« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »
May 30, 2005
On the Road
Postings will resume tomorrow...
In the meantime, check this from A Tiny Revolution.
Posted by zeynep at 02:34 PM | Comments (0)
May 25, 2005
How a Man Becomes K2
We are told that the latest offensive in Haditha, Iraq is "aimed at uprooting insurgents who have killed more than 620 people since a new Iraqi government was announced on April 28."
So, having been informed of our venerable aims by the eager AP reporter, what do you think we are doing here, in this house in Haditha:
That man in the picture is "accused of having too much ammunition for a licensed weapon." For that crime, he is blindfolded, marked, and taken away while "while his mother, seated, and sisters plead with U.S. Marines through a translator, right, for his release." (This in a country where we know it is customary for most households to have a weapon.)
That picture where that unnamed man’s furrowed forehead is marked "K2" by the marine captures the fundamental process of dehumanization that you will find if you scratch the surface of all major 20th century atrocities. That man is no longer a man for those soldiers: he is a detainee, a number, a representation of the enemy, of the people who shoot at them, the people who they hate, people who they are scared of, people that aren’t people. He can be blindfolded, marked, humiliated before his heartbroken family, taken away at will.
Once you cross that line, some of those soldiers will eventually abuse, torture and kill some of those “non-people.” This isn’t even an indictment of American culture, rather, this is the fundamental lesson of a bloody century: dehumanization is the first step towards atrocity. The particular way in which we do this may be influenced by our culture --and where else have you seen such a pornographic interest in the victims-- but we are hardly unique or immune. In fact, reading about that very disturbing account of Dilawar’s death in Bagram, Afghanistan published last week in the New York Times made me think that we seem to have arrived somewhere between Chile and Argentina during the military dictatorships in terms of systematization of the torture.
And some of those humiliated, dehumanized people will indeed drop their licensed weapons and pick up homemade explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenade launchers aimed at us. We will round up even larger numbers of the people from whom those insurgents are drawn, detain, mark, humiliate and dehumanize more of them.
The question facing us is whether we will stop before magic markers turn into tattoos.
Posted by zeynep at 09:13 AM | Comments (0)
May 23, 2005
The New Democracy
Sometimes you read a piece that is just so full of incredible contradictions, Orwellian language and unfinessed propaganda that you cannot figure out what the writer was thinking when she typed those words.
Here's a story from the AP regarding Afghan "president" Karzai's visit to Washington.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai left the White House on Monday with no promise of more control over thousands of American troops in his country and with strains in his relationship with the United States on full display.
Despite a chummy side-by-side news conference with President Bush that was designed to showcase U.S. support for Afghanistan's first democratically elected leader, Karzai also got no promise of the quick repatriation of Afghan prisoners now in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.
...
"Of course our troops will respond to U.S. commanders," Bush said, even while praising the progress of Afghan forces and taking pains to say that the U.S. military consults with Karzai's government.
...
Three years after the fall of the rigid Islamic rule of the Taliban, Afghanistan is a grateful U.S. ally but one obviously eager to assert greater independence. Juggling heavy troop commitments in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, the Bush administration would gladly hand the Afghans more authority if the country's military and economy could manage independently.
That time is years away, as Bush's pledge of continuing support and a joint statement laying out U.S. help for Afghan security, anti-terror and economic programs attest.
"Our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is the same," Bush said at Monday's press conference in the White House East Room. "I mean, we want these new democracies to be able to defend themselves. And so we will continue to work with the Afghans to train them and to cooperate and consult with the government."
Karzai smiled and nodded as Bush spoke.
I can’t stop shaking my head in disbelief. By what right does this journalist insert a sentence in the middle that reads “the Bush administration would gladly hand the Afghans more authority if the country's military and economy could manage independently.” How does she know that? Where is the evidence they would gladly hand over any authority? Is the evidence their stubborn refusal to leave or cede control if asked by the president they recognize as democratically-elected ? Is the evidence the well-documented, widespread torture of Afghan detainees on Afghan soil, by U.S. soldiers while the government of Afghanistan meekly protests?
By what rights is this reporter making excuses for what can obviously be best described as good old colonialism?
[P.S. Edited for correct usage of Afghan with much thanks to reader Andrea Dunbar-Haysmith who commented that "Afghan" and not "Afghani" is the correct adjective for referring to people from Afghanistan.]
Posted by zeynep at 11:12 PM | Comments (0)
May 20, 2005
This is How Dilawar Died
All the media, including the New York Times which published this harrowing account sourced to Army's own criminal investigation into the case, still refers to this as "abuse." I urge you to read it all:
The prisoner, a slight, 22-year-old taxi driver known only as Dilawar, was hauled from his cell at the detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, at around 2 a.m. to answer questions about a rocket attack on an American base. When he arrived in the interrogation room, an interpreter who was present said, his legs were bouncing uncontrollably in the plastic chair and his hands were numb. He had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days.
Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.
"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"
At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.
"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.
Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
The story of Mr. Dilawar's brutal death at the Bagram Collection Point - and that of another detainee, Habibullah, who died there six days earlier in December 2002 - emerge from a nearly 2,000-page confidential file of the Army's criminal investigation into the case, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times.
Like a narrative counterpart to the digital images from Abu Ghraib, the Bagram file depicts young, poorly trained soldiers in repeated incidents of abuse. The harsh treatment, which has resulted in criminal charges against seven soldiers, went well beyond the two deaths.
In some instances, testimony shows, it was directed or carried out by interrogators to extract information. In others, it was punishment meted out by military police guards. Sometimes, the torment seems to have been driven by little more than boredom or cruelty, or both.
There remain thousands and thousands of pages reports from internal investigations and reports that have yet to see the light of day.
Today I have one demand, and one demand only.
Declassify it all, now.
I believe, and they obviously fear, all that the antiwar movement has been saying about ending the occupation, about bringing the troops home, about being accountable, about providing reparations and restitution, all of it, would just follow.
Bring it out. Let us know. Let us hear the testimonies. Let us see the cells, the shackles, the x-rays, the autopsy reports, the survivors, the graves, every last bit.
Declassify it all.
Posted by zeynep at 04:47 PM | Comments (1)
Torturers Need Not Apply
Illinois Republican Henry Hyde is introducing yet another bill aimed at crippling what remains of the already severely-battered international institution that is still called “United” “Nations,” often against evidence.
In all fairness, there are some elements of the bill that would be a step forward, such as the provision that would bar human rights violators from serving on U.N. human rights bodies:
The "United Nations Reform Act of 2005" targets a panoply of issues that have troubled critics of the United Nations, particularly Republicans, for years. Among other things, it would seek to cut funding for programs seen as useless and bar human rights violators from serving on U.N. human rights bodies.
Umm, yes. That would be great, actually, Mr. Hyde. Nations that systematically practice torture, impose collective punishment, wage aggressive wars, illegitimately occupy other countries and otherwise blatantly violate a collective, global understanding of minimal standards of protection accrued to personal and psychic integrity of human beings that has become known as “human rights” during a very bloody 20th century should not sit on U.N. human rights bodies, but should have to pay proportionate dues to international organizations -- because acting in a criminal fashion does not eliminate one’s responsibilities but on the contrary, adds to them.
Posted by zeynep at 03:01 PM | Comments (0)
May 18, 2005
Star Wars, Coming Soon to a Planet Near You
That’s right. The Bush administration is moving to change U.S. policy in order to start deploying weapons into space.
The Air Force, saying it must secure space to protect the nation from attack, is seeking President Bush's approval of a national-security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons, according to White House and Air Force officials.
The proposed change would be a substantial shift in American policy. It would almost certainly be opposed by many American allies and potential enemies, who have said it may create an arms race in space.
A senior administration official said that a new presidential directive would replace a 1996 Clinton administration policy that emphasized a more pacific use of space, including spy satellites' support for military operations, arms control and nonproliferation pacts.
Yeah. That’s just what the planet needs right now, a new arms race in space
“No one should be fooled,” said Theresa Hitchens, an expert on the militarization of space at the Washington-based Center for Defense Information.
“What you’re seeing is a reversal of the traditional U.S. reluctance to be space warriors. And that’s the meaning of this new policy,” Hitchens said in an interview.
...
Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said, “This is a military system that is unnecessary and provocative. It will lead other states to pursue military systems to knock out our space-based assets. The rationale of this program is to defend those assets. But this will have the reverse effect.”
Kimball said any move by the United States to start developing and testing space-based weapons will be met with very strong international condemnation, from foes and allies alike.
Well, at least, I hear “Revenge of the Sith” is good. Or, better than the other two prequels. Then again, those were just bad. Not “bad” as in bad, but just plain old bad. But I’m not sure I’m in the mood to see a movie where the punch line is forces of evil consolidating into a fascist empire.
Posted by zeynep at 05:03 PM | Comments (0)
May 17, 2005
Constitution Desecrated, Does Anyone Care?
Ok, so, let me get this straight. Their defense is that they had a memo about how to protect the Quran, all the while they were also writing memos obliterating the Geneva conventions, authorizing torture, encouraging abuse, setting up procedures for “rendition,” voiding the constitution, right to habeas corpus and due process...
The three-page memorandum, dated Jan. 19, 2003, says that only Muslim chaplains and Muslim interpreters can handle the holy book, and only after putting on clean gloves in full view of detainees.
The detailed rules require U.S. Muslim personnel to use both hands when touching the Koran to signal "respect and reverence," and specify that the right hand be the primary one used to manipulate any part of the book "due to cultural associations with the left hand." The Koran should be treated like a "fragile piece of delicate art," it says.
I can almost see the memo. To all. This is the inform you that the constitution shall be treated as a “fragile piece of delicate art.” Not to be opened, read or otherwise damaged. Never take it out of its lockbox. Only talk about in in hushed tones. Never mind, don’t ever talk about it. And don’t even think about the Bill of Rights.
Posted by zeynep at 05:06 PM | Comments (0)
May 05, 2005
Graner Abused his Wife Too! We Are All Shocked, Shocked.
One night, Staci Morris says she awoke to find then husband Charles Graner holding a large knife to her throat and openly pondering whether to kill her. In subsequent days, he pretended nothing had happened."He's like my Hannibal Lecter, he really is. He's the monster in my life," said Morris, who has two teenage children from her 10-year marriage with Graner, the central figure in the Abu Ghraib abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
More, he boasted of his exploits to his children:
Morris, 34, a nurse who has remarried and lives outside Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said the former U.S. prison guard now serving a 10-year sentence would proudly e-mail his children photos showing tough treatment of Iraqi prisoners.He would send photos of "these beat up prisoners and blood and talk about how cool it was -- look what daddy gets to do," she said, adding that she did not show them the correspondence.
Graner transmitted pictures of the mentally ill prisoner who was the man at the end of England's leash. In one photo the man was covered in his feces.
"The whup ass [beatings] ran like a river," Morris quoted Graner as saying about the frequent beatings of prisoners.
"He had complete contempt for prisoners; as far as he was concerned they had no rights," she added in summing up his attitude as a U.S. corrections officer in Pennsylvania.
Boy, did this mean have a good career counselor or what. Son, I notice you have certain tendencies. Let's see. You should become a corrections officer. Join the Reserves. Perhaps, if you are really lucky, you could become a prison guard for an invading army.
With due apologies to dentists, I can't help recall this song from "Little Shop of Horrors." Just replace dentist with prison guard.
When I was young and just a bad little kid,
My momma noticed funny things I did.
Like shootin' puppies with a BB-Gun.
I'd poison guppies, and when I was done,
I'd find a pussy-cat and bash in its head.
That's when my momma said...
(What did she say?)
She said my boy I think someday
You'll find a way
To make your natural tendencies pay...You'll be a dentist.
You have a talent for causing things pain!
Son, be a dentist.
People will pay you to be inhumane!You're temperment's wrong for the priesthood,
And teaching would suit you still less.
Son, be a dentist.
You'll be a success.
Posted by zeynep at 08:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Shooting Wounded, Unarmed Men on the Ground: Self-Defense
Another case closed. This one is about the marine who shot and killed a wounded, unarmed man left to die in a mosque in Fallujah:
Navy investigators have determined a U.S. Marine acted in self-defense when he shot an apparently wounded and unarmed Iraqi inside a Falluja mosque in November, a senior Pentagon official said Wednesday.The Marine ... will not face charges
And, also:
Although that Marine has been cleared of wrongdoing, the investigation remains open because autopsies of some of the bodies found in the mosque turned up bullets that were not from his gun.
In other words other people were also shot, but by other people.
In case you are trying to remember which incident this was, here's the t-shirt that was being sold in reference to the event:
And here's what I wrote at the time:
I don't need to explain much here, all you have to do is reverse the situation. Imagine a wounded, unarmed marine being left to die in a church in, say, rural Montana by, say, the occupying army. A day later another group of occupier soldiers come back, notice one of the wounded marines is still not dead, and shoots him, point blank, on camera. Then, all they talk about is how the shooter had the right to defend himself from the unarmed, wounded, dying man on the ground. What if he was booby-trapped? What if he was about to lunge?Then they sell shirt celebrating the shooter. And their columnists keep blabbing about how uncivilized we are, and how we don't value life like they do.
(My two previous entries on the topic are here and here)
I have to keep repeating this. Just because we don't notice these acquittals and this total disregard for Iraqis right to life doesn't mean the rest of the world, especially the people of Iraq, aren't noticing it.
Posted by zeynep at 07:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 04, 2005
Judge Halts England Sentencing; Private Graner Not Playing Ball
Pohl abruptly stopped England's sentencing hearing after Graner testified for the defense that three pictures he took of England holding a naked prisoner on a leash were meant to be used as a legitimate training aid for other guards....
On Monday, when England pleaded guilty, she told the judge she knew at the time that the pictures were taken purely for the amusement of the guards at the Baghdad prison.
Before the judge stopped the proceeding, Graner had not been asked if England knew the photos were to be used as training aids.
"If you don't want to plead guilty, don't," Pohl admonished the defendant while Graner sat on the witness stand. "But you can't plead guilty and say you're not guilty. ... You can't have it both ways."
...
Graner maintains that he and the other Abu Ghraib guards were following orders from higher-ranking interrogators when they abused the detainees.
Remember that yesterday Lynndie England first testified said she assumed what she was doing was okay, at which point the lawyers for both the prosecution and the defense jointly requested a one-hour recess.
After the recess, the presumably-better-coached England duly testified that, no, unlike what she had just said, she knew what she had done was wrong -- a requirement for her guilty plea, and the subsequent plea bargain. She also absolved all superiors, and the speculation has been that this is what the real bargaining was about -- a lighter sentence in return for a ""No Sir" to the question "Do you believe any of this conduct was in any way encouraged by a chain of command."
P.S. Maybe this is the reason for the concern her lawyers have with Lynndie England's "learning disabilities." She's slow to learn what she is supposed to say on the stand to clear the chain of command.
Posted by zeynep at 01:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Did Lynndie England Agree to Cover Up for the Chain of Command in Return for a Lighter Sentence?
Empire Notes speculates fairly convincingly that Lynndie England cut a deal where she would plead guilty, receive a lighter sentence, and, crucially, not accuse any higher-ups for wrongdoing.
It makes perfect sense, and explains some of the bizarre back and forth in and around the trial. And her surprising "No Sir" to the question ""Do you believe any of this conduct was in any way encouraged by a chain of command?"
Here's more support for that explanation. Pvt. Charles Graner seems to imply the same thing:
In a handwritten note given to reporters Tuesday, Pvt. Charles Graner said he wanted England to fight the charges."Knowing what happened in Iraq, it was very upsetting to see Lynn plead guilty to her charges," wrote Graner, who was scheduled to testify Wednesday at England's sentencing hearing. "I would hope that by doing so she will have a better chance at a good sentence."
Graner continues to argue that he and the other Abu Ghraib guards were following orders from higher-ranking interrogators when they abused the detainees.
Some solid investigative reporting is called for here.
Posted by zeynep at 08:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 03, 2005
Be All the Forger You Can Be
A reader comments about the claims about Lynndie England's mental capacities and wonders "If she has severe learning disabilities and mental health problems, why was she allowed to wear a uniform and represent the U.S. in a combat theatre?"
Maybe this is how:
So how far will army recruiters go to get those numbers up?One Colorado high school honors student wanted to find out. 17-year-old David McSwane says he told a recruiting officer he was a high-school drop out. No problem! He says he was told to print out a fake-diploma. Then he told them he had a problem with marijuana. McSwane says the recruiter suggested he purchase a detox kit.
Or like this:
It was late September when the 21-year-old man, fresh from a three-week commitment in a psychiatric ward, showed up at an Army recruiting station in southern Ohio. The two recruiters there wasted no time signing him up, and even after the man's parents told them he had bipolar disorder - a diagnosis that would disqualify him - he was all set to be shipped to boot camp, and perhaps Iraq after that, before senior officers found out and canceled the enlistment. Despite an Army investigation, the recruiters were not punished and were still working in the area late last month.Two hundred miles away, in northern Ohio, another recruiter said the incident hardly surprised him. He has been bending or breaking enlistment rules for months, he said, hiding police records and medical histories of potential recruits. His commanders have encouraged such deception, he said, because they know there is no other way to meet the Army's stiff recruitment quotas.
And, consider this:
The recruiter, who has fought in several conflicts including the current war in Iraq, said one in every three people he had enlisted had a problem that needed concealing, or a waiver. "The only people who want to join the Army now have issues," he said. "They're troubled, with health, police or drug problems."
Posted by zeynep at 08:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 02, 2005
Lynndie England Pleads Guilty; Her Lawyers Conflate Learning Disabilities with Moral Disabilities
Pfc. Lynndie England pled guilty to mistreating prisoners today:
"I had a choice, but I chose to do what my friends wanted me to," she said, entering her pleas a day before the start of her trial.
At least she acknowledged she had a choice. She will get less than two years, but that's still a lot more than anyone with higher rank is getting these days. Which is to say, anything is bigger than zero. Most everyone who was stupid enough to take pictures that became public is getting some sort of sentence, which is a small set:
She is the seventh enlisted soldier to face criminal penalties in the Abu Ghraib case. No commissioned officers at the prison, and no senior officer in the chain of command, has been charged. Six enlisted soldiers have entered guilty pleas in the case.
So, here are some thoughts on bizarre aspects of the trial. First, the judge dragged his feet in accepting the plea.
England responded that the man was refusing to cooperate with the guards and that her supervisor, Spec. Charles A. Graner Jr., told her to go get the strap and put it around the prisoner as a leash. He also instructed her to hold the prisoner because Graner said it would be more degrading to the man.Then Pohl asked England what training she had for prison work. England, who was a records clerk in the military before being assigned to Abu Ghraib, said she had none and told the judge she was unaware of the Geneva Conventions. But she said that Graner had worked as a civilian as a prison guard and she trusted his analysis of the situation.
Pohl then said, "I don't see how it would be illegal to pose for a photograph if you considered it legal." But after a recess, he accepted the plea deal.
In other words, the Judge wanted England to plead not-guilty because if it was a lawful order in her mind, then it is not illegal. I guess Lynndie England's lawyers were smarter than that, because they knew that their highly-visible client would be convicted if for no other reason than being the "poster-woman", so they had to plead guilty in order to bargain for a reduced sentence.
But, pray tell, do you really need to know of the Geneva Conventions in order to know what was done was wrong? I'm really sick of this "lack of training" argument. Is the argument that our military is composed of people who are so devoid of a sense of right and wrong that they can't tell that dragging a hapless naked man around by a leash is wrong?
And here's where it gets more weird. Her defense is going to argue that she suffers from "learning disabilities."
Rick Hernandez [England's civilian lawyer] said it has not been decided whether England will take the stand. He said the defense will present evidence that England has severe learning disabilities and mental health problems.
That is so insulting to people with learning disabilities that I don't know where to begin. Learning disabilities do not mean that one is devoid of moral judgement or capacity. Difficulties with reading material, spelling mistakes, bad handwriting, yes. Torturing and degrading people under your control, no.
Posted by zeynep at 08:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 01, 2005
Propaganda Everywhere
This one is from Newsweek:
As he tries to build a legacy of promoting democracy around the globe, Bush has run headlong into Fortress Russia.
Once again, we are presented with this uncritical, favorable, and demonstrably false view of what this administration is trying to do: "promote democracy around the globe." If that were the case, why would we be supporting regimes that boil people alive? Launching coups against duly-elected and re-elected popular regimes like in Venezuala and Haiti?
Posted by zeynep at 07:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Sending People to Be Boiled to Death to "Combat Terrorism": Meet the 21st Century State, and the 21st Century Propaganda System
It is so hard to come up with "commentary" on these stories. Ummm, yeah, we send people to places where they boil them to death. Ummm, no, no trial or evidence before or after "the rendition."
Seven months before Sept. 11, 2001, the State Department issued a human rights report on Uzbekistan. It was a litany of horrors.The police repeatedly tortured prisoners, State Department officials wrote, noting that the most common techniques were "beating, often with blunt weapons, and asphyxiation with a gas mask." Separately, international human rights groups had reported that torture in Uzbek jails included boiling of body parts, using electroshock on genitals and plucking off fingernails and toenails with pliers. Two prisoners were boiled to death, the groups reported. ...
Immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, however, the Bush administration turned to Uzbekistan as a partner in fighting global terrorism. ...
Now there is growing evidence that the United States has sent terror suspects to Uzbekistan for detention and interrogation...
...
Uzbekistan's role as a surrogate jailer for the United States was confirmed by a half-dozen current and former intelligence officials working in Europe, the Middle East and the United States.
...
There is other evidence of the United States' reliance on Uzbekistan in the program. On Sept. 21, 2003, two American-registered airplanes - a Gulfstream jet and a Boeing 737 - landed at the international airport in Tashkent, according to flight logs obtained by The New York Times. ... Over a span of about three years, from late 2001 until early this year, the C.I.A. used those two planes to ferry terror suspects in American custody to countries around the world ...
But here's what really annoys me. Here's the picture of Bush and Islam Karimov, president of Uzbekistan:
Here's the NYT caption under this photo:
President Bush welcomed President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan to the White House in 2002 to form a partnership to combat terrorism.
See, immediately, it's all explained away. The partnership was formed "to combat terrorism."
Although the article is damning in its evidence, it means but a whiff. If you so easily surrender the context that this is all done to "combat terrorism", who will really object? What's a few people boiled, few fingernails pulled, in this glorious partnership "to combat terrorism"?
This is how our current propaganda system works. The strongest, the most insidious lies are not about the who, what, where or when, but about why.
Posted by zeynep at 01:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack