Thursday, 4 April 2013

Iraq snapshot - April 1, 2013

Iraq snapshot - April 1, 2013

The Common Ills


Monday, April 1, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue,  Iraq continues executions, March was a very violent month, Nouri refuses to appear before Parliament at the last moment, Iraqi activists note today is the 100th day of protests, the situation remains bleak for Iraqi Christians, new information on a US torture scandal emerges, and more.

Friday, we noted how far All Things Media Big and Small fell in the lead up to the Iraq War and the years since.  Today new details on a US torture scandal break in England.  Big Media is going to avoid as they avoid all things.  If it's going to get traction in the US, it will have to be via Little Media.  Joel Bleifuss, editor and publisher of In These Times, did a mass e-mailing today.  As if to drive the point home about just how useless our 'independent' and 'alternative' media is, they tried to fundraise not by providing information -- which is what they're supposed to be paid to do, they grasp that right -- but instead by noting that Chris Hayes used to write for them and tonight his All In debuts on MSNBC.  This really trumps torture?  This back patting is going to help raise money?

No, all it says is, "We are so worthless that seven years ago we were able to employ Hayes.  For him to do anything of importance he had to leave us.  So go watch MSNBC and realize how unimportant and ineffectual we at In These Times actually are."


Want to raise money, Joel?  You do an e-mail like this:


Today, British media broke the news of systemic US torture in Iraq that took place during and after Abu Ghraib.  Testimony from British soldiers reveals torture as bad and worse than what was reported about Abu Ghraib.  Do you think the New York Times will front page this story?  No.  That's why In These Times needs your support.  To grab these stories and amplify them, to provide coverage of what Big Media doesn't want you to know about.

As we face an austerity crisis that threatens to undo the very fabric of our social safety net, In These Times is proud to bring you the news the corporate media would rather keep from you.



Ian Cobain (Guardian) notes some of what British soldiers saw the US military do in the secret prison:


• Iraqi prisoners being held for prolonged periods in cells the size of large dog kennels.
• Prisoners being subjected to electric shocks.
• Prisoners being routinely hooded.
• Inmates being taken into a sound-proofed shipping container for interrogation, and emerging in a state of physical distress.





The facility was Camp Nama.  The Guardian offers satellite imagery of Camp Nama.  In 2009, Michael Bronner (Center for Public Integrity) turned out a very long article that briefly noted Camp Nama as a hushed aside, "Camp Nama was run by a secretive U.S. Joint Special Operations task force, and was off-limits even to most military personnel. Those who did have access retained operational anonymity -- few knew even each other by their real names. The CIA would eventually become worried enough about being associated with what went on there that it barred employees from setting foot inside."  In March of 2006,  Eric Schmitt and Carolyn Marshall (New York Times) 'reported' on a torture room at Camp Nama:


The new account reveals the extent to which the unit members mistreated prisoners months before and after the photographs of abuse from Abu Ghraib were made public in April 2004, and it helps belie the original Pentagon assertions that abuse was confined to a small number of rogue reservists at Abu Ghraib.
The abuses at Camp Nama continued despite warnings beginning in August 2003 from an Army investigator and American intelligence and law enforcement officials in Iraq. The C.I.A. was concerned enough to bar its personnel from Camp Nama that August.
It is difficult to compare the conditions at the camp with those at Abu Ghraib because so little is known about the secret compound, which was off limits even to the Red Cross. The abuses appeared to have been unsanctioned, but some of them seemed to have been well known throughout the camp. 





"Reported"?  I have no problem with Eric Schmitt's reporting.  In the years when we regularly tracked Carolyn Marshall's 'reporting' here.  We don't have time to review all of her nonsense.  'We know little and we'll tell little' really seems the point of the article with a rushed, 'Now move along now,' tacked on.  Move along is what the torture did, though Schmitt and Marshall missed that in their 2006 'report.'  In the summer of 2004, most likely in a panic over the two Navy Seals who tried to take photos, Camp Nama's torture was  halted because, Cobain explains, "the secret prison was moved to Balad, a sprawling air base 50 miles north of Baghdad, where it became known as the Temporary Screening Facility (TSF). The Army Air Force and RAF troops continued their role there."


Do the British soldiers going public have knowledge of the torture at Balad?  They may very well.  But what they've already revealed is damaging enough to the lie that what happened at Abu Ghraib was more accident and not policy.  It was policy.



In the 2006 article, Schmitt and Marshall could note a then minor figure in terms of public awareness,  mention him at the end of a sentence:  "Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who leads the Joint Special Operations Command, the headquarters at Fort Bragg, N.C., that supplies the unit's most elite troops." Cobain notes today, "One person who has been widely reported to have been seen there frequently was General Stanley McChrystal, then commander of US Joint Special Operations forces in Iraq."  And yet what brought this torturer down was shooting off his mouth about US Vice President Joe Biden?  Torture wasn't just policy, it was approved policy or President Barack Obama wouldn't have put McChrystal in charge in Afghanistan.


In May 2009, John H. Richardson (Esquire) pointed out as Barack named McChrystal to be the top US commander in Afghanistan:


The news that President Obama picked General Stanley McChrystal to run the war in Afghanistan put an old story of mine into the national spotlight last week. In 2006, Esquire sent me around the country to interview military interrogators with a Human Rights Watch investigator named Marc Garlasco. One of those men worked at Camp Nama, a small base near Baghdad where a Special Forces task force was interrogating Iraqis in an effort to find the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. It was so secret that the officers went by false names there. Bad things happened. They doused people in cold water, used isolation and stress positions and sleep manipulation. These methods all appeared on a checklist. To use each one, they had to check the appropriate box and get approval. 
The chain of command for that approval went through General McChrystal. Even more damning, the interrogator told us that he actually saw McChrystal in the camp while such acts were occurring. He also said that his supervisor told him and his colleagues that McChrystal had made a personal promise that the Red Cross would never be allowed into the camp — a violation of our treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, which is a violation of the law that we used to follow before the Bush administration. 
Why aren't the torture criminals forced to appear before Congress, to testify in open session?  Because a lot of members of Congress signed off on the torture with their silence.  You saw that when Zero Dark Thirty came out and members of Congress attacked the film.  'That did not happen!' three senators insisted (Carl Levin, John McCain and Dianne Feinstein).  And idiots used that as 'proof' that Zero Dark Thirty was wrong.  No.  As former US House Rep Jane Harman and former CIA Director Leon Panetta noted, it was pretty accurate.


Congress looks the other way because many of them were complicit in the torture.  That's why they refused to launch an investigation into Abu Ghraib.  They are supposed to provide oversight.  They have been derelict in their Constitutional duty, they have ignored their Constitutional oaths.  And they've gotten away with it, year after year.
With McChrystal's confirmation hearing in June 2009, he was lucky to have senators who didn't want to ask about torture -- despite even the editorial board of the New York Times insisting those were the relevant questions.  Instead, helpers like John McCain asked him about Pat Tilman allowing him to grandstand on that (the lies told about Tilman's death) and look like a truth teller instead of the human waste that oversaw torture.


His unimportant remarks about Pat Tilman (we already knew, years prior, that the military and White House lied about Tilman's death -- this was established by the Congress and by the press) did what they were supposed to, lead idiots -- Taylor Marsh to name one -- to applaud him and insist he be immediately confirmed.  (The idiots also seemed unaware that McChrystal's position and immediate knowledge of the truth about Tilman's death meant he was required to immediately notify the family; something he refused to do.  And they weren't at all concerned about the mistreatment of the Tilman family when McChrystal joined Joining Forces which is a White House group that's supposed to help military families.)
And when John McCain wasn't whoring, Harry Reid was.  Or have we all forgotten that there was reluctance to McChrystal and Reid took to the floor of the senate to deliver an impassioned speech insisting that McChrystal be immediately confirmed?
Congress always wants to rush . . . except when it involves them doing more than voting yes or no.  There's no rush -- now or then -- to investigate the torture.  Harry Reid is fine with torture as long as he is Senate Majority Leader.  Let him lose that position and believe that decrying torture can help him win it back, and Harry will be the biggest anti-torture senator.  And what of Dick Durbin?  Illinois' blubbering senator cried -- more for himself when he issued an apology -- over Abu Ghraib.



After all the senators signed off on McChrystal, Justin Rood (ABC News) reported that then-Senator Russ Feingold (who voted for McChrystal) stated McChrystal wasn't forthcoming on torture.  But they all voted for him, even Russ.


Torture was policy, not happenstance, not accidents.  That's what the latest revelations drive home. 


David Petraeus was sent back into Iraq in 2004 to implement counter-insurgency.  At the start of last month, Jim White (Empty Wheel) noted the US military order Frago 242 which was issued in June 2004 ("an order to ignore reports of torture carried out by these Iraqi groups") and that this order was issued the same month Petraeus returned to Iraq.


This is counterinsurgency.  This is the reality of counterinsurgency.  Harry Reid even noted, when McChrystal was forced out for remarks about Biden, that Petraeus was the one to replace McChrystal in Afghanistan ("General Petraeus has demonstrated that he can effectively carry out a counterinsurgency strategy . . .")
Today,  Cobain explains:


While Abu Ghraib prison, just a few miles to the west, would achieve global notoriety after photographs emerged depicting abuses committed there, Camp Nama escaped attention for a simple reason: photography was banned. The only people who attempted to take pictures – a pair of US Navy Seals – were promptly arrested. All discussion of what happened there was forbidden.




Discussion was forbidden?  No, he was enabled.  He's a War Criminal who oversaw torture but PRI's The World was happy to play patty-cakes with him last January.  Even trained monkey Jon Stewart whored in January letting McChrystal pimp his bad book and not asking any hard questions.  But, hey, Jon Stewart gave up hard questions and pointed humor when Bush left the White House.



Connecting the dots the politicians, press and pranksters don't with to isMuhammad Umer Toor (Pakistan Kakhudahafiz) explains:



Terror detention cells. Ethnic/sectarian cleansing. Butchers in place. Design, spark, initiate, support, fund, sustain and lead sectarian cleansing and civil war. That’s how America "played" with the national and sectarian life in Iraq for decades to come; that’s how they suppressed – factually speaking – sunni insurgency against America. The aim of America was to distract resistance, mainly sunnis, by pitting them against their conventional sectarian rivals – i.e. shias who were brutally oppressed by widely hated and un-Islamic ruler Saddam Hussein – from its real object: foreign occupation.
This news of US exploiting the fault line of Muslim ummah shouldn’t come as a surprise. However, this whole revelation of convincing and unequivocal evidence of US triggered civil war in Iraq is fresh: exposed by Guardian, which broadcasted on internet on 6th March 2013 a documentary on a US veteran, James Steele, the counter-insurgency 'hero’ who led this campaign of terror and torture. Just as RAND think tank had advised US leaders when asked to work out a strategy to win war:
"Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East."
James Steele was a crucial element in executing the strategy.



James Steele is covered in the BBC Arabic and Guardian newspaper documentary James Steele: America's Mystery Man In Iraq (those unable to stream or who need closed captioning for streaming to be of any value can refer to Ava and my "TV: The War Crimes Documentary").



March ended Sunday and Iraq Body Count counts 407 violent deaths in Iraq for the month.  Agence France Presse keeps their own count and they note, "Figures compiled by AFP and based on reports from security and medical officials, meanwhile, showed that March was the deadliest month in Iraq since August with 271 people killed and 906 wounded in attacks."  Also keeping a count is AKE.  John Drake has Tweeted:






At least 45 people were killed and 191 injured in #Iraq violence last week.






At least 107 people were killed and 98 injured in #Iraq violence last week.







At least 78 people were killed and 185 injured in #Iraq violence last week.






At least 125 people were killed and 302 injured in #Iraq violence last week.



That's 355 people dead and 776 injured (check my math).  That includes 3 days of February's violence and lacks six days of March.  AKE's count is close to IBC so we'll go with 407.  Someone who always undercounts?  The government of Iraq.  CNN's Mohammed Tawfeeq Tweets the government's claim:



163 people were killed & 256 others were wounded in acts of violence across #Iraq in March 2013, police told #CNN.




What an undercount.




April's violence in Iraq kicks off with a massive injuries and a high death toll in Tikrit.  National Iraqi News Agency quotes an unnamed police source stating, "The number of victims of the blast rose to 42 dead and 67 wounded, police and civilians."  Other sources have lower tolls for the dead and the wounded.  NINA established itself as an independent news source in the immediate aftermath of the start of the Iraq War.  We'll note their count and consider it accurate unless they issue a correction (which they will if they have reason to believe their numbers are wrong).  Elena Ralli (New Europe) also goes with NINA's count.  They're also not updating as quickly as NINAIANS has a death toll of 10 with thirty injured.  AFP has the death toll at 11.  Iran's Trend News Agency has a death toll of 12.


Wang Yuanyuan (Xinhua) notes, "The attack occurred in the morning when a suicide bomber blew up an explosive-laden tanker near the police headquarters and a nearby oil facility in central Tikrit, 170 km north of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad."    Reuters adds, "Police at the scene said guards may not have suspected the tanker because fuel trucks arrive every morning to deliver gas and oil." 


RTT continues,  "The latest attack targeting Iraqi security forces took place in the hometown of executed President Saddam Hussain, which is a Sunni-dominated stronghold of insurgency."  Alsumaria observes, "A day earlier a bomb exploded inside a mosque in Iraq's predominantly Shia Muslim south on Sunday, wounding six civilians, police said, as the country's delicate sectarian balance comes under growing strain."




That isn't the only violence in Iraq today. NINA also reports a mortar attack in Falluja, a Falluja sticky bombing left one person injured,  the home "of theAnbar Salvation Council, Hamid al-Hayes, northereast of Ramadi" was attacked leaving two bodyguards wounded, and 1 police officer was kidnapped in Tikrit.  In addition, Alsumaria notes that a worker at a Mosul prison for juveniles was shot dead today by unknown assailants in a passing car.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes, "In Baghdad, two policemen and a civilian were shot dead by gunmen in two separate incidents, the interior ministry said."  Also Mohammed Tawfeeq Tweeted this violence:


  1. 2 local contractors were killed & another was kidnapped when gunmen attacked Akkaz gasfield located in #Anbar #Iraq on Mon, police told #CNN


Kidnappings are still common in Iraq.  One took place Friday involving a large number of people but it only made news today which makes you wonder how much gets covered? Jessica Murphy (UK Press and Journal) reported this morning that foreign oil workers -- including Brock Fettes -- were being held hostage in Iraq.  Esther Beadle (Evening Express) adds, "Insch father-of-three Brock Fettes and two University of Aberdeen graduates were part of a group of 120 men held captive after the gang boarded the HKN Energy rig and demanded $1 million."  The Daily Record notes the hostage crisis started Friday with the armed gang demanding $1 million to release the hostages who were released today but the British government is refusing to answer whether or not a ransom was paid: "But the Foreign Office confirmed the siege was over while trying to play down the incident."  Brock Fettes tells STV, "My concern is this happening again.  If they get paid off this time, it will become the national sport for villagers to target oil rights.  They will all be doing it. The oil company concerned is in denial, and won't admit that anything is going on because they don't want to lose the contract."


Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor's Jane Arraf Tweets:



100 days of #Iraq protest in #Fallujah - small anti-govt demo marks anniversary as mourners bury protest organizer shot dead last night.
National Iraqi News Agency reports, "Hundreds of citizens demonstrated in Maysaloon Square in central city of Fallujah and the sit-in Square northern Ramadi to mark passing 100 days of starting the sit-ins.  Layla Anwar (Arab Woman Blues) has listed the protesters demands as:

- End of Sectarian Shia rule

- the re-writing of the Iraqi constitution (drafted by the Americans and Iranians)
- the end to arbitrary killings and detention, rape and torture of all detainees on basis of sect alone and their release
- the end of discriminatory policies in employment, education, etc based on sect
- the provision of government services to all
- the end of corruption
- no division between Shias and Sunnis, a one Islam for all Iraqi Muslims and a one Iraq for all Iraqis.



An end to arbitrary killings?  Not last year, not today.
Iraq set a record in 2012 -- like most of the records under Nouri al-Maliki's 'leadership,' it's nothing anyone would brag about.  Dropping back to theNovember 12th snapshot:
Staying with violence, as noted in the October 15th snapshot, Iraq had already executed 119 people in 2012.  Time to add more to that total. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported last night that 10 more people were executed on Sunday ("nine Iraqis and one Egyptian").  Tawfeeq notes the Ministry of Justice's statement on the executions includes, "The Iraqi Justice Ministry carried out the executions by hanging 10 inmates after it was approved by the presidential council." 


November 29th, speaking to the United Nations Security Council, Martin Kobler noted the vast number of executions that had taken place in 2012.  

Martin Kobler:  To date, this year, 123 people have been executed in Iraq.  53 of them since July.  The latest executions were carried out on 11 November, when 11 convicts were executed, including one Egyptian.  I continue to reiterate the Secretary-General's call in his report for the government of Iraq to consider a moratorium on all executions, in accordance with the relevant General Assembly resolutions.  



129 or 123, it's a disturbing number.  And despite calls for a moratorium, there's been no effort to stop the executions.  Alsumaria reports that Iraqiya MP Yassin al-Mutlaq announced at a press conference today in front of the Parliament building that the Ministry of Justice executed 30 people yesterday.  The MP also declared that they have evidence declaring that some of the people responsible for the crimes that led to yesterday's executions were allowed to walk by paying bribes and getting out of prison.   Alsumaria also notes that the Ministry of Justice announced today that 4 executions have taken place today.  Jane Arraf Tweets that "3,000 more await hanging."
 March 27th, the European Union's Catherine Ashton stated: 
I deeply regret that the authorities have chosen to re-start executions now, when the Iraqi government had committed to re-examining the cases of prisoners and detainees. Iraq is aware of the EU's unequivocal position against the death penalty. The EU strongly believes that capital punishment violates the most fundamental of human rights. The EU appreciates the seriousness of the crimes for which those sentenced to death have been convicted. The EU however does not believe death penalty will act as a deterrent.
The international outcry against Iraq's mass executions only continues to grow but they continue to be carried out.  NINA notes that MP al-Mutlaq at today's press conference called for executions to be halted and noted the need for Parliament "to speed up adoption of the amnesty law and the aboltion of the de-Baathification as well as the adoption of other laws that meet hte demands of the protesters." 
April 20th, Iraq is set to hold provincial elections.  Currently, 12 of Iraq's 18 provinces are supposed to participate.  There are three provinces that make up the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government: Dahuk, Erbil and Sulamaniyah.   They hold their own elections and last did so in July of 2009.  It is anticipated that they will hold elections in their provinces in July of this year.  (Parliamentary elections find the KRG voting at the same time as the rest of Iraq, these are provincial elections taking place this year.)  That brings us to 15 of Iraq's provinces.  Kirkuk is an oil-rich province and it is disputed with both the centeral government out of Baghdad claiming it as well as the KRG claiming it.  Article 140 details how that will be resolved -- Article 140 of the Constitution.  Nouri was made prime minister in 2006 and he was bound by the Constitution -- which he took an oath to -- to implement Article 140 by the end of 2007 but Nouri never keeps a promise or oath.  Kirkuk brings us to 16.  The other two provinces not voting?
Nouri has decreed -- giving a different reason every other day -- that Anbar and Nineveh will not be voting in the elections.   Al Mada reports that Parliament is decrying the decision to postpone elections in Anbar and Nineveh (Nouri's said for six months).
Despised politician Saleh al-Mutlaq (pictured in this Iraqi Spring MC photo of the protests last Friday) declared that there's no harm if voting's delayed in Nineveh or Anbar.  Look for Saleh al-Mutlaq to be escorted out of Iraqiya -- that is if he's not killed first.  He's truly hated.  We've documented that since 2011.  The people do not like Saleh al-Mutlaq.  Shi'ites hate him because he's supposed to still be a Ba'athist.  That is what the Justice and Accountability Commission found in 2010 which is why he was prevented from running for Parliament.  Iraqiya fought for him when he was labeled a terrorist.  His thanks to Iraqiya is to continue to spit on them which is why Sunnis hate him.

Dar Addustour notes that the Electoral Commission has announced that they will be issuing a report and the report will determine when elections are held in Anbar Province and Nineveh Province.   Like most Iraqi outlets in the last weeks, Dar Addustour has stopped billing the commission as "independent."
There are certain rules about campaigning in Iraq.  Nouri has upset the Iraqi youth with recent comments.  Al Mada notes that the comments include Nouri asserting that if it were not for State of Law, Iraq would have collapsed.  TheIraq Times notes the Youth Caucus has issued a statement demanding Nouri apologize for the partisan remark.  The only apology he has issued is a weak one, Alsumaria reports, for not attending today's Parliament session where he was supposed to face questions.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds, "The prime minister asked for a closed session including only the leaders of the Iraqi political blocs and the members of the parliamentary commission for security. He asked that the meeting be at his office to guarantee confidentiality."
In other news,    Al Mada carries an article which opens with the declaration that Iraq is headed for disintegration and that the United States stays silent as it takes place and does nothing.  Dar Addustour reports that KRG President Massoud Barzani dispatched an envoy to the US last month to explore the issues with the US government and that the envoy has met with US Vice President Joe Biden.

Sunday was Easter and Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) notes extra measures were taken in Bahgdad, "Soldiers and federal policemen in armored vehicles were posted outside churches and security patrols were increased in Christian areas. Because of Baghdad’s fragile security, at many churches the main Easter service traditionally ending at dawn Sunday morning was held Saturday night."  The Financial Times of London points out, "Two-thirds of Iraq's estimated 1.4m Chirstian population are thought to have been driven out after the 2003 invasion turned into an ethno-sectarian war."  AP quotes Fatin Yousef who attends St. Joseph Chaldean Church in Baghdad stating, "We pray for love and peace to spread through the world.  We hope Pope Francies will help make it better for Christians in Iraq."  Jane Arraf files a video report for Al Jazeera.  Excerpt.

Jane Arraf:  Chaldean Catholics trace themselves back 2,000 years when an apostle of Jesus, St. Thomas, preached in Iraq.  They still preach a form of Aramaic, the language of Jesus.  But the main Easter service the church isn't quite filled.  Half of Iraq's Christians have left in the last ten years.  A lot has changed outside this church, there are armed guards.  They're here because more than sixty churches have been attacked -- some of them by suicide bombers.  Coming to Mass has become not just a sign of faith but a risk.  The new Patriarch of the world's Chaldeans is struggling to make sure Christians stay in a turbulent Middle East.  

Patriarch Louis Raphael Sako:  They are still going on leaving because you know the security is not stable and services, jobs, but I think the main thing is the trust.  They don't trust the future and the government. 

Look at the World from Behind the Wall

Look at the World from Behind the Wall

William A. Cook

Put yourself in their shoes. Look at the world through their eyes. It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of their own. Living their entire lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements not just of those young people but their parents, their grandparents, every single day. It’s not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It’s not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; or restricting a student’s ability to move around the West Bank; or displace Palestinian families from their homes Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.
— President Barak Obama in Israel 2013
Would that the President might take his own advice — "Put yourself in their shoes. Look at the world through their eyes " — he need only open his eyes beyond the wall that imprisons the Palestinians he speaks about: see how the wall blinds the Jews to the plight of the people they drove from their land, see the barren landscape on the other side rubble strewn, savaged by bulldozers and missiles, see the people caught in a maelstrom of poverty and deprivation, listen to the mothers and wives weep for their husbands and sons jailed without charge in Israel’s Gulag where escape comes by self-starvation as the only defense against indefinite torture and lives lost to family and friends, listen to the cries of the people of the world who have condemned this barbaric behavior only to run into the President’s own wall–the veto in the UN Security Council that effectively denies the justice he so righteously exalts, "Peace is also just. " How true and how easily it could be made a reality if he were to simply abstain during the vote that sought to bring this defiant state before the International Court of Justice finally after 64 years of impunity to the very justice this President mouths, as though saying it levitates him beyond criticism.
Indeed, "Look at the world through their eyes, " let Americans look at the state of Israel through Palestinian eyes to witness the monstrous injustice that exists in this "democratic state " that "shares America’s values, " America’s only "friend " in the mid-east. Let’s look at how the Israeli government responds to the President’s call for justice for the Palestinians, within three days of his visit. Let’s report on a peaceful protest that has gone unnoticed by the American press with the exception of Tim King’s Salem-News: "Israeli forces have sprayed Palestinian homes in the village of Nabi Saleh with "skunk "* as a punishment for organizing weekly protests against the Apartheid Wall built on occupied West Bank land (March 26, 2013).1
While the American press offered nothing about this incident, Reuters and the Guardian did as well as The Middle East Monitor which provided this background information: "Israeli forces have sprayed Palestinian homes in the village of Nabi Saleh with raw sewage … as a punishment for organising weekly protests against the Apartheid Wall built on occupied West Bank land. Human rights watchdog B’Tselem published a video showing Israel’s armoured tanker trucks fitted with "water cannons " which spray the foul fluid at Palestinian protesters. B’Tselem said in a statement that the Israeli forces also targeted all the houses of the village with the sewage. The powerful jet broke windows and caused a great deal of damage in the houses, said the Israeli organisation. "It also causes environmental damage, " it pointed out. The non-lethal weapon has been added to the Israelis’ armoury for crowd control, said B’Tselem, even though the video shows clearly that it is also used against Palestinian-owned property."2
How can the people of the United States tolerate such despicable and inhumane behavior from a supposed friend? When did Americans decide that peaceful protests should not be allowed? When did Americans decide that their tax dollars should provide a state the means to shower humans and their homes in foul smelling chemicals that literally cloaks them in animal smell used by animals for self-protection but used here to prevent intelligent dissent from oppressive military aggression. Literally forcing silence to prevent disagreement. These are the ruthless and barbaric actions of a state that has no respect for humans other than its own; it casts a pall over its "friend," the American people, by making them complicit in such abominable behavior, it smells to high treason, an insult to those who have provided an estimated 3 trillion dollars of support that this state might exist (Rense.com).
What is particularly disturbing is the fact that minds have designed this "strategy " to quell dissent, a fundamental right and duty of democratic people. It tells us that the state of Israel does not value dissent; its newspapers can carry debates by its Jewish citizens but it will not tolerate dissent from those it occupies or its non-Jewish citizens.
Look through the eyes of the Palestinian mother and father who have struggled mightily to maintain a home through these years of deprivation; watch them see this "shit," a term used in Vermont to describe the spreading of cow manure on the fields in the spring, but this is not Vermont nor are the Israelis "shitting the fields," pulverize the house breaking through the windows saturating furniture, beds, even kitchen utensils depriving them of basic forks and knives to use at dinner. What is this but collective punishment of the innocent who at worst wanted to demonstrate against the occupation peacefully. There is no self-defense here; it is rather sheer racist hatred of others, demeaning, shameful, a means to inflict uncontested force against the defenseless, the coward’s way to self-fulfillment.
No state can spread such "shit " on its people with impunity except Israel protected as it is by our captured Senators like Lindsey Graham, who had the audacity to interrogate a true patriot, Senator Hagel, who pledged his oath of office to the United States not a foreign government, because he was beholden to AIPAC knowing as he sat there the answer to his question to Hagel, name a Senator Mr. Hagel who is afraid of Israel, with the answer written all over his obsequious face, you Senator Graham.
This is not the democracy Americans practice; it is a sham democracy that protects the few and emasculates those excluded. Democracy is inclusive. Had I not witnessed this behavior in this decade of advanced civilization, I would have thought that it came from the mind of our most enlightened sci-fi satirists, Kurt Vonnegut, Aldous Huxley, or George Orwell, minds capable of dreaming the impossible couched in scenes of the savage country or 1984; perhaps reality has caught up with comic satire.
Obama’s trip to Israel demonstrated, in the words of AIPAC, America’s "resilient friendship, based in large part on an unshakable dedication to common values. Commitment to democracy, the rule of law, freedom of religion and speech and human rights are all core values shared between the United States and Israel " (AIPAC). What is that rule of law that binds these two countries together that such a vicious display of animosity against neighbors would be inflicted so shortly after the President of this "resilient friendship" left the country having asked the Israeli people to consider "Looking through the eyes of their neighbors at the conditions imposed on them by the Israeli occupation"?
The Israeli government has imposed Military Order 101 that requires an Israeli permit if more than 10 people gather, something similar to the "parade permits" required in the old south to ensure no demonstrations against "Bull Connor’s peaceful world. " Martin Luther King had to face that same logic in the United States in August of 1963. Certainly our President knows the brilliance of King’s logic that tore apart the logic of occupiers and oppressors that denied the rights of people who live in a free, open and equitable land, a truly democratic land that treats all its citizens by rules of law as civilized societies must: "… I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the eighth-century prophets left their little villages and carried their 'thus saith the Lord’ far beyond the boundaries of their hometowns; and just as the Apostle Paul left his little village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to practically every hamlet and city of the Greco-Roman world, I too am compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my particular hometown." Is not this the purpose of the President’s visit to Israel, to announce to the world that America will not tolerate injustice done in its name by its "resilient friend" that receives 8 million a day from the largesse of the American taxpayer?
But there’s more, much more that King argued before the American government when it was forced to confront its immorality and illegality after 90 years of segregation, oppression and deceit against its own people. "I am cognizant," King asserted, "of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham.Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly… You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being."
How prophetic of the conditions that have yoked the United States to the state of Israel. Indeed that state wants to forge a "security agreement" that would link its behavior to that of the United States and literally drive our policies in concert with theirs. Skunk tankers would become American tools against its own people even as we permit, even encourage, the lawlessness that drives Israeli policies against its neighbors whether the American people agree or not. Thus do we become complicit in the evil perpetrated by that rogue state.
But some will assert that America had laws requiring permits to gather, to protest peacefully, to march against the immoral actions of its local military authority. And King demolished that logic by appeal to a human nature that knows barbarity does not and should not rule in a civilized state.
"One may well ask, 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'An unjust law is no law at all.’ Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."
We, the humans that design and implement the rules of law, do so to ensure that all are treated equally under that law; if not we have abrogated the responsibility of civilized humans to act on behalf of all and thus have become but beasts dependent on instinct and ruthless force to exist. That is not the principled foundation upon which the United States was fashioned. And while the nation did not begin its days in keeping with its principles, it never erased them but rather attempted in time to reconcile its beliefs with the implementation of laws that corrected its deficiencies.
Well might we ask how this President reacted to the foul actions of the Israeli government when it uses such despicable actions against the people it is responsible for protecting under the rules of international occupation? This is what he said: "So peace is necessary. But peace is also just. Peace is also just. There is no question that Israel has faced Palestinian factions who turned to terror, leaders who missed historic opportunities. That is all true."
But it is as well deceitful; it addresses only the concerns of one side, the "resilient friend" of the U.S. Why no mention of the Nakba, the defiant use of illegal terrorist destruction by the Jewish Agency and its armies against the legal authority of the Mandate Government charged by the international community to protect both the indigenous people of Palestine and the immigrants arriving from Europe? Why no mention of the 64 years of intentionally stalled peace negotiations’ that resulted in the virtual takeover of all the land of Palestine? Why no mention of the original intention of the Jewish Agency and its adherents to remove by whatever force necessary the Arabs from the land of Israel when in fact they didn’t own it or have "historical" right to it? Why pretend to the world that the Palestinians have been the perpetrators of terrorism when they have the legal right to defend their homeland against illegal occupiers and oppressors?
"And that’s why security must be at the center of any agreement."
Security for whom? Do not the Palestinians need security when the reality on the ground has been the theft of virtually all their land? Only security for the state of Israel against the Palestinians when the state of Israel has the fourth largest military in the world and the Palestinians have no military?
"It has to be done by the parties."
Certainly it is obvious to all that the United States cannot be a broker for peace between these parties. It is yoked to the state of Israel irrevocably. Only the UN can bring resolution by bringing Israel before the Security Council to determine how it will reconfigure its borders so that the state of Palestine can be fashioned legitimately and justice for all can be established.
"But the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, their right to justice, must also be recognized."
If this is Obama’s desire than does he have a responsibility to take action to ensure it happens. Doing nothing will change nothing. Let the 95% of the world’s population that has recognized the rights of the Palestinian people (188 nations out of 193 allowed by their vote acceptance of the people of Palestine to member status in the UN) direct the process by which justice can be done.
If we look at the world from behind the wall that imprisons the Palestinian people, we must accept the injustice that pervades the Zionist government’s treatment of their neighbors. Any law that degrades human personality as Martin Luther King states is unjust. What is more degrading to the human personality than to be drenched in the sewage that flows from the Jewish squatters’ settlements or sprayed by the skunks that use their protective innards to deny the democratic right of dissent? A just people create just laws, laws that uplift human personality. Peace is just as the President said; would that he would make it so.
  1. See the video provided by the paper that the eyes of all might be opened. []
  2. Israeli security forces spray raw sewage at palestinian homes. []


Tuesday, 2 April 2013

British General: Cutting Troops in Afghanistan Would Be ‘Unforgivable’

British General: Cutting Troops in Afghanistan Would Be ‘Unforgivable’

by Jason Ditz


Leaving Afghanistan 'Not in Line' With Current Plan
March 31, 2013

In comments to Britain’s The Independent today, Lt. Gen. Nick Carter, the top British commander in Afghanistan, and indeed the second-in-command for the entire NATO occupation, warned against any calls to withdraw troops from the nation.

Carter said that any cuts above and beyond the trivial ones agreed to beforehand would be "unforgivable" and would threaten the "progress" that the past 11 and a half years of occupation has produced.

"Our judgement is we have to manage this in a way that retains confidence," Carter added, saying any cuts would ruin the Afghan government’s confidence of long-term deployment of NATO troops.
Carter’s confidence appears to run opposite to an internal report from the British Defense Ministry, which ruled the Afghan war "unwinnable," saying that NATO following the same trail as the Soviet Union, whose own occupation ended with a precipitous withdrawal and the quick collapse of the Soviet-backed regime, which included many of the same elements as the new NATO-backed government.
Britain’s political leadership has talked up accelerating the withdrawal in recent months, and Chancellor George Osborne has called for a full withdrawal of troops immediately, saying they serve no apparent purpose.


One of the occupation's consequences ... War on Iraqi crops

One of the occupation's consequences ... War on Iraqi crops

Imad Khadduri


Reference a previous posting:


Kindly note the following sections (unfortunatly, not all previous links are still active and I have updated some of them):

"As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds, which include seeds the Iraqis themselves have developed over hundreds of years. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations. That is because in recent years, transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples. In a short time, Iraq will be living under the new American credo:
"The American Administrator of the Iraqi CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) government, Paul Bremer, updated Iraq's intellectual property law to 'meet current internationally-recognized standards of protection'.
The updated law makes saving seeds for next year's harvest, practiced by 97% of Iraqi farmers in 2002, and is the standard farming practice for thousands of years across human civilizations, to be now illegal.. Instead, farmers will have to obtain a yearly license for genetically modified (GM) seeds from American corporations. These GM seeds have typically been modified from seeds developed over thousands of generations by indigenous farmers like the Iraqis, and shared freely like agricultural 'open source.'"

"According to Order 81, paragraph 66 - [B], issued by L. Paul Bremer [CFR], the people in Iraq are now prohibited from saving seeds and may only plant seeds for their food from licensed, authorized U.S. distributors.
The paragraph states, "Farmers shall be prohibited from re-using seeds of protected varieties or any variety mentioned in items 1 and 2 of paragraph [C] of Article 14 of this chapter."
Written in massively intricate legalese, Order 81 directs the reader at Article 14, paragraph 2 [C] to paragraph [B] of Article 4, which states any variety that is different from any other known variety may be registered in any country and become a protected variety of seed - thus defaulting it into the "protected class" of seeds and prohibiting the Iraqis from reusing them the following season. Every year, the Iraqis must destroy any seed they have, and repurchase seeds from an authorized supplier, or face fines, penalties and/or jail time. "
Iraqis Can't Save Seed January 19, 2005

The original article on this topic: Iraqi farmers aren't celebrating October 15, 2004".
.........

This important recent (Oct 8, 2012 ) 1 hour 24 minutes documentary  is very relevant.





.




Afghan Teen Stabbed US Soldier to Death, Escaped

Afghan Teen Stabbed US Soldier to Death, Escaped

by Jason Ditz


Taliban Says Attacker Acted Alone

April 1, 2013
Details are emerging about the killing of US Sgt. Michael Cable last week, with officials confirming that he was stabbed to death by an Afghan civilian, believed to be a teenager.
The attacker stabbed Cable in the neck during a meeting in Nangarhar Province. Cable was outside and reportedly playing with children who had come to the site when the attack occurred, and the assailant escaped.
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid identified the attacker as a 16-year-old named Khalid, saying he was acting on his own in the killing but had since joined the Taliban after fleeing the scene.
Today’s revelations are a stark change from the Pentagon’s initial statement on the matter, which claimed he was killed in combat with "enemy forces." Officials say that since the attacker was not in uniform it is not believed to be an "insider attack," and there is no indication he was working for the Afghan security forces at the time.


Black Mass Incarceration ---- Is It New? Is It Jim Crow? Is the Prison-Industrial Complex Real? And What Difference Does It Make

Black Mass Incarceration ---- Is It New? Is It Jim Crow? Is the Prison-Industrial Complex Real? And What Difference Does It Make

Bruce A. Dixon

31prison_montage01_2.jpg

Michelle Alexander's 2010 book "New Jim Crow" provided a language to talk about the prison state that we never had before. But is it entirely accurate? Is the prison industrial complex real? What's the difference between fighting against racism or a "new jim crow" or a "prison industrial complex" and confronting the reality of the prison state? 
Black Mass Incarceration ---- Is It New? Is It Jim Crow? Is the Prison-Industrial Complex Real? And What Difference Does It Make?

The short answers are yes, not exactly, not really, and a whole lot, which tells more about the inadequacies of short answers than it does about whether "New Jim Crow" is a really useful description, and who it's most useful to.
Is it New?
Prisons are certainly not new, and the employment of prisons to enforce a racially unjust social order isn't new either.  The post-civil war Black Codes prescribed heavy penalities for all sorts of infractions by African Americans.  But the scale of the modern US prison statesimply has no precedent.  Nobody has ever locked up this many people for as little, for as long.  Whatever you want to call the present situation with prisons, prisoners and USsociety, you have to call it something brand new.
Is it Jim Crow?
Not exactly.
Michelle Alexander's 2010 book, The New Jim Crow, was a breakthrough in many ways. It came at a time when just about every African American family knew there was a crisis, when the shadow of prison literally squatted in the homes of hundreds of thousands, but when the black political class --- the gaggle of preachers, politicians and business types we imagine to be our "leaders" lacked even the language to discuss it, apart from tropes inherited from the jailers themselves, like "personal responsibility", and "do the crime, do the time."
Describing the prison state as a "New Jim Crow" played to the imagined history of the current black political class, which never stops celebrating the fifties and sixties victories over the old Jim Crow which made its birth possible, and which incorrectly advertises itself as the author of those victories, rather than the after-the-fact beneficiaries of them. In truth, the struggle against Jim Crow wasn't conducted by black politicians because there weren't many of them, especially in the South. Some black business people supported that struggle but they didn't lead it either, and most black preachers stood aside as well. The cutting edge that broke Jim Crow and carried out the final wave of organizing in the South which resulted in the Voting Rights Act were black youth.
"New Jim Crow" also absolved the black political class, at least initially, from responsibility for the prison state. They were the "civil rights leaders" and such, after all, you could hardly blame them for Jim Crow, old or new. And above all, by evoking the imagined spirit of class-blind racial unity which prevailed during the struggle against the old Jim Crow, "New Jim Crow" as a sort of descriptive slogan strengthened the credibility of the black political class.
Alexander's persistent calls for a mass movement to be raised against the "New Jim Crow" are on target. But where do we imagine that movement will come from? College students? Not likely, as today's students are burdened by debt as no others before them in history, and college-educated blacks are by relatively exempt from the depredations of the police and prison state. A college educated black male today stands a third the chance his uncle in 1980 did of going to prison, while today's black male high school dropout is several times more likely to serve prison time sometimes during his life than his uncle the same age and status in 1980. Business people just don't lead mass movements --- ever --- so that's not worth thinking about, and the black church, which often makes the historically absurd claim that it was the fount and wellspring of the fifties and sixties Freedom Movement won't do it either. Neither will our black political class, who are deeply implicated in the day to day running of the prison state.
Alexander herself notes that if US incarceration rates were to be rolled back to 1980 levels, not only would more than a million prisoners walk free, but a million prison guards, sheriffs, judges, bail bondsmen contractors, and others would suddenly be jobless. A lot of their faces are black, which brings us to a second difference between the old and "new" Jim Crows. In the old Jim Crow, apart from black business people who had captive markets white firms didn't compete with them over, it's hard to identify any stratum of black people who had a material interest in keeping the old system. You can't say the same about this "New Jim Crow."
The closer one looks, in fact, the more "New Jim Crow" looks like a slogan, a metaphor, rather than accurate analysis. To her credit, Ms. Alexander's is pretty clear on the question of class within the black community, noting that she had to make a personal journey of her own to begin to see lower-class black males and through them their families and communities as the principal victims of the predatory penal state.
But not everybody who throws around "New Jim Crow" as a slogan has or will ever bother to read the book. And not all who do read the book bother to read it carefully or closely. "New Jim Crow" is an acceptable term for the prison state for the black political class and even for much of white America precisely because it seems to blame "racism" for everything, and in blaming "racism" actual human beings and governments they act through tend to be obscured.
It's the job of intellectuals to come up with not just catchy slogans and malleable metaphors, but actual analysis. Anyone who deals with actual people on the ground knows that people will, after a short while, begin to treat catchy slogans as if they ARE analysis. You plan for it, it's just the way you expect a lot of people to operate. For example, during Occupy Atlanta last year there were misguided souls in the (non)leadership who took anti-immigrant positions because they imagined that "we are the 99%" meant they should adhere to whatever positions the vast majority of Americans did, and most Americans were thought to be (if you read the mainstream media) hostile toward immigrants.
It's more useful and concrete to note that police, prisons, courts and criminal laws are are functions of government than it is to say they are "racist institutions" being run in a "racist" way. Under one formulation we are fighting the state, trying to re-make the state. If our enemy is racism and New Jim Crow, exactly who or what are we fighting, and by what means?
Is the Prison Industrial Complex Real?
Finally, for the sake of clarity, we should look at the problematic term "prison industrial complex."
It seems to say that the growth in prisons during the last thirty years was motivated by profit. The facts don't seem to back this up. Most prisoners are not working, not performing any economic activity. Better than 90% of all prisoners any given day are simply languishing in their dorms or cells, period, not doing anything. Federal prison industries in several of the last few years, have failed even to make a profit. There are plenty of contractors, who handle everything from feeding prisoners to medical services, and they are raking it in. But they aren't dictating the growth of prisons over the last thirty years. Politicians do that, for reasons that have lots to do with sustaining their own careers, and asserting the authority of the state over supposed delinquent segments of the population, teaching them "a lesson", supposedly deterring crime, ensuring public safety and all that. In short, prisons cost money, they don't make money and the money that is being made from prisons is far too small to account for the six and sevenfold increase in US prisoners over the last 40 years.
Those of us on the left generally and correctly regard privatization as evil, so it's hard to imagine anything more evil than a privatized prison. Although a number of very profitable private prison outfits DO exist, the fact is that the percentage of prisoners housed in privatized prisons is growing very slowly, and most of that growth is confined to a single sector, the incarceration of immigrants.
It seems that private prison companies want to make profits. The least profitable prisoners are the old, the sick and those requiring extra security precautions. Immigrants came here to work. They are mostly young, mostly healthy, and not especially disposed to violence, which makes them the most profitable prisoners. The trouble is that the Obama administration has rounded up and is deporting record numbers of immigrants, and with the unemployment levels remaining quite high, immigration as a whole is declining. So the boom in immigrant prisons is not sustainable either.
Think about it. Can anyone seriously argue that the drive for profit has fueled the six and sevenfold growth of US prisons over the last 40 years? For this to be true there would have to be not a handful, but dozens, perhaps hundreds of prison billionaires, just as there are hundreds of billionaires connected with military contracting. But these do not exist. There are profiteers, but not a hundredth as many even as in the field of rapidly privatizing education. Prisons have never been especially profitable.
Lock-em-up laws, aggressive policing, runaway prosecutions and racist policing have all been about enforcing a new social order on population segments whose labor is no longer needed as it was 50 years ago, and for whom no jobs, training, quality housing or meaningful education will be provided. Prisons are about showing somebody who's boss, about perceived "public safety", about enforcing an unjust social order.
To fight the "prison industrial complex" , like generating a movement against the "new jim crow", is to fight a ghost. Neither of them are real. What's real is 2 million plus people in US prisons and jails. Prisons are real, and prisons are about statecraft, not about runaway profits, not about "neo-slavery", whatever that is, and not about "racism", which is everywhere anyhow.
A movement that challenges the prison state must come in part from the prisoners and former prisoners and their families. It will have to be a movement that challenges the way we are governed, the way housing, health care, jobs and resources are distributed, the way we educate our young and care for our elders. The prison state is another aspect, along with privatizations and austerity, of neoliberal capitalism. That's what's real. Time to wash the "new jim crow" pixie dust from our eyes.
Bruce A. Dixon is managing editor at Black Agenda Report and a state committee member of the GA Green Party. He can be contacted via this site's contact page or at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com.

Source 

Refugees of Libyan War Protest at World Social Forum

Refugees of Libyan War Protest at World Social Forum

By Alberto Pradilla

31wsf-small1.jpg
Refugees from the Choucha camp in Tunisia are demanding recognition of their legal status. Credit: Alberto Pradilla/IPS
TUNIS, Mar 31 2013 (IPS) - "We need a solution. The U.N. has created the problem, and they should do their work and fix it," says Bright, a young Nigerian stuck in the Choucha refugee camp in Tunisia, a few kilometres from the Libyan border.
Bright and hundreds of other refugees have spent the last two years in a camp that has turned into a no man’s land. They are mainly immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa who were living in Libya but fled the country at the start of the armed clashes that led to the fall of the regime of Muammar Gaddafi (1969-2011).
Of the thousands who originally crossed the border, 250 are left, from different countries. Their refugee status is not recognised, and officially they don’t exist. The United Nations rejected their applications for asylum, and they can’t return to their countries of origin or Libya, where blacks are suspected of being loyalists or mercenaries and face repression.
They are living in extreme conditions, and their plight is ignored by international institutions and the Tunisian government.
During this week’s World Social Forum, held in Tunis, a group of 50 refugees made it to the capital to demand a solution. Thirty-seven of them declared a hunger strike on Friday Mar. 29 outside the office of the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR).
The hunger strikers pledged to continue their fast until a solution was found. The situation of the refugees will become even more complex if the camp is closed in June, as the UNHCR has announced.
"In my country I was active in political issues, so I was persecuted. That’s why I went to Libya," Mousa Ibrahim, from Ghana, tells IPS. Ghanaians are the largest group in Choucha, where there are 80 people from that West African nation.
Ibrahim says he was working in Zawiya, a city on Libya’s Mediterranean coast 45 km west of Tripoli, until Mar. 20, 2011. When the civil war broke out, he fled with his then-pregnant wife and their five-year-old son.
"I registered in the camp because they promised that they would recognise us as refugees," he complains. But more than 48 months have gone by; his daughter Jalida was born in Choucha, and his situation has merely gotten worse and worse.
"The Tunisian refugee commission has rejected me. They say I have two options: to go back to my country or return to Libya. In Ghana I would be thrown into prison or killed. And in Libya, black people are persecuted. I just want to be recognised as a refugee and allowed to go to a country where I can live in safety," he says.
Two years ago, the Libyan conflict triggered an exodus that overwhelmed Ras Jdir, the main border crossing into Tunisia from Libya, and led to its temporary closure.
The UNCHR gradually transferred most of the refugees from the Choucha camp. The remaining families, from Ghana, Nigeria, the Western Sahara, the Darfur region in Sudan, or Palestine, complain that they were left out of the transfer, for one reason or another.
At first, dozens of organisations were working to address the humanitarian crisis in the camp. But now, hardly any aid is arriving. The refugees continue to sleep in the tents in the camp, but the assistance is drying up.

Food stopped arriving five months ago, and they do what they can to find food. And since their applications for refugee status have been rejected, they don’t have the right to be relocated to another country. In practice, it is as if they didn’t exist.
"We aren’t immigrants and we aren’t trying to go to another country because we’re looking for work. The problem is political: we are refugees," Bright tells IPS during a sit-in outside of the European Union office in Tunisia on Wednesday Mar. 27.
Frightened by the prospect of the closure of the camp in June, the refugees have begun to mobilise.
But survival itself is difficult, let alone carrying out a campaign to raise awareness of their plight and demand solutions.
On one hand are the economic problems. They hardly scrape by, and need the help of Tunisian and foreign activists who collect funds to pay for their trips. Then there are the obstacles put in place by the Tunisian government, which has sent in police to keep the refugees from moving about.
That happened in January, when around 100 of them managed to reach the capital, where they spent five days informing people about their situation. And it happened again before the World Social Forum. When they were heading out of the camp, the police stopped their buses at Ben Gardane, 443 km south of Tunis.
But half of the refugees who had set out, including Ibrahim and Bright, made it.
Their signs were visible at the entrance to the World Social Forum, held Mar. 26-30 on the El Manar university campus. The placards were also seen outside official buildings like the U.S. and British embassies.
Their demand is clear: a solution to leave behind the limbo in which they are living.
But although the question of the refugees came up in several workshops this week at the WSF – the largest global gathering of organised civil society opposed to the direction globalisation is taking – and many activists expressed solidarity with their cause, no clear statement was issued urging the U.N. to reconsider their status.
"This is a real case, not theory," Bright complains. His tired eyes show how fed up he is with all the doors being slammed in his face, and reflect his lack of confidence in institutions that have failed to help him and his fellow refugees.
The refugees say official representatives have tried to negotiate in parallel with the different national communities in the camp, while the deadline of closure looms.
The WSF ended Saturday in Tunis with a closing act and a demonstration for the Palestinians’ Land Day. Meanwhile, the unrecognised refugees will stay here, waiting for a solution.

Source 

Monday, 1 April 2013

Statement by the vice president of the Geneva International Centre for Justice at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on 12/03/2013

The occupation of Iraq ten years ago, which was called "liberation" is a "crime against peace"


       
The invasion of Iraq, labelled as “liberation” ten years ago, is a crime against peace according to the Nuremberg Charter. As a result, all of the Human Rights of all Iraqis are still being violated all of the time.
The invasion and subsequent counter-insurgency policy, led to hundreds of thousands of killed, and millions displaced. The Constitution imposed by the occupier, renders any political process meaningless.
Notwithstanding the objectives of Security Council Resolution 1859, the Human Rights Council never condemned the illegal invasion and occupation of the state of Iraq.
OHCHR is still reluctant to appoint a Special Rapporteur despite UN reports of continuing abuses.
The four month old uprising of the Iraqis to rid themselves of the regime left by the coalition of the willing is in danger of being crushed. Hence, let no one say “we did not know”.
On the tenth anniversary of the invasion, a series of side events are being held at the Palais des Nations on the 14th and 15th of March, to mark 2013 as the year for accountability and justice for Iraq.
This calls for the ending of the occupation legacies; EU countries which has a Partnership agreement and is doing business with Iraq must apply real pressures on the Iraqi government to stamp out human rights abuses, discrimination and corruption; urgent appointment of a Special Rapporteur for Iraq by OHCHR and that impunity should come to an end; immediate moratorium on executions in Iraq, and finally, Mr 

SUMMARY OF EVENTS OF THE IRAQI POPULAR REVOLUTION: HAND IN HAND TOWARDS RECLAIMING OUR RIGHTS FRIDAY

NewsSheet No.11

Ramadi March 29, 2013