati, state security forces have killed more than 17 protesters and injured more than 250 persons during the recent unrest. General Buchanan talked about democracy, dissent, and protests in Iraq only obliquely, preferring to focus on what the Iraqi government was learning from demonstrations elsewhere in the region. He said that unrest throughout the Middle East and North Africa had "reinforced the Iraqis' understanding of what democracy is all about." While noting that Iraq's media was important to keeping the Maliki regime accountable to the people, Buchanan failed to address the severe crackdown on press freedom or the violence against journalists and indirectly mentioned only that the Iraqi "government is wrestling with how do they do that [allow for press freedom] and ensure protection of the people at the same time." Sherry Ricchiardi sees the recent repression in starker terms.  "It is part of the orchestrated crackdown on media," she wrote to me.  "The [Iraqi] government and security forces appear to be getting bolder in attacks on media." When asked if General Lloyd Austin, the commander of US forces in Iraq, had addressed the issue of media repression with his Iraqi counterparts, Capt. Dan Churchill, a spokesman for US forces in Iraq, explained to me that the general applauded the Iraqi government's "decision to investigate alleged incidents of excessive force by the Iraqi security forces." When asked for an official statement on the crackdown, Churchill responded by email: "We condemn any and all attacks on media organisations and journalists in Iraq. The protection of journalistic freedom is an essential aspect of all democratic societies." The US military continues, however, to advise and train Iraqi security forces and bolster their potential to suppress free speech. It already seems to be taking toll. "I think journalists are more reluctant to cover protests after what happened on February 25th because they're concerned for their security and they got the message that they shouldn't be doing this," Muscati said. If more journalists are silenced, more media outlets shut down and self-censorship takes hold, the results could be catastrophic. "The question now is whether Iraq will move forward on human rights and due process," Muscati told me, "or whether will revert to being a police state again." Nick Turse is an historian, essayist, investigative journalist, the associate editor of TomDispatch.com, and currently a fellow at Harvard University's Radcliffe Institute. His latest book is The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan (Verso Books). He is also the author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/04/2011415181326266737.html

Have The Tea Parties Been Neoconned?

April 21, 2011
 Have The Tea Parties Been Neoconned?

By Chuck Baldwin

Back in February of 2010, I appeared on Neil Cavuto’s FOXBusiness TV show to talk about the emergence and effectiveness of America’s Tea Party movement. I warned FOX biz host Charles Payne that I was very concerned about the Tea Parties being infiltrated and taken over by big-government neocons.

See my interview on Neil Cavuto’s show (hosted by Charles Payne) here.

With more than a year having gone by since that interview, I believe the concerns I expressed on FOX were more than warranted. I am seeing more and more Tea Parties fall into the same trap, as did their predecessors back in the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994 and ‘95.

Right here in my home State of Montana, voters overwhelmingly threw the liberal Democrats out of both State houses and replaced them with Republicans who campaigned on strong conservative rhetoric. But what has happened since? Neocon Republicans in leadership positions squashed the best legislation and bullied compromised, big-government legislation through both chambers. The result: big-government neocons, once again, stymied and squashed the efforts of constitutionalist GOP legislators.

A press release at the half-way point of the Montana legislative session stated,

"According to Montana Conservatives’ just-released mid session scorecard, the new wave of Republican legislators elected in November’s landslide are actually voting less conservative than their party’s incumbents.

"This is not good news for Tea Party organizers and other conservative activists, who were hopeful the strong conservative mood of the fall elections would sweep into office a new breed of bolder conservative voices. Instead, the organization’s Taxpayer Advisory Bulletin (TAB) reveals that returning GOP legislators (including those who switched houses) voted 46% conservative through the transmittal break, while newcomers graded a slightly lower 43%. Democratic legislators had an average conservative score of 7%.

"Commenting, MC spokesman Roger Koopman said, ‘This poor performance of Republican freshmen perpetuates what is functionally a three-party system in Helena, consisting of small government Republicans, big government Republicans and big government Democrats. The pattern has existed for years. Consequently, even with large Republican majorities in both houses, conservative ideas remain in the minority and the overall thrust of the legislature is toward bigger, more intrusive government, with greater state control and less individual freedom.’"

See the TAB press release and report here.

What the report does not make a point to say is that the poor performance of many of these freshman GOP legislators is primarily due to the political pressure brought upon them by big-government neocons in leadership positions within the GOP State caucus. This is the same thing that has been going on in State legislatures all over America, and even more so in Washington, D.C. When the courageous freshman class of 1994 was elected to the US House of Representatives, everyone was talking about the great "Conservative Revolution" that had just taken place. Conservative freshman House members such as Helen Chenowith, Bob Barr, Steve Largent, J.C. Watts, J.D. Hayworth, Joe Scarborough, Sonny Bono, etc., marched into the US Capitol with broad support from the American electorate and a sense of commitment to reign in an out-of-control federal leviathan in Washington, D.C. So, what happened? Were any federal departments dismantled? No. Was the size and scope of the federal government reduced? No. Was federal spending reduced? No. Within a year from that historic election in 1994, the "Conservative Revolution" was dead, and it was "business as usual" in Washington, D.C.

Why did this happen? Two reasons: big-government neocon GOP Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and big-government neocon GOP Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. These two big-government establishment phony conservatives used their leadership positions to stymie, steamroll, and squash the conservative agenda of the 1994 conservative freshman Republicans.

And the same way that Gingrich and Lott killed the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994 in Washington, D.C., big-government neocons in the State legislatures (including here in Montana) have killed and are killing the limited-government revolutions of the various Tea Parties in 2010 and ’11. Beyond that, many Tea Party leaders and activists are currently touting the Presidential candidacy of the same man who helped kill the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994: former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

In my interview on FOX, I said that I was angrier with the Republican Party than I was the Democrat Party. If you listened to the interview referenced above, you heard my reason why: with Democrats there is no pretense. One knows exactly what the Donkeys stand for: Big Government, more taxes, more spending, more welfare, etc. Republicans, however, constantly campaign for less government, less taxes, less spending, less welfare, etc., but after they are elected, they continue the big-spending ways of their colleagues on the other side of the aisle (then throw in their own propensities to expand a burgeoning Police State and Warfare State). Say what you want, at least Democrats are honest about their affinity for Big Government.

If Tea Party activists really believe they are going to change the size and direction of government (at any level) by promoting and electing people such as Newt Gingrich, they are living in fantasyland. (Or, if they live in Montana, they are smoking too much of the weed that they seem hell-bent to deny everyone else!)

Furthermore, this whole Republican vs. Democrat, or "conservative" vs. liberal, paradigm is a joke, anyway! Voters have been replacing Democrats with Republicans, liberals with "conservatives" (and vice versa) for decades; and what has it gotten us? Nothing but bigger and bigger government; more and more government spending; more and more welfare programs; more and more taxes; more and more Police-State legislation; more and more political correctness; more and more environmental wackoism; more and more foreign wars; less and less freedom; and less and less State autonomy.

Koopman’s "three party" description is well taken, except I might refine it a little by maintaining that we still have only two parties: socialist Democrats and neocon Republicans in one party, and limited-government, freedom-oriented constitutionalists in the other party. It’s time that people start identifying big-government neocons in the GOP as being nothing more than a clandestine fifth column unit of the Democrat Party!

If Tea Parties have a death wish, they will promote and support big government neocons such as Newt Gingrich. If they want to truly change the course of their states and country, they will promote and support only those men and women who understand what constitutionalism, limited-government, and liberty really mean–and who have the courage and fortitude to actually defend those principles after being elected. Anything less is just more of the same.

Obama administration killed off independent U.N. investigation into Israeli war crimes in Gaza

Obama administration killed off independent U.N. investigation into Israeli war crimes in Gaza

by Alex Kane

Mondoweiss , April 23, 2011 It was a shocking event in a twenty-two day assault filled with them:  the Israeli military shelled a United Nations compound in Gaza City January 15, where humanitarian aid like fuel and water pumping stations were stationed as well as hundreds of Palestinians displaced by the Israeli bombardment.  John Ging, the Gaza Director of Operations of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) described the scene on Democracy Now! This morning, there were three rounds of white phosphorus which landed in our compound in Gaza. That set ablaze the main warehouse and the big workshop we have there for vehicles. At the time, there were 700, also, people displaced from the fighting. There were full fuel tankers there. The Israeli army have been given all the coordinates of all our facilities, including this one. They also knew that there were fuel tankers laden with fuel in the compound, and they would have known that there were hundreds of people who had taken refuge. It was one of a number of incidents during "Operation Cast Lead" where the Israeli military attacked United Nations facilities.  But the possibility of an further inquiry that would investigate violations of international law during these attacks was killed following intense U.S. lobbying, according to newly published State Department cables released by WikiLeaks and reported on by Foreign Policy's Colum Lynch.  The efforts by the Obama administration to scuttle any investigation is similar to their efforts on the Goldstone report, and shows in detail how the U.S. uses its muscle in international forums to protect Israel. A report was published in May 2009 on nine incidents where U.N. facilities were attacked by Israel.  The full report was never published, although a summary of the U.N. report stated that the "Government of Israel is responsible for the deaths and injuries that occurred within the United Nations premises" in seven of the nine incidents investigated. A number of recommendations were made for further follow-up, which included seeking compensation from Israel and seeking public statements from Israel that allegations of Palestinian fighters firing from within UNRWA facilities were unfounded.  The most controversial recommendation included in the report was the call for an "impartial inquiry" into violations of international humanitarian law.  But the possibility of that inquiry was quashed in the cover letter to the summary of the report, written by Ki-Moon.  "As for the Board's recommendations numbers 10 and 11 [which called for further inquiries], which relate to matters that did not largely fall within the Board of Inquiry's Terms of Reference, I do not plan any further Inquiry," Ki-Moon wrote. And despite Moon's insistence at a press conference that the work of the board of inquiry was "completely independent," State Department cables tell a much different story of U.S. pressure on Moon to kill off the possibility of an independent investigation. Lynch reports: The most controversial part of the probe involved recommendations by Martin that the U.N. conduct a far-reaching investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by Israeli forces, Hamas, and other Palestinian militants. On May 4, 2009, the day before Martin's findings were presented to the media, Rice caught wind of the recommendations and phoned Ban to complain that the inquiry had gone beyond the scope of its mandate by recommending a sweeping investigation. "Given that those recommendations were outside the scope of the Board's terms of reference, she asked that those two recommendations not be included in the summary of the report that would be transmitted to the membership," according to an account contained in the May 4 cable. Ban initially resisted. "The Secretary-General said he was constrained in what he could do since the Board of Inquiry is independent; it was their report and recommendations and he could not alter them, he said," according to the cable. But Rice persisted, insisting in a subsequent call that Ban should at least "make clear in his cover letter when he transmits the summary to the Security Council that those recommendations exceeded the scope of the terms of reference and no further action is needed." Ban offered no initial promise. She subsequently drove the point home again, underlining the "importance of having a strong cover letter that made clear that no further action was needed and would close out this issue." Ban began to relent, assuring Rice that "his staff was working with an Israeli delegation on the text of the cover letter." After completing the cover letter, Ban phoned back Rice to report that he believed "they had arrived at a satisfactory cover letter. Rice thanked the Secretary-General for his exceptional efforts on such a sensitive issue." At the following day's news conference, Ban flat-out rejected Martin's recommendation for an investigation. While underscoring the board's independent nature, he made it clear that "it is not my intention to establish any further inquiry." Although he acknowledged publicly that he had consulted with Israel on the findings, he did not say it had been involved in the preparation of the cover letter killing off the call for an investigation. Instead, he only made a request to the Israelis to pay the U.N. more than $11 million in financial compensation for the damage done to U.N. facilities. Alex Kane blogs on Israel/Palestine and Islamophobia in the United States at alexbkane.wordpress.com. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.  Read all of 'The Palestine Cables' reports here.

Iraqi Kurd demo fatalities rise to 10

Iraqi Kurd demo fatalities rise to 10

AFP

April 23, 2011 SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq - A 28-year-old Kurdish protester died of gunshot wounds on Saturday, becoming the tenth person killed in more than two months of rallies in Iraq's northern autonomous region, a doctor said. "Hardi Farukh, who was wounded by a bullet to the head during demonstrations on April 18 in Sulaimaniyah, died this morning," said Hawar Naqshabandi, the director of the emergency hospital in Iraqi Kurdistan's second-biggest city of Sulaimaniyah. Farukh, who was engaged to be married and worked in a publishing house, was the tenth person to die in protests that have raged in the region since mid-February, Naqshabandi added. The oldest fatality in clashes with security forces was 60-year-old Mohammed Rasheed, who suffered bullet wounds to the chest on February 25 in the town of Qalar in Sulaimaniyah province, while the youngest was 12-year-old Garmeyan Ahmed, shot in the head on the same day in the province's town of Chamchamal. The demonstrations in Sulaimaniyah were initially against graft, nepotism and a two-party stranglehold over Kurdish politics, and came soon after uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt deposed rulers there. But in recent weeks, protesters have called for a dissolution of the Kurdish regional government, which has spurred authorities to slap a complete ban on rallies. The new rules have been widely flouted since they were issued this past week, however, including on Saturday when hundreds of students staged a sit-in at Sulaimaniyah university. International rights watchdogs have sharply criticised the Kurdish government's response to the protests. New York-based Human Rights Watch has called on the authorities to "end their widening crackdown on peaceful protests," while Reporters Without Borders in Paris said it was "deeply shocked by a spate of arbitrary arrests."

GULF OIL SPILL one Year Later: Mainstream media finally reports on sickened Gulf residents 

 

Sanjay Gupta, CNN, :

BP doctor says up to 1,500 cleanup workers sickened…
CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta sat down Wednesday for an exclusive interview with the man in charge of BP’s medical response, Dr. Kevin O’Shea. He said more than 1,500 workers have sought medical care through BP, a significant increase from previously reported numbers.

Might BP be trying to hide the risk to cleanup workers? …

Louisiana’s Health Department has reported 128 cleanup workers who have been sickened.
State clinics are telling us something else as well, that cleanup workers are being told to report to BP’s own health clinic on Grand Isle, not to go to state facilities.

La. Oil Spill Crews Suffer Mystery Illnesses, Discovery News, April 17, 2011:
Some doctors in Louisiana are seeing a rise in persistently painful signs of sicknesses they can’t pinpoint

Jamie Simon worked on a barge in the oily waters for six months following the BP spill last year, cooking for the cleanup workers, washing their clothes and tidying up after them. One year later, the 32 year old said she still suffers from a range of debilitating health problems, including racing heartbeat, vomiting, dizziness, ear infections, swollen throat, poor sight in one eye and memory loss. …
The local doctor, Mike Robichaux, said he has seen as many as 60 patients like Simon in recent weeks, as this small southern town of 10,000 bordered by swamp land and sugar cane fields grapples with a mysterious sickness that some believe is all BP’s fault. …
“I have just been sick for a long time. I just got sick and I couldn’t get better,” [cleanup worker Andy] LaBoeuf said, describing memory problems and a sore throat that has nagged him for a year. …
“As the event progresses we are seeing more and more people who are desperately ill,” [Local chemist Wilma Subra] said. …

Nabi Saleh: A tiny village’s struggle againt the occupation

Nabi Saleh: A tiny village’s struggle againt the occupation

By Idan Landau

+ 972, April 19, 2011 In just over one year of unarmed demonstrations in Nabi Saleh, a small Palestinian community in the West Bank, 155 of the village’s 500 residents  were wounded (about 60 of them children); 35 homes were damaged and dozens of the village’s people were detained. Yet even after the protest’s leader was put behind bars by the army, the struggle for the Nabi Saleh’s land continues By Idan Landau | translation: Dena Shunra Nabi Saleh, April 8 2011 (photo: Tamimi Press) The objects seen in the picture: a magazine (known as a "tampon") attached to a Tavor gun, and a human skull, attached to a neck. The gun is vertical; the neck is horizontal. You could say they’ve made contact. Inside the magazine: 12 to 16 rubber-coated metal pellets. Inside the skull: soft, gray brain tissue. Thoughts and memories. A soul. The purpose of the weapon: dispersing demonstrations at a minimum range of 40 meters. The purpose of the brain: to live. To remember such moments. Will the rubber-metal pellets go through that brain? Probably not. However, the thought about it doubtlessly goes through the man’s mind. One could say that this is actually happening at the photographed moment. Does pressing the magazine to the head of a man lying on the ground constitute "dispersion of demonstrations" at a minimal range of 40 meters? Pointless question. That is not the point here. The point is sowing fear and terror, emotional terror. Was the picture taken out of context? Did the demonstrator "provoke" the soldiers, perhaps by throwing stones? That is a disingenuous question, the very answer for which takes it out of context. As if the "provocation" and the throwing of stones have no context; as if they do not occur against the background of the basic, unchanging context of occupation and dispossession. What the hell is an Israeli soldier doing on Palestinian land? Why is he protecting an unlawful settlement that robs its Palestinian neighbors, and how does he even expect the Palestinian to just sit there and do nothing when faced with this scandalous conduct? This could have been the end of the post. For anyone who knows anything about the events at Nabi Saleh, this is quite enough. But not everyone knows, and truly, what can you even understand from this laconic, routine headline that appears on the Hebrew news sites every Friday, "Riots at Nabi Saleh"? So it is appropriate to say more. That every Israeli citizen know what has been done in his name, every week, for 15 months now. ————————– The confrontations in Nabi Saleh over the past year are considered the most violent in the West Bank. In spite of the fact that the Palestinian side is adhering to the nonviolent popular protest, with women and children participating, Israel’s army has broken several records in brutality at Nabi Saleh. In March 2010, a 14-year-old youth, Ihab Barghoutti, was shot with a rubber pellet in the course of a demonstration. The pellet hit his head and he went into a coma. Of the 500 residents of the village, 155 were wounded since the beginning of the demonstrations; that’s about 30% of the population. About 60 of the people wounded are children. 35 homes were damaged by the shooting of demonstration-dispersing weapons. Fires broke out in seven of these. Based on testimonies from demonstrators, the Israeli army uses live firepower against them, too, in violation of the law. Just to be clear: throwing stones at an occupying army which prevents you from demonstrating on your own land does not constitute "violent protest." It is the expected response to someone who not only steals your land but also denies you the basic right to protest this. If the army stops acting against the residents of Nabi Saleh and just gets the hell off their lands, no one will throw stones at it. The residents of Nabi Saleh are not trying to go to the nearby settlement of Halamish and they are not endangering the settlers. They insist – every Friday – to demonstrate by a spring that was appropriated from them. The army does not even wait for the demonstrators to get out of the village. The Israeli army simply goes into the village and starts shooting at anything that moves – rubber-coated metal pellets, gas canisters, and other things. Sometimes it sprays entire streets with putrid skunk water: the houses, the windows, the potable water stored on the roofs. Not only is this collective punishment, this policy exposes the true provocateur: Village residents, who demonstrate without threatening any Israeli? Or the army, which invades their streets? (A quote from the testimony of Hedva Isscar: "The first gas canister was shot at us before we had time to get out of the village.") Like in Bil’in and Silwan, the Israeli army is trying to chop off the head of the popular protest by making arrests (did it help in Bil’in and Silwan? It did not. Does the Israeli army learn anything from this? It did not, either.) Protest leader Bassam Tamimi was arrested a month ago (in the 90’s Tamimi was tortured by the Internal Security Service [Shabak], after which he was paralyzed for a month). Like Abdallah Abu Rahme from Bil’in, Tamimi is 10 levels of morality above the army that arrested him. Here is what he says: "We want to offer our people an example and pattern of popular struggle. Since the beginning of the revolution (the establishment of the PLO) and the armed struggle we have made cumulative mistakes which the Israelis used against us, although these were merely responses to the Israeli oppression. We do not have a military answer to Israel. History teaches us that if ever we had even partial success, it was in popular uprisings: in 1936 and in 1987. It is in the popular struggle that we can prove our moral superiority to all and sundry." People with that kind of dangerous idea must be put behind lock and key. The wave of arrests at Nabi Saleh is characterized by the eradication of the difference between adults and minors. Since the protests began, more than a year ago, more than 60 residents of the village have been arrested and imprisoned (that’s approximately 13%). 29 of those imprisoned are minors. In an apparent effort to spare themselves the physical effort of running after demonstrators, Israel’s army has developed an original, new method: Army forces invade village homes at night, wakes up boys from their sleep, and photographs them. This is how they build up a database that will serve for future arrests – and to hell with civil rights and the presumption of innocence. Later, testimonies collected from minors, in violation of the law, without the presence of parents or attorneys and while denying them sleep, are used to incriminated village activists. Imagine a 14-year-old Israeli youth taken from his home, without parents in attendance, and interrogated for a seven-hour stretch about rock-throwing. Imagine him being put in detention for two and half months. Imagine having one law for you – and another for him. An Israeli soldier takes a nap in Nabi Saleh's spring (photo: Alison Avigayil Ramer) Settlers have been coveting the ancient springs in the West Bank for many years. Most of these springs are not natural, it should be noted. They were dug as part of a system of irrigation, pools, and ditches that serve the Palestinian populations. Settlers have already taken over approximately 25 such springs, with the Civil Administration ignoring their actions (This Hebrew piece explains how the system works). In 2008 the Halamish settlers went down to the Ein Al-Kous spring, placed tabernacles and benches there, marked it up with blue stars of David, and "converted" it to Judaism: now they would call it Ma’ayan Meir, for Meir Segal, one of the founders of Neve Tzoof, which was the former name of Halamish (it is always a good idea to make an outpost or spring into a commemorative site; this way it’s that much harder, politically, to return them). The Civil Administration was recruited to reinforce Jewish control by placing a sign prohibiting entry to an "Antiquities Site". It later was discovered that the sign had been placed unlawfully, without the spot having been officially declared as an archeological site, and without any findings whatsoever found there. In other words, it was a trick to prohibit entry to Arabs. And indeed, a settler-hand soon interpreted the original text and added the following words to the sign: "No entry to Arabs." Ein Al-Kous has always-and-forever been part of the heritage of the residents of Nabi Saleh and the nearby Deir Nazzam, and served for watering herds. In January 2010 the residents presented ownership documentation to the Civil Administration and since then – the C.A. is in no hurry – the documents have been under "judicial examination." Meanwhile, for more than a year, the settlers and the army have been acting as though the issue of ownership has already been decided in their favor. They are right, of course. The legalistic contortions are meant for foreign eyes, not for practical purposes. The Palestinians are again, as ever, "infiltrators" to their own land. And even if we were to assume that the land was "not legally disposed", how has the spring become prohibited to Palestinians but permitted to Jews? Now is the time to make the ever-necessary note that is always absent from reports of the "riots" in the Occupied Territories: Halamish itself is a marvel of unlawfulness. First, it was established on occupied territory, in contravention of international law. Second, it was established by force of a military appropriation order and was deceitfully converted into a civilian settlement. Third, large parts of it were constructed without plans or permits, knowing that they would be retroactively authorized by legal channels. In the confrontation between the residents of Halamish and the residents of Nabi Saleh, Israel’s army defends the law-breakers. Israel’s governments, one after another, have specialized in blatant lies to the public. A particularly effective method was the concealment of the merely-colonial expansionist greed behind military excuses. Thus, for example, the government decision dated 2 October 1977 establishing Neve Tzoof/Halamish was phrased: "the government records the decision of the Ministers’ Committee For Settlement dated 17 Tishrei 5738 (29 September 1977). The settlers will populate Army camps in Samaraia [sic] and be employed in accordance with army requirements as workers in service of the army. The government authorizes the deployment of the first nucleus to settlement in the Samaria Camp, today." "Workers in service of the army." What has changed today? That the army works in their service. What’s the difference? There is no difference. Here, too, is the reason for the especially tough measures taken by the military against the demonstrators at Nabi Saleh, in contrast with other places in the West Bank. The Nabi Saleh demonstrations threaten not the separation wall but a territory the settlers have occupied for themselves. The army operates as a militia for retention of the lands by Jews; it perceives the protest as being addressed directly to it, as there is no true difference between the interests of the settler and the interests of the soldiers guarding him. There is no doubt that this is aided by the presence of a senior office in the Halamish settlement -  Lieutenant Colonel (Res.) Itzik Shadmi, Chair of the Binyamin Settler Committee, a man whose opinions nestle comfortably between ultra-rightwing Rabbi Dov Wolfa and Kahane man Baruch Marzel.he Israeli army will lose. The settlers will lose. Israel will lose. On the road to that loss they will wound and displace countless Palestinians, but at the end they will lose. And they will lose because they do not understand what they are contending with, despite the fact that it is in plain view, before their very eyes (as you can see in the astonishing movie, below). Sometimes you need a tremendous, superhuman effort to see that there is a human being before you. And then you need another effort, no smaller than the first, to see that what you ask him to relinquish – in contrast to what you must relinquish – is the recognition of his own value as a human being. And that, he will not relinquish. ————————- Idan Landau is a linguist at the Beer-Sheba university. This post originally appeared in Hebrew on Idan’s blog. It was translated and posted here with the author’s permission.

LIBYA: REBELS OFFICIALLY CALL FOR WESTERN TROOPS

LIBYA: REBELS OFFICIALLY CALL FOR WESTERN TROOPS

AGI

April 19, 2011 (AGI) Benghazi - For the first time since clashes have started, rebels in Misrata officially called for foreign troops to be sent to Libya. Nuri Abdullah Abdullati, a high representative of the rebels' government in the city besieged by pro-Gaddafi troops, expressly called on French and British troops to intervene on behalf of "humanitarian" principles. "If they don't come, we will die", he said.

Limbo in Yemen

Limbo in Yemen

Abubakr Al-Shamahi.

April 19, 2011 They’re getting desperate. More and more Yemenis are joining the already huge pro-democracy protest movement. Provincial cities like Ibb in central Yemen have seen protests in the region of at least hundreds of thousands of demonstrators. The central city of Taiz, Yemen’s industrial heartland, is outside of government control. Aden, the former capital of South Yemen, is experiencing civil disobedience two days a week, with 80% of government employees complying with the protesters demands. Ali Abdullah Saleh’s regime isn’t happy at all and, to be frank, it doesn’t quite know what to do. Sexism, enter, stage left. In a rally on Friday Saleh condemned the apparent mixing of men and women at pro-democracy protests, saying that it was haram in Islam, and against Yemeni cultural norms. This is all a bit rich coming from Saleh, of 'I don’t care if he smuggles whiskey into Yemen – provided it’s good whiskey’ Wikileaks fame. Needless to say, Yemenis have met Saleh’s conversion to a religious hardliner with derision. Tawakkol Karman, speaking to al-Jazeera, said, "Saleh has finally shown the world his real face and his hatred against women." Amal, a university student, has been attending protests at Change Square almost daily. "How can Ali [Saleh] dishonour us this way, he is under pressure and doesn’t know what to do, so he is trying to shame us into not protesting." Saleh’s remarks were not even met with a positive reaction from the demographic he was probably targeting, the tribes. The tribal coalition of Marib and Jawf gave Saleh a history lesson, "Women ruled Yemen numerous times in the past with success. Yemeni women lead the Yemeni revolution and men follow." His words do work with some. Najwa, a teacher who describes herself as independent, said, "women should not be going out till 10 or 11 at night and staying at the protest, this is not part of our traditions." Yemeni women have shown their anger at Saleh’s comments by immediately calling for demonstrations showing that they will not be cowed into silence. Saturday and Sunday saw huge protests, with a large female presence. Sunday’s protest was attacked by security forces and pro-government 'baltajiya’ – thugs. Which leads me on to the regime’s second method, using the security forces, and hired thugs, to attack peaceful protesters. Sunday was only one example of this tactic, designed to make people fearful of joining the protest movement. Since the start of this uprising at least 120 non-violent protesters have been killed, with the biggest loss of life on one day being on the 18th March. 52 people died on the day that the organisers had called the 'Friday of dignity.’ There is also the worrying trend of people who have gone to protests and not returned, vanishing without a trace. The government has tried to explain away the deaths, alternatively suggesting that the number of deaths has been exaggerated, or that the protesters attacked the security forces and Republican Guard. State media then corroborates all of this. Switching on Yemen State TV you will find details of plots being hatched by the opposition coalition, weapons being hidden away in the protest camp, illicit relationships between the young protesters, al-Jazeera being at the centre of an Israeli plot to take over Yemen, and 15 million turning out across the country in support of the President. A particularly memorable moment was when the female presenter began crying whilst telling the viewers that Yemen has more democracy than the USA. Even the most ardent Saleh supporters cringed. Yemenis largely ignore these lies and fabrications, state TV is seen as a joke. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that many Yemenis do not have satellite television, and therefore the state is their primary source of news. Therefore, the idea of a Zionist-Crusader plot to destabilise Yemen and the wider Arab region is seen as fact. International media organisations are having a hard time reporting in Yemen. The scourge of Arab dictators, al-Jazeera Arabic, is now officially banned, the door to their offices "sealed with wax." The number of Western reporters can be counted on one hand, with around half their number being deported just before the massacre on the 'Friday of dignity.’ Even Gadaffi is allowing more foreign reporters than Saleh. One event the Saleh regime does want reporters to see is the rally held in support of the President on Friday. The numbers at this weekly charade have been quite big, however there are videos and documents which show that many of those attending are paid. Sources say that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to the millions that the regime is spending to show it has support. Despite the payments, those attending the protests in support of the President seem to be decreasing each week, especially with the continuing defection of tribal sheikhs, a major source of a government rent-a-crowd. The large pro-Saleh rallies only seem to occur on Fridays. This is not the case with the pro-democracy protests. The number of marches has picked up recently, and they often leave a trail of graffiti denouncing the regime. In covering this graffiti up the regime has shown an efficiency that it has sadly lacked in practically every other project it has attempted over the last few decades. Black paint is strewn over the graffiti, hardly hiding the fact that people aren’t happy with Saleh. If anything, it gives an eerie sense of a police state, which, to be fair, Yemen is not. Yemenis are currently having to deal with intermittent power cuts, at my own count there were four on Monday. The gas shortages have led to angry locals blocking roads in their neighbourhoods, carrying empty gas barrels. A family member went to the gas station to discover that 10,000 barrels of gas lay empty. The electricity and gas shortages are both being blamed on the protests, with state propaganda telling Yemenis that opposition tribesmen in Marib are destroying power lines, and that the opposition parties are preventing gas trucks from entering Sana’a. The accused tribe in Marib have angrily denied the allegations, saying that they announce publically when they commit destructive acts, as they have done in the past. Evidence is growing that the gas shortages are being carried out deliberately by the government, with the only gas available being distributed to certain 'respected’ individuals in each neighbourhood, who then hand it out to ruling party supporters. It has just been announced on State TV that gas will miraculously be available again, thanks to the Americans persuading the opposition coalition to allow it back into the capital. It appears that the tactic has not worked, just like the other tactics the regime has employed. Many of these tactics bear striking similarities with the tactics of Ben Ali and Mubarak. The end result also looks like it will be strikingly similar. Abubakr Al-Shamahi is a Politics student at SOAS, University of London and is the editor of Comment Middle East. He is currently in Sana’a.