In the Guantánamo Bay military commissions, the ACLU is persisting in its fight against the government’s legally and morally untenable claim that it can censor from the public the 9/11 defendants’ personal experiences and memories of torture, rendition, and detention by the CIA. This week, we filed a reply brief responding to the government’s arguments in support of censorship.
Send to KindleThe Guantanamo Bay hunger strike has entered its 47th day, with no end in sight. According to the prison’s Director of Public Affairs, 26 inmates are refusing food, with eight detainees receiving enteral sustenance.
Send to KindleBy John Goss
What has the US military done to Shaker Aamer? Have they tortured him so badly they dare not release him in case he discloses the nature of these abuses? Shaker (pronounced Shacker) is a sick man. Why is he the only British subject still in Guantanamo Bay concentration camp? Clearly he has not committed any crime or he would have been brought to trial. At least that is how justice used to be done in the United States and in the United Kingdom.
Send to Kindle|
“I picture a dead Arab and that makes me happy” says young Israeli boy. Another child tells the interviewer he predicts “he’s going to kill 85 people” |
Israel is one of the world’s most militarised societies, routinely recruiting children as young as 13 to perform military service in defiance of international law, writes Stephen Lendman
 |
|
|
The modern roots of Zionism go back to its founding at the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897, its programme being the “establishing for the Jewish people of a publicly and legally assured home in Eretz Yisrael”. Five decades later, this was accomplished by dispossessing indigenous Palestinians, denying them the right to their land, creating a new Jewish identity, legitimising Jews as rightful owners, and using superior military force to support the state against defenceless civilians who were no match against their powerful adversary.
Leading up to and after its war of independence, Israel stayed politically and militarily hard line, negotiating from strength, choosing confrontation over diplomacy, and naked aggression as a form of self- defence and occupation in order to seize as much of historic Palestine as possible and secure an ethnically pure Jewish state. These policies were called “Israelification [and] De-Arabisation” to preserve a “Jewish character”.
In his book, The Making of Israeli Militarism, author Uri Ben-Eliezer says writing about Israeli militarism involves “ventur(ing) into an intellectual minefield”, given Jewish history under the Nazis and the perception of Israel as a safe haven. Yet, decades of Arab- Israeli conflict have produced seven full-scale wars, two Intifadas, and many hundreds of violent incidents.
Ben-Eliezer believes that, beginning in the 1930s, militarism “was gradually legitimized within the Yishuv, the Jewish community in Palestine, then within the new state [it was] crystallized into a value, a formula, and an ideology.” Over time, it acquired a dynamic of its own, and then, during the 1948 war, it “acquired full legitimacy” and became decisive in setting policy.
Send to Kindle
At the beginning of 2012 the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg stated that the government ‘completely condemns torture and inhumane treatment’ and that ‘we never support it or ask other people to do it on our behalf.’
They are words that have echoed for decades, in one form or another. The UK is a signatory to the International Convention Against Torture and our political leaders are vociferous about the fact that we do not practice torture. The UK has even gone to war, in part, on the premise of toppling torturous regimes.
But these words are beginning to lose their meaning, juxtaposed as they are against images of orange-jump-suited British prisoners kneeling in the unforgiving Cuban sun at Guantanamo Bay; stories of UK soldiers torturing civilian victims at black-site bases in Iraq; or the sight of British national Binyam Mohammed stepping off the plane back onto UK soil after being held and tortured in Pakistan.
Still the UK government has tried to distance itself from these images. Rogue soldiers misbehave, we are told. The UK had no way of knowing what happens to their citizens held in prisons outside our shores. And, of course, we certainly would never condone such behaviour.
But the cracks in the system are beginning to show. Clegg’s words came in the wake of a decision by the Criminal Prosecution Service that MI5 and MI6 agents would not be charged with the ill-treatment and torture of UK resident Binyam Mohamed while he was in Pakistan. Nor would they be charged for the torture of another detainee who had been held at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan.
And so the public is left wondering, just who is telling the truth here, and can we believe the government’s denials any more?
The search for answers to these questions has molded much of Ian Cobain’s professional life. As an investigative reporter Cobain has for years followed cases of alleged torture and renditions. He has now pulled together his wealth of experience in the book Cruel Britannia: A Secret History of Torture. The result is a compendium of examples that together lend weight to the argument that not only does the UK practice torture even against its own citizens, but has a well-developed, if informal and unwritten, policy on how and when such methods are used.
Send to KindleA determined attempt by the Ministry of Defence to transfer insurgents to Afghan jails was blocked by the high court on Friday after it heard evidence that they would be handed over to a notorious torturer and alleged killer.
The court heard how the Foreign Office minister Lady Warsi – the former Conservative Party co-chair – had failed to question assurances by Asadullah Khalid, the head of the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS), even though he was alleged to be widely known to have been personally involved intorture.
An urgent hearing was requested by lawyers acting for an Afghan prisoner tortured in breach of assurances made to British officials. James Eadie QC, for the MoD, told the hearing: “Both the secretary of state for defence [Philip Hammond] and the baroness [Warsi] were briefed on the allegations. But the fact of the matter is, he is head of the NDS.”
He added: “We have to deal with the NDS: it is to the NDS that insurgents are transferred. Therefore, it is obvious that whatever the truth of the allegations, the government engages with the body it engages with.” Khalid is reported to be a close aide to the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai.
Lord Justice Moses intervened to say Warsi had done a deal with a man responsible for prisons where there were “still very live concerns”. Eadie accepted the point.
The court heard that a senior Canadian diplomat in Afghanistan had made public allegations that the head of the NDS “was known to personally torture people” in a “dungeon under his guest house”, “had people killed who got in his way” and was “running a narcotics operation”. Khalid has previously denied the allegations.
The court hearing – in a case of the kind likely to be heard in secret if the government’s justice and security bill is passed – was requested by the law firm Leigh Day and the legal charity Reprieve, acting for Serdar Mohammed, tortured by the Afghan security services after being transferred to their custody by UK forces.
Following Mohamed’s allegations, the government placed a moratorium in 2010 on all transfers of prisoners to the NDS.
Send to KindleLawyers criticise changes that could cloak sensitive information about state complicity in torture and threaten open trials
Toby Helm
 Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke is pushing ahead with the proposals despite opposition from special advocates Photograph: David Jones/PA |
Ministers and the intelligence services will be able to cover up sensitive information relating to the state’s complicity in torture and secret rendition, under controversial plans likely to be included in the Queen’s Speech in May.
Sources at the Ministry of Justice say the plans, first outlined in a green paper in October last year, are likely to be included in a justice bill in the next session of parliament in a move that critics say will fundamentally undermine Britain’s tradition of open justice.
The plan could mean that so-called closed material procedures – in which secret evidence is withheld from the claimant and the press in a closed court – would be introduced more widely into civil law. This would allow the government or its agencies to defend serious allegations knowing that damaging information would never emerge.
Examples of cases which opponents say could be held under such procedures include those where torture victims sue the government, where inquests are held relating to soldiers killed by friendly fire, or where actions are lodged alleging police negligence.
The claimants would be represented by special advocates who would be barred from discussing the evidence with them. The government is pushing ahead despite the fact that out of 69 currently appointed special advocates, 57 have signed a response hitting out at the proposal – saying there is no reason to justify such sweeping changes.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, which will launch a campaign against the plans on Tuesday, said: “What bitter irony if the government’s answer to the worst excesses of the ‘war on terror’ were an even bigger, darker cloak over the secret state. If these proposals represent the agencies’ response to concerns about complicity in torture, they are surely either unnecessary or dangerous.
“If flirtation with extraordinary rendition was an aberration after 9/11, why wreck the whole civil justice?”
Send to KindleOver there, maddened men summarily killed Colonel Qadhafi and his son Mutassim and put them on display. Few public figures spoke up against the execution, perhaps because they think it’s no big deal. After all Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s Anwar Al Awlaki were eliminated on the orders of Obama. It’s girlie to insist that bad men should be tried.
Then along slithered Philip Hammond, our new Defence Secretary, with indecent haste, inviting British businesses to “pack their bags” and head for Libya. The French might be there already. That’s one solution for the economic crisis. Make wars and dosh. Repulsive, this modern scramble for Africa and the Middle East, but not at all surprising. It is called “national self-interest.”
You may have backed Nato’s intervention for noble reasons and because the rebels asked for help. A part of me did too and undeniably, without European firepower, Qadhafi would still be crushing his terrorised people. After 42 years Libyans are liberated. You’d have to be cold as ice to resist the sight of the thousands who came out into the light after a long, dark age. They winked, laughed and sported their country’s new colours.
Send to KindleAs you read through this I think you’ll understand why I’m posting it here.
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism 
From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
Send to KindleInnocent Detainees Will Be Released on a Case by Case Basis
Top Pentag
on lawyer Jeh Johnson informed the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the Obama Administration might decide to continue imprisoning detainees indefinitely, even if they were charged with a crime, tried and acquitted.
The new assertion of presidential authority is staggering. Previously the Bush Administration had held the detainees for years without trial, and claimed the right to hold them basically forever, which the Obama Administration endorsed. But trials were avoided for lack of evidence. President Obama had previously defended the release of detainees ordered to be let go by the courts by insisting there was nothing he could do after the court ruled.
Not so now, it seems, and the lack of evidence is no obstacle because even if the trial fails, the president can simply overrule the court and keep the innocent detainee anyhow. Johnson said the detainees held despite being found not guilty in court would be permitted “some form of periodic review,” though it was unclear how this would even theoretically work.
While the Bush Administration often struggled with their system of extralegal detention, the Obama Administration seems perfectly willing to make bizarre assertions as to their hopes for a future legal system. Last month they were openly talking about executing detainees to avoid messy trials. Now the trials themselves will be next to meaningless.
Send to Kindle
Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.8.3, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.
