From the Center for Research and Security Studies:
The Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) of the Cabinet secretariat has failed; failed miserably. So have the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Joint Intelligence Committee, the Directorate of Air Intelligence, the Directorate of Navy Intelligence, the Joint Cipher Bureau, the Directorate of Signals Intelligence and the Defense Image Processing and Analysis Center. All of India’s intelligence agencies have failed, and the most critical element in their collective failure is their overwhelming focus on militant groups based out of Pakistan. So intense has been this focus that India’s homegrown militant entities have spread like wild fire all through India’s 2,973,190 sq km of land mass. According to South Asia Terrorism Portal, “at least 231 of the India’s 608 districts are currently afflicted, at differing intensities, by various insurgent and terrorist movements.”
Over the past 5 decades, India has been up against three distinct types of militancy: Left-wing extremist, separatist and religious. Left-wing extremist groups that have engaged in terrorist activity include People’s Guerilla Army, People’s War Group, Moist Communist Center, Communist Party of India-Maoist and Communist Party of India Janashakti. In Assam, there are at least 35 known separatist groups. In Manipur, there’s the People’s Liberation Army. In Meghalava, there’s the People’s Liberation Front of Meghalava. Nagaland has at least three known insurgent entities; Punjab has 12, Tripura has 30 and Mizoram has 2. Then there’s Arunachal Dragon Force in Arunachal Pradesh.
In 2006, a total of 2,765 Indians died in terrorism-related violence (that same year, 1,471 Pakistanis died in terrorism-related violence). Of the 2,765 Indians who lost their lives, 41 percent were killed in Jammu and Kashmir, 27 percent of all victims died because of Left-wing extremism, 23 percent because of insurgencies and 10 percent from militant groups based on religion.
Bush was warned that al Qaeda was planning but Bush didn’t pay much heed. Sukarnoputri was warned but she didn’t pay much heed. Manmohan Singh has also been ignoring warnings. America suffered and so did Indonesia and now India. In the first 11 months of 2008, casualties of terrorist violence in Pakistan already number 6,158. Pakistanis are all falling victims to entities in their midst who are adamant on imposing their own world view-and that too through violence.
Who’s behind Mumbai attacks? Is it India’s left-wing extremists, separatists or India’s homegrown jihadi militants? Many a fingers are pointing at India’s homegrown jihadi militants but we may never find out for sure. The Mumbai attacks, however, is a wake-up call for the global intelligence community for them to rise up to the challenge and focus their collective energies in the right direction. B. Raman, one of India’s leading analysts, is of the opinion that a whole lot of India’s militancy is “self radicalization, self motivation and self execution.”
The Wealth of your Nation
Solutions for the economic crisis
The economic downturn is starting to hurt. On the eve of Halloween salvation army had to close up with out cleaning up properly since they had to lay of some of their staff. People seem to be weary from the instability and unpredictability of their lives. The prospect of loosing your job and not being able to get a new one, the thought of losing your pension fund, your life savings, and your college money are overwhelming ideas to most. People are concerned and they are turning to the system for answers. What will the government do for me when I am in trouble? What will the government do to stabilize my own economic situation?
Amid the hectic presidential race, people are looking for leaders who understand the problems and have sound, well thought out solutions. And this is why the two opposing ideologies and economic policies that the candidates claim to stand for are significant. Los Angeles Times, BBC and others reported that the McCain campaign labeled Obama’s policies “socialist” or otherwise put the “spreading of wealth” approach. They criticize Obama’s claim that in order to combat the economic crisis increased government investment is needed in the American infrastructure and the energy sector.
Obama mentioned in both of the presidential debates how he would create jobs and save the livelihood of millions by increasing/allocating government money to long-term projects such as building roads and investing in the development of “clean coal”. These promises might sound revolutionary and new; however such approach to combat an economic crisis has been done before, and in many cases with much success.
Take for example Nazi Germany. (Let us focus on the economic policies for now, and put aside the significant humanitarian atrocities for later) The National Socialist Party (Nazi Party), whose leader was Adolf Hitler succeeded with a similar plan in reviving the German economy. The Nazi party after being elected into office coordinated the mass construction of roads, buildings and invested in research and development, education, and healthcare. These policies lead to the rapid development of technology, the betterment of the general public and the mass creation of jobs. Unemployment dropped rapidly and general public living standards increased. A very similar economic plan that Obama is pushing for right now, helped Germany, a crushed and broken nation to become one of the worlds largest, strongest and most developed countries in less than 10 years.
Other instances of well organized development of infrastructure and investment in education and health care have lifted many countries out of seemingly helpless situation. However this structure of rebounding from an economic crisis does not always work. If the government invests in unproductive or not beneficial sectors and does not let these sectors to compete internationally, than it might end up pumping billions of taxpayer’s dollars into projects that don’t generate future wealth. Such was the case in the United Kingdom prior to Margaret Thatcher’s policies.
Workers in the United Kingdom had unusual powers in government decision making due to the countries historical and political setup. Work unions could pressure political parties into supporting government funded projects which created no long term wealth what so ever. Take for example the Coal mines. Coal mines where deemed to be a national priority back in the days, prior to cheap Oil. As Oil took over, the coal industry was no longer producing profits, but instead was eating up billions and billions of taxpayers pounds as well as exposing a large percent of the population to the hazards of mining. Eventhough it was inefficient and unsound, the workers did not want to lose their jobs and the government did not want to lose their votes, so it continued to supply endless millions of pounds to the sector. This was to say the least a catastrophe.
Margaret Thatcher was elected by the public due to the immense distress caused by government overspending as well as market breakdown caused by overregulation. She fought to cleanse out the budget from all spending that was even slightly unnecessary. As the looming economic crisis worsened due to these policies, the British society rearranged itself in a more profit orientated civilian structure. If people only have the jobs that create wealth than generally the economy starts to create more and more wealth. The lesser the regulation, the more opportunity people have to create wealth, and thus more wealth can be created.
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan were the front runners of F.A. Hayek’s ideological movement to cut government spending and limit government involvement in the markets. And this is exactly the sort of economical approach McCain was pushing for, and the economic approach Mr. Bush claimed to be following.
Unfortunately the economical situation the US is facing today is different from those faced by Margaret Thatcher and Adolf Hitler and therefore predicting which approach will work the best for the US right now is hard to do. Non-the-less we know that both approaches have advantages and drawbacks. Seeing that the economic crisis happened due to under regulations and out of control speculation, a level of increased government involvement in the economy is to be expected, combined with intense cuts in spending.
Disclaimer: The generalizations and simplifications made in this article are not intended to limit perspective or manipulate opinion. In fact the purpose of this article is to provoke discussion and to encourage research about important aspects of our age.
Daniel Vidos has studied economics at The Polytechnics School of Economics in Hungary, the United World College of Costa Rica, and at the Earlham College of the United States. He has worked with several scientific and political organizations, to help humanity bring forth a peaceful transition into the age of global sustainability and nonviolence.
By Daniel Videos
The Pakistani involvement in the war on terror is contradictory to extreme levels.
Not only has Pakistan pursued a massive terror campaign against its citizens under the pretense of ousting Islamist extremists, but it has continued its policy to support, or at least tolerate, the rise of a ‘state’ in northern Pakistan based on radical interpretation of Islamic law.
Even though the military dictatorship, which has ruled Pakistan since a coup in 1999, condemned its predecessors for supporting the Taliban, it has done little to nothing to counter the spread of radical militias it self. On the other hand, Pakistan has played a crucial role in the US advocated War on Terror by arresting and imprisoning hundreds of citizens without warrants, torturing them and helping the US in shipping innocent people to Guantanamo Bay detention center. The campaign of anti-terrorism conducted by the Musharraf regime seemed to be aimed at civilian movements, human rights activists and the press, while little was done to combat the real threat of Islamist radicalism in its border regions.
Regrettably, the world media has associated Bhutto with the civil rights movements that challenged Musharraf’s authority. This in fact was not a true portrayal of Bhutto or the civilian movements. Bhutto, while in power, supported the Taliban and emblazed billions of aid and taxpayer dollars. Her main aim when returning from her exile was not to cut back on government transgression but to regain her former powers. Her past economic policies have failed just like Musharraf’s. Human rights were just as much tramped upon under her rule as under the outgoing military dictatorship. From the perspective of the Pakistani economic and social situation, there is little difference between the havoc the two parties caused.
Many have labeled Pakistan as a failed state, due to its economic crunch (inflation is around twenty-five percent), its rising levels of violence and its unstable government, which bases its authority on coercion. The military and the secret agency infrastructure that underpin the Pakistani administration has also undermined it. The complex web of corruption, oligarchy and power games has so far played out in a predictable way: chaos.
The Marriott bombing last Saturday and the death of Bhutto last December highlight the extent to which political assassination became a central part in Pakistan’s political conduct. However there is still hope. If the new, democratically elected president Asif Ali Zaradi is able to rally the urban population, the international media and the American government behind him, he might be able to carry out an economic reform plan combined with a systematic crackdown on corruption and radical Islamists. However Asifs deep involvement in corrupt party politics prior to Musharraf’s rule might bring a new twist to the terror in Pakistan.
Disclaimer: The generalizations and simplifications made in this article are not intended to limit perspective or manipulate opinion. In fact the purpose of this article is to provoke discussion and to encourage research about important aspects of our age.
Daniel Vidos has studied economics at The Polytechnics School of Economics in Hungary, the United World College of Costa Rica, and at the Earlham College of the United States. He has worked with several scientific and political organizations, to help humanity bring forth a peaceful transition into the age of global sustainability and nonviolence.
Filed under: Opinion | Tags: Human Rights, Politics, War on Terror, World Issues
By Daniel Vidos
The Future of American Ideology: A New Global Approach
American Renaissance Program
2008-2020
The immense strategical importance of protecting America’s interests in an ever changing and developing world calls for a New Global Approach. The challenges of today are complex however are not at all new to us: Radical Ideologies are threatening the foundations of Americas Power; the power derived from the ability to motivate and inspire the youth of the world.
Today we are facing the near total collapse of political and regulatory systems in Southern Asia and an unstable Middle East. The emergence of supranational radical entities such as Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Hezbollah among many others brought a new wave of militarization and ideological war fare to the region. The Region is vital for us not only because of its natural resources and strategic location but also due to the immense amount of internationally orientated youth motivated by these conflicts.
The War on Terror in its current form failed to gain the support of the international youth. Highly propagated incidents such as the ones in Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, the Global Anti-Terrorist Prison System as well as the Governments support of the Musharraf regime have destabilized the prior image of the United States as the moral Leader of Social Justice around the world.
Today, unlike twenty years ago, young adults and teenagers have access to popular media outlets such as YouTube, Facebook and Wikipedia that allow for the global mobilization of the internationally orientated. These outlets allow for the formation of mass populist movements such as the Zeitgeist Movement that have the possible power to challenge the current establishment.
Radical ideologies based on conspiracy theories, surreal technological claims and complex propaganda schemes are emerging at a threatening rate. And unfortunately are winning the hearts and minds of the young around the world.
In order to win back the United States prior reputation of being the leading inspirational force for the world’s youth, we must once again become the leading figure head in Civilian Freedoms and Human Rights. In order to achieve this goal the only option we have is to engage in an International Public Relation Program that focuses on the problems that the international youth is concerned about, and to highlight the already existing US efforts.
Taking a leading role in resolving several key issues such as the storing and manufacturing of indiscriminate cluster bombs and mines, carbon emissions, deforestation, education and availability of drinking water in developing countries would instantly increase the appeal of American World Hegemony for the internationally minded.
These goals can be achieved without compromising American civilian, business and military interests. Ensuring that technological advances that allow for the curbing of carbon emissions, the destruction of indiscriminate weaponry and the global availability of drinking water stay in the domain of the American People.
Development and propagation of smart weaponry, clean coal, wind, sun, tidal and thermal energy as well as water preservation technology will not only motivate and inspire youth around the world to come and help America on its quest to save the world, but it will also ensure that the United States becomes energy independent, water preserving and generally sustainable on the long run.
With a global media campaign that involves well known youth organizations and a strong pro-American message we would curb the spread of radicalism and the influence of anti-American regimes such as Iran, Venezuela and Russia. With this in mind, we must take every opportunity to ensure that the American Dream can blossom into a global popular movement promoting the pursuit of happiness, individual freedom and social justice for all.
|
||
Guidelines |
||
|
Filed under: Opinion | Tags: Human Rights, Israel, Politics, World Issues
By Uri Avnery
Israel’s Arab citizens certainly want to order the relations between them and the state on a new basis, but they definitely do not want to be separated from it. A new anthem and a new flag will not solve the problem, but they will constitute a significant step towards a solution that both sides can live with
On the morrow of Independence Day, a newspaper reported that an Arab child had refused to stand up while the national anthem was sung. The paper was furious. I was not. In fact, it raised a childhood experience from the depths of my memory.
It was in Hanover, Germany, some months after Adolf Hitler had come to power. I was a pupil in the first class of a high school that bore the name of the last German Empress, Auguste Victoria.
The rise of the Nazis to power did not, in general, cause immediate and dramatic changes. Life went on. But in school there was a marked change: every few weeks there was a celebration for one or another of the many military victories that German history is richly endowed with. On such days, all the pupils congregated in the big hall, the ‘aula’, the principal made a speech full of pathos and the pupils sang patriotic songs.
On one of these occasions — I think it was in celebration of the conquest of Belgrade from the Turks by Prince Eugen in 1717 — we assembled again in the aula, and at the end of the ceremony two anthems were sung: the national anthem (“Deutschland ueber Alles”) and the Nazi anthem (The Horst Wessel song). The hundreds of pupils rose to their feet, raised their right hands in the Nazi salute and sung devotedly.
I was 9 years old, a pupil of the most junior class, and the youngest child in the class. I was also the only Jew in school. I had no time to think. I rose to my feet, but I did not raise my hand and did not sing. One little boy in a sea of raised hands. I was trembling with excitement.
Nothing awful happened. But afterwards, some of my class-mates threatened that if I did this again, they would break my bones. I was saved from this test. A few weeks later my family fled Germany and went to Palestine, the land of my dreams.
Hundreds of thousands of Arab children are now facing a similar test. They are expected to sing an anthem that ignores their very existence and reminds them of the defeat of their people. This week, the publisher of Haaretz, Amos Schoken, the son of an immigrant from Germany, proposed changing the anthem.
“Hatikva” (“The Hope”) was written more than a hundred years ago. At the time, a small Zionist community already existed in this country, but the song reflected the point of view of the Diaspora. “As long as deep in the heart / A Jewish soul is yearning, / And towards the edge of the East, the orient, / An eye is looking out towards Zion…” (My literal translation.)
Since then, the situation of the Jews and of this country has changed radically. In the country, a large and strong Hebrew society has emerged. Why should we sing about the “edge of the East” when we are living in Zion?
True, the fact that a song has become obsolete, even ridiculous, does not make it unfit to serve as a national anthem. The French anthem calls on the sons of the fatherland to stand up against the bloody tyrants (meaning Germans and others) and soak the fields with their impure blood. No, the problem with Hatikva is not the text of the song, nor the melody, which was swiped from Eastern Europe. The problem is that it excludes the Arab citizens, who now constitute more than 20% of Israel’s population.
In World War II, Stalin decided that the then national anthem — the Internationale — did not serve his purpose anymore. A rousing song was chosen, which struck such deep roots that even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians preferred it to the old anthem of the Czars (familiar to us from Tchaikovsky’s “1812″).
The time has come to discuss changing our anthem, not only for the sake of the Arab citizens, but also for our own sake: to have an anthem that reflects our reality. 38 years ago in the Knesset I first submitted a bill In this spirit. It was soundly defeated. Now is the time to revive the idea.
That is also true for the flag.
The blue-white flag is the banner of the Zionist movement. It took the Jewish prayer shawl, the tallith, added the Star of David (an old Jewish symbol, which also appears in other cultures) and created a new national flag. The main fault of the flag lies in the fact that it excludes the Arab community from the family of the state. An Arab who salutes the flag is lying to himself when he tries to identify himself with symbols like the tallith and the Star of David that exclude him and don’t speak to him.
(The more so as many Arabs believe that the two blue stripes stand for the Nile and the Euphrates, and that the flag hints at the Zionist ambition to create a Jewish state according to the Biblical promise (Genesis 15, 18): “Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt into the great river, the river Euphrates.” This is an invention, but it makes the flag even more difficult to accept.)
The aim of a national flag is to unite. This flag disunites. It does not touch the heartstrings of an important community in the state. It pushes them away. And not only them. As Gideon Levy wrote this week, it has been expropriated by the extreme Right and is connected, in the eyes of advocates of peace and justice, with the shame of the roadblocks, the settlements and the occupation.
The desire to preserve the “Jewish state” is strong and profound. Lately it has been strengthened even more by the demand of Arab intellectuals, citizens of Israel, to re-arrange the relationship between the state and the Arab minority.
Almost daily, new proposals pop up. This week, Otniel Shneller, a member of the Knesset and close friend of Ehud Olmert, proposed a new idea: to turn over to the Palestinian state, once it is set up, the Arab villages in the Triangle, an area on the Israeli side of the Green Line, in return for the settlement blocs on the Palestinian side, which would be incorporated into Israel. This way the proportion of Arabs in the state will decrease and the proportion of Jews increase.
Unlike Avigdor Lieberman, who proposed something similar, this Kadima member of the Knesset does not propose to do it by force. He professes to a desire to achieve an agreement with the inhabitants, so that they would retain some of their social rights in Israel even after becoming citizens of the Palestinian state. What is important for him is only that they — and perhaps also the Arab inhabitants of Galilee — will cease to be citizens, so that Israel will be more “Jewish and democratic”, or, rather, “Jewish and demographic”.
Shneller and Lieberman — both settlers, both belonging to the extreme Right — do not propose to give up East Jerusalem, where almost a quarter of a million Palestinians are living. That does not worry them, because these Arabs have never been given Israeli citizenship anyhow. When they were annexed to Israel in 1967, they were accorded only the status of “permanent residents”. Therefore, they are not required to hoist the blue-white flag and to sing Hatikva.
By the way, these proposals show that these two Rightists have lost hope for the Greater Israel, and resigned themselves to a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Otherwise their proposals would be meaningless.
How do the Arab citizens of Israel react to Shneller’s ideas? They just ignore them. Up to now, not a single Arab voice has been raised in support of this proposal, much as not a single Arab voice has been heard in support of Liberman’s ideas.
That sheds light on a fact that has escaped many: the Arab citizens of Israel are much more connected with the state than it seems. In spite of their suffering discrimination in practically all fields of life, they are connected with the political, economic and social system. They have no desire whatsoever to give up Israeli democracy, social security benefits and the economic advantages. They certainly want to order the relations between them and the state on a new basis, but they definitely do not want to be separated from it.
A new anthem and a new flag will not solve the problem, but they will constitute a significant step towards a solution that both sides can live with.
***
Uri Avnery is an Israeli peace activist who has advocated the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. He served three terms in the Israeli parliament, and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc). He has also written “Israel without Zionism”
This is a very detailed and analysis of the case regrading the abduction of Dr. Aafia Siddqui and her ongoing trial in the US Courts. Please take time to read this report and if you agree with the contents then it would be a great help if you can join in the effort to spread the word far and wide to get more support for her.
NOTE: Despite the hard work done by the original author in preparing this report for the People’s Resistance (Pakistan), he has in turn requested anonymity simply due to the sensitive nature of this issue, but rest assured he has been an active member of the People’s Resistance for some time.
***
On March 30, 2003, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui disappeared from Karachi along with her three minor children. Media reports stated that she had been taken by US authorities with compliance of the Pakistani authorities, allegedly because `the FBI had wanted to seek some information from her. In the face of general outcry, the US and Pakistani authorities quickly backtracked but a year later, the Pakistani Foreign Office admitted publicly that Aafia had been handed over to the US.
She became a concern for human rights organizations including Amnesty International who kept the case alive for five years. On July 6, 2008, the political party “Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf” presented a British journalist in Islamabad, who said there was reason to believe that Aafia was “Prisoner 650″ at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility (Afghanistan) and had undergone brutal rape and torture for five years. Outcry reached a high water mark and the Asian Human Rights Commission sent urgent appeals on July 22, to President George Bush and other persons of authority.
On August 4, US authorities officially admitted of having Aafia in their custody but the US Department of Justice brought forth a charge sheet against her, claiming that she was arrested on July 17 (and not before) while loitering around near the residence of Ghazni’s Governor. They alleged that papers found in her handbag, included instructions on making bombs and notes about installations in US.
They explained her wounds by saying that a day after her arrest she took an M4 rife which belonged to US military personnel and fired two rounds at close range, which missed, and she had to be shot in the torso.
On August 16, the US envoy to Pakistan made a public statement saying that the US had no “definitive knowledge” of the whereabouts of Aafia’s children but only a few days later the Afghan authorities revealed that an 11-year-old boy had also been “arrested” with Aafia and this boy was then repatriated to be received by Aafia’s family as her eldest son.
The story narrated about this alleged episode is not plausible, and contradictions self-evident. Yet Aafia has been suffering pain and humiliation in US prison for more than two months now. There are fears that she is now being brainwashed in order to render her incapable of giving evidence against any atrocities that might have been committed against her.
Three anomalies in the trial
Basically: (a) The victim has become the accused; (b) All allegations are not being addressed in proper order; and (c) Allegations against US authorities by human rights groups and concerned citizens are going un-addressed.
a) Victim has become the accused
Those who say that they hope to get justice from US legal system in this case are overlooking the fact that the trial is not being held to provide justice to Aafia. It is being held against her.
Allegations not addressed in proper order:
The case involves three allegations, not one. These need to be addressed in the order in which they appeared:
1. The FBI’s declaration that it needed Dr. Aafia Siddiqui for interrogation (2003)
2. Allegations raised by human rights organizations and Pakistan “Tehrik-i-Insaf” that Aafia Siddiqui was being illegally detained, raped and tortured by US authorities (with possible compliance of Pakistani authorities) for five years, and that her three minor children were in illegal detention. July 6, 2008 is the high water mark for this allegation.
3. The allegation raised by US authorities against Dr. Aafia Siddiqui that she tried to assassinate US army personnel on July 18, 2008. The actual allegation was brought forth on August 4, 2008.
The first of these has not been legally pursued by authorities even after they admitted having custody of Aafia. Hence it may be considered as dropped.
The second allegation, which is against US authorities, has never been answered seriously except for a flat rebuttal in inappropriate and condescending tone (consider the US envoy’s open letter of August 16).
Now the third allegation is being addressed in a court of law without addressing the second. This leads to great confusion. The victim has been given into the custody of the party accused of committing offenses against her, and mandate is given to them to further curtail her liberties as a “high security risk”.
Let us understand: It is not as if US Government said that it would rather like to keep Aafia in a rehabilitation center in America for treatment of torments suffered by her during five-year-long illegal detention. The victim is now in custody of the party accused of committing the following atrocities against her:
1. Abduction and illegal detention of the victim
2. Abduction and illegal detention of the victim’s minor children
3. Attempt of coercing the victim to sign false evidence
4. Threatening the victim with murder of her children
5. Sexual abuse, rape and torture
6. Attempted brainwashing
7. Possibly, murder of two of the victim’s minor children
The first step should have been to ensure that the party accused of committing these offenses didn’t have any further access to her with malevolent intent. The opposite has happened.
Aafia’s transfer from military to civil authorities doesn’t ensure that her abusers have lost influence: Responding to journalists’ question about why they didn’t seek bail for Aafia, her lawyer answered, “There’s more in this case than meets the eye.”
What is going wrong now
The following incidents that can be seen as injustice or malpractice have occurred after August 6, when Aafia was first presented in New York:
1. Victim was remanded on implausible charges
2. Bail was not even sought by her lawyers
3. The US envoy gave a questionable statement about victim’s children
3. It is possible that the victim’s eldest son was brainwashed before being handed over by Afghan authorities
4. Motion to establish the victim as mentally unfit to stand trial, if accepted, will disqualify her from giving evidence later against her abusers
5. At the Federal Medical Center, Carswell, the victim can be at risk of being brainwashed or rendered incapable of providing evidence
6. Two children of the victim are still missing. If they are still alive then it is possible that they are being used as hostages to pressurize her. Allegations of her illegal detention, rape, etc, and the abduction of her children, is going unaddressed.
Can she get justice from US legal system?
That question will arise only after a case is brought up to seek justice for her. The current trial has been registered against the victim and not against her abusers.
Unfounded speculation is bad but some speculation is required for arriving anywhere in legal matters. Here we are forced to choose between two options: Either the story about Aafia’s alleged arrest and shooting as told by the DOJ is true, or it is false.
The story is not likely to be true. Consider this passage from a rejoinder to the US envoy’s letter by Kamran Shafi, journalist and former trainer in small arms:
“By the way Excellency, if you care to notice, Aafia Siddiqui is about your build and dimensions. May I suggest you get one of your Marines at the embassy to bring you a US army-issue M4 rifle? Now ask him to clear the chamber, affix the magazine, put the rifle on ‘safe’, and place it on the ground which would be the exact position in which Aafia Siddiqui found hers and with which she is alleged to have fired upon the US officer. You may very well fail to even cock it in 10 seconds, let alone find the safety catch, lift the rifle to your shoulder and fire it.”
It seems as if the US authorities knew that this story won’t stand a test in the court and their real strategy was to buy time for declaring Aafia mentally unfit or perhaps even to induce mental disorder while in custody.
Such speculation sounds harsh but once the DOJ story is rejected there is no way we can pass over it as an “honest mistake”. If the story is false then obviously we are dealing with an unusually ugly and disturbing cover-up of enormous dimensions.
Furthermore: We must not forget the three other victims in this case: Aafia’s minor children. The first is Ahmad Siddiqui, 11-year-old, and the anomalies in his case raise suspicions of a three-step approach to cover up brainwashing in captivity. First, deny having any “definitive knowledge” of the captive’s whereabouts. Second, admit that he was in detention even at the time of those denials. Third, send him home in mentally unstable state where he cannot recall details about his captivity. There is a stark analogy between his fate and the contradictory reports now coming out about her mother: Is she at step 2 now, undergoing brainwashing?
By the authorities’ own admission, Ahmad’s detention at least from July
17 to August 22 was irregular: It was covered up despite urgent appeals from around the world.
The second victim is Aafia’s daughter Mariam, 10 years old (5 at the time of her disappearance), and the third is the youngest son Salman, 5 years old (six months at the time of his disappearance). Authorities deny having “definitive knowledge” of his whereabouts too.
It must be remembered that capture of minor children and infants for pressurizing their parents was described by Pakistan’s former president Pervez Muharraf as fair tactic while participating in American War Against Terror.
What needs to be done
We need to be absolutely clear that the real issue here is the second set of allegations in which Aafia is a victim, not accused.
By remaining silent on that issue now, the whole world is allowing a victim to become accused. Since this has already become one of the most famous trials of the new century, a bad precedent in this matter is likely to affect the future of human rights for very long time and almost everywhere in the world. Time is of essence here, because it seems as if evidence is being destroyed very fast.
The following steps may need to be taken without losing any further time:
Human rights groups in US should file petition in a US court to the effect that Aafia’s trial is unfair and should be dismissed. It needs to be dismissed immediately, and in any case latest by November 7, i.e. forty days before the date which has been set for hearing whether or not Aafia is mentally fit to stand trial: there is reason to suspect that some foul play is going on which is likely to accomplish its ends by that date and evidence related to actual culprits will have been destroyed, possibly including memory of the victim herself.
Separately, a complaint should be lodged against culprits who victimized Aafia earlier, and a plea should be made for the recovery of her two missing children.
All peaceful and healthy means should be used for educating people in as many countries as possible about the Aafia issue – especially the message that a victim should not be victimized and the meaning of justice should not be distorted.
Concerned citizens of the world need to explore whether there is a proper channel for taking up this issue beyond slogans, protests and demonstrations. If no such channel exists then it needs to be created.
If any rights group decides to make a separate committee for pursuing this case, then that committee should also look into the wider implications and related issues, and hence “AAFIA” might be a good acronym for “Affirmative Action for the Freedom and Independence of All” (The name Aafia literally means “safety”). Fresh grounds need to be broken for safeguarding human rights in these new times.
The United Nations was a giant step towards peace, but what about “United Humanity”? We need to alter certain perceptions now and we need to set new precedents.
Consequences for everyone
Terrorism is a serious threat, which should not be, trivialized the way it has been through the victimization of Aafia Siddiqui and her minor children. Genuine efforts being made against terrorism will also earn a bad name, if not fall flat on their face, if moral superiority is lost – and it will be lost if injustice in the case of Aafia Siddiqui completes its course.
The case is so complex, and its details so gruesome, that many still may not have realized what the possible outcome of her mistreatment might turn out to be. The analysis offered here might not be how everyone is seeing things at the moment but it is likely to be how these things will be seen in times to come, as the truth gradually seeps into people’s conscience.
A great setback for human rights may be suffered because in our times such rights rest on the premise that people are entities who should be respected; their humanity cannot be usurped by any government and a person cannot be objectified before the mystique of state. Losing this one case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui can mean losing the very premise of human rights, and losing it in bright limelight.
It is not just about Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, but rather ironically, it is also about what her first name means literally in her native language: Comprehensive safety. She is a highly educated (MIT graduate) woman who made it to the upper strata of middle class in two societies – Pakistan and the US. What happened to her can happen to anyone, and it may happen more easily in future if bad precedent is set now.
For America, it is a moment of truth. The international community has been hearing so much about the “deposed” Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, who used to take suo moto action on such cases, forcing his government and its much-dread intelligence agencies to become answerable to the court. For that he risked his job, personal freedom and the future of his children. Global observers are likely to notice that no judge in US seems to be as willing to take suo moto action in this case as Justice Chaudhry of Pakistan would have been even if such thing had been found in his jurisdiction. Tables are turning: At the going rate it might not be very long before the US finds itself lagging behind developing countries in matters of awareness about human rights among the masses. For its own good, the US ought to revise its take on this case.
Her children were not mentioned by the Foreign Office, but President Musharraf later dropped hints in his autobiography that “arresting” minors and even infant children of accused was part of tactics being used in the US War Against Terror.
In the case of rape, the term “victim” is applied to the aggrieved party even before her case is proven true in a court.
I am presuming that the first allegation has already been dropped by the party that raised it, so we need not address it anymore. In all fairness, we should be open to give it due importance, with proper attention to the whole context, in case the first party (i.e. the FBI) chooses to bring it back in the future.
Charge sheet against Aafia was implausible and inaccuracies could have been exposed through a simple simulation/demonstration. Yet the American judge gave remand of her person instead of sending her to a hospital as she deserved in view of her condition (she was still bleeding from bullet wounds)
Why should seeking bail be so difficult in a case where the accusation doesn’t pass the test of common sense, let alone legal proceeding? More importantly, why was bail not even sought?
On August 16, the US envoy to Pakistan stated publicly that the US authorities have no definitive knowledge of the whereabouts of Aafia’s children. About ten days later the Afghan authorities stated that they had also “arrested” a boy along with Aafia. One could smell a rat here: A person of such prominence as US envoy is unlikely to risk a misleading statement unless the stakes are really high.
Aafia’s son, finally repatriated by Afghan authorities, cannot recall much and is having nightmares. Did the authorities deny knowledge of his whereabouts initially because at that time they were brainwashing him and were still unsure that it would work?
Published in Dawn (Karachi) on October 14. Earlier on September 10, Joane Mariner, an attorney with Human Rights Watch in New York wrote on Counterpunch, “If you trust the US story, you have to imagine that… more than the Al-Qaeda mom, as the New York Post dubs her, she would have to be Al-Qaeda’s Angelina Jolie.”
The word “definitive knowledge” in US envoy’s statement leaves an uncomfortable impression of preparing for a future moment when it may turn out to be otherwise and then it could be said that the knowledge which the US authorities had in this matter was not “definitive” but of some other sort (The statement said, “The United States has no definitive knowledge as to the whereabouts of Ms Siddiqui’s children”). Was Ahmad being subjected to brainwashing so that his detention could not be revealed till making sure that the process had been successful?
In the Line of Fire: A Memoir by Pervez Musharraf published in 2006 by Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster, p.224.
Filed under: Opinion, The Entertainer | Tags: Human Rights, Politics, USA, World Issues
By Heather Wokusch
I cast a ballot for you in November, but I just can’t share in this moment of collective euphoria over your election.
So, if your transition team really wants feedback on “where President-Elect Obama should lead this country,” here’s a Top Five list:
1. Dump the Bush Doctrine and don’t start more wars
You’ve made it clear that the US has to “take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights” and you’ve argued for “more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.”
What exactly does that mean?
Take troops out of Iraq and shove them into Afghanistan? Further destabilize Pakistan?
The whole idea of preemptive war (a.k.a. the Bush Doctrine) has no place in a civilized society and must be laid to rest, along with those sacrificed in Bush’s military adventurism these past eight years.
Yet your approach to preemptive war, Mr. Obama, is nuanced at best.
During the January 2008 Democratic presidential debate, you said that if the US had “actionable intelligence” and Pakistan didn’t “take on Al Qaida in their territory,” then “I would strike.” You added, “ And that’s the flaw of the Bush doctrine. It wasn’t that he went after those who attacked America. It was that he went after those who didn’t.”
No, the flaw of the Bush Doctrine is that it’s just plain wrong. We’ve learned that the hard way.
2. Ditch the warmongers
What’s with all of the hawks in your new administration?
You presented yourself as a peace candidate and then chose Joe Biden as your VP. Yes, he brought in the white male vote, but he also backed the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Just last month Biden warned that if you were elected, there would be “an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.” He said that you would make some “incredibly tough decisions” that could alienate the Democratic base, because if decisions are “popular, they’re probably not sound.”
In other words, a popular decision, one that the majority of the people wants, is probably not a good decision. Democracy to Biden…
And then there’s Robert Gates, widely rumored to be staying on as your Defense Secretary. Questions about Gates’ role in Iran-Contra, not to mention his skewing of intelligence about Russia, still linger.
But especially disturbing is his recent push for beefing up the US nuclear arsenal: “As long as other nations have or seek nuclear weapons – and can potentially threaten us, our allies and friends – then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the United States in the nuclear arena, or with weapons of mass destruction, could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response.”
Let’s get this straight: if other nations are even imagined to “seek” nuclear weapons, that “could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response” from the US.
Obama, you’ve often insisted on taking “no options off the table” in dealing with Iran. How does Gates’ proposal for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons factor in there?
While we’re on the topic of warmongers in your midst… Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff? Yet another hawk, hell-bent on Iran and enamored with nuclear weapons.
And now we’ve got Clinton as Secretary of State.
Why is it that none of the 23 senators and 133 House Reps who voted against the war in Iraq are even on a short-list for these critical posts?
3. Close Guantanamo – and the whole system of secret prisons
Shutting down Gitmo is said to be a priority for your new administration. Terrific.
But what about Bagram? What about the other CIA “black site” secret prisons set up in Afghanistan, Thailand, Eastern Europe and elsewhere? What about the CIA torture flights? Will those end too?
Closing Gitmo also raises questions over how “high value” defendants will be handled. Your administration is reportedly considering setting up an alternative court system to deal with sensitive cases. But what safeguards will be in place to be sure that this new system won’t degenerate into kangaroo courts, like Bush’s military commissions?
It’s a disturbing signal that you’ve appointed John Brennan, who has supported extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping, to help review intelligence agencies for your administration. As former CIA and State Department analyst Mel Goodman noted, Brennan “sat there at [former CIA Director George] Tenet’s knee when they passed judgment on torture and abuse, on extraordinary renditions, on black sites, on secret prisons. He was part of all of that decision making.”
And this is who will help lead us out of this mess?
You’ve criticized the use of torture, yet reportedly will not bring criminal charges against those who authorized or conducted torture during the Bush years. Your administration doesn’t see it as politically expedient, and Bush might give “preemptive” pardons anyway.
But can we really end this dark chapter in our nation’s history without even an investigation? A Truth Commission, perhaps? Providing blanket immunity to all low-level and senior government officials won’t prevent possible war crimes from happening again. Quite the opposite.
4. Expose Bush & Co., and ditch the national surveillance state
Speaking of war crimes, how about Bush, Cheney and the rest? You’ll soon be given access to Bush-era secret orders and opinions authorizing everything from surveillance to detention. You’ll no doubt rescind many, to great fanfare, but what about sharing this evidence of Bush-year excesses with the public?
Yes, Bush could file a lawsuit and invoke executive privilege, but it’s worth the fight. The only other option is shielding Bush & Co., similar to how you will reportedly shield those government officials involved in torture. But the public deserves to know. And if Bush administration officials violated the law, they should be prosecuted.
Now, back to your vote for both the PATRIOT Act reauthorization in 2006 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendment in 2008. These and other rollbacks in domestic civil liberties under Bush are inexcusable and must be addressed. We’ll be waiting for you to do that.
5. Choose Main Street (not Wall Street)
Just this month you promised Americans that they can “turn the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street.”
Yet, as Bloomberg notes, “almost half the people” on your Transition Economic Advisory Board “have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both.”
This includes, for example, Anne Mulcahy and Richard Parsons, both of whom were Fannie Mae directors when the company fudged accounting rules. Ditto for another of your team members, William Daley.
Mulcahy and Parsons additionally held executive posts when their companies (Xerox Corp. and Time Warner Inc., respectively) got busted for accounting fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Also on your team is Richard Rubin, who as Bloomberg notes, was “chairman of Citigroup Inc.’s executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst research, helped Enron Corp. cook its books, and got caught baking its own. He was a director from 2000 to 2006 at Ford Motor Co., which also committed accounting fouls and now is begging Uncle Sam for Citigroup-style bailout cash.”
The list of questionable appointees to your Transitional Economic Advisory Board goes on and on, begging the question: Is this really the best you could come up with? How about Joseph Stiglitz, Sheila Bair, Nouriel Roubini or James K. Galbraith, for starters? Someone who represents labor?
Meanwhile, we’re stuck with this nasty bailout bill – which you voted for.
Others, such as Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), realized the bill’s problems and voted against it. Feingold said that the Wall Street bailout legislation, “fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn’t do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess.”
Feingold was right.
In short, Mr. President-elect, you promised “Change we can believe in,” but across the board it’s looking a lot more like “Business as usual.”
Filed under: Projects
This is a sample letter, which we hope to send out as many times and to as many senators as possible, in order to assure that the American auto industry goes electric. If you agree with our cause, please sign this letter, or write your own, and send it off to your senator. This is really important, for this is our only chance to make a great impact on these powerful cooperation. Let us stop the wasting of tax payer dollars, lets put them to good use! Could you please send this link to ten of your friends? The letter: Greetings Senator, I want you to know, that as a responsible citizen of this great country I will not stand by as the Auto Industry gets a twenty-five billion dollar bail-out without guarantees that the money will be spent on the development of vehicles that operate using alternative fuels. The Auto Industry has had, as one example, the technology and the money to assure that America is running on electric cars, however they shelvedthe development and distribution of these vehicles. Now, as a result of their persistent irresponsibility and willful neglect, they must turn to the American taxpayer for help even while looking to perform harm on the hand that feeds them. Seeing the vital role the auto industry plays in our economy and on the quality of the global environment, I firmly believe that we, as a country should proceed with strength and greatness to assure that we jeopardize neither the jobs of our fellow citizens or the living standards of our offspring. I therefore ask you to push for a clause within any bailout plan assuring that the tax dollars do not lend support to "business as usual," but require the auto industry to continue research, develop, manufacturing, and sale of electric cars so that by the year 2012 no less than 50% of all U.S. automobile sales are sales of electric vehicles. If you want my vote, and my outspoken approval of you within my community, support the electric future; don't let the auto industry off the hook until they commit to retooling their entire industry away from its dependence upon fossil fuels. I beg you to stop the auto industry from compromising the future and to help the development of a sustainable environment friendly lifestyle for your constituents and the citizens of the entire world!** Sincerely yours,__________________________________________ Get Up Stand Up! www.gusu.wordpress.com For a Living Future!
By Kamil Hamid
I’ve been told that if one repeats a word over and over again, it loses all meaning to one’s mind and becomes little more than a hollow shell, devoid of anything but the sound it makes when it clumsily escapes one’s lips.
So allow me to humor this fleeting thought for a moment. Allow me to give you an example of one such word. But let’s raise the stakes. Rather than losing meaning simply to me, let’s make this a word that has lost any and all meaning whatsoever (“Or did it ever have any meaning?” asks the dark voice whispering in my right ear). Hell, lets also make this a word that is frequently used and abused. A word that is pimped out like the latest cheap whore from a brothel. No substance. No definition. Just that moment of self-righteous vindication when the speaker uses it.
And let’s give it power: The power to dehumanize, to corrupt and to make its target seem like the most horrific, barbaric monster to ever walk the earth. The power that separates good from evil, right from wrong, just from cruel. A word that transforms the user into a champion of the light, ready to usher in a new age of peace and hope, if ONLY he is allowed to vanquish that Goliath standing before him, the one branded by this word.
Empires fall before the word. People flee, only to be reduced to dust by its power as they run. Civilizations are wiped out. “Humanity” becomes a fabled thing of the past; tyranny and sadism are the norm in its presence. Even those who try and fight are consumed.
It is thirsty, this word. It wants blood. It hungers for it. It lives within the moment of pain, torture and death. It rules over these realms with an iron hand, mercilessly meting out punishment to all. None are spared, be they man, woman or child.
So what is this diabolical word, with all its power? What sort of abomination, you may ask, has been let loose upon the world to wreak such havoc, such utter devastation?
Terrorist.
No drum roll. No trumpets. No great suspenseful moment.
There it is: Terrorist.
One seemingly innocent word that has caused mankind untold anguish since it ever came into being. Today we have the example of people being branded “terrorists” without any consideration as to what the word implies. The United States government and their allies choose to brand all those who do not support them as “terrorists”.
Of course, it’s easy for those bigwigs. Sitting back in their luxurious armchairs in their temperature-regulated conference rooms, safe and secure. No need to worry about whether their families are alive, when their next meal is going to be or where they’re going to sleep tonight. No strings attached for them. It’s easy. One moment country “X” was not a terrorist state. Now it is.
Time to alert the public. Can’t let them go blundering into country “X” now, can we? It might make for an uncomfortable situation.
So the news is released.
And the cycle continues.
Within one of the countless houses of the citizens of these sanctimonious “terrorist-branders,” a T.V. set is blaring. A news reporter barks out the official government position on “country X”.
A 12-year-old child, curious, watches.
“The big men in the T.V. take care of you,” the child has been told. “They make bad things go away. They’re right, so trust them.”
I wonder who told him that…
And so the child watches. He watches as his heroes tell him about “evil men” who “don’t believe in the ideals of justice and democracy” and must be hunted. The child listens to men make statements such as “This is not a war between civilizations, this is a war ABOUT civilization.”
And he learns.
The child learns that terrorists are evil things. They’re not human. They never were. They hate us. They only exist to hurt and bring pain. They only want to hurt us. They don’t think like us. They have no regard for life! They only want to kill! They must be brought down!
And a new fountain of hate springs forth into existence.
The word has done its job.
Mission accomplished.
Enemy dehumanized.
Ready for the slaughter.
Meanwhile, in another part of the world, another child is running. Running from the big, bad men. She’s been told they just want to hurt her. They don’t like her.
Her tired feet pitter-patter across the sand. Little does she know she shouldn’t be there. All she wants is to hide from these men. Where is her mother? She should seek her out. She continues to run towards the fence that looms ahead. Her mother must be somewhere nearby.
From a watchtower above, a sentry peers down. He sees a tiny figure fleeing across the sand. Like a sick Pavlovian response, his brain screams “TERRORIST!” He does not need to think, he does not need to see. He knows, instinctively. This monster he sees comes from the other side. It is coming to hurt him. His hand pulls the trigger.
A tiny hole is formed in the universe as another heart stops beating.
At LAX airport in Los Angeles, a young woman checks passengers in. Suddenly she sees the flash of green and gold coming from a passport. She sees the “Arabic” and gazes up at the bearer. Hollow eyes set in a sunken brown face covered with a long, bushy beard look back at her.
Her pulse starts racing, her mind screaming orders she never knew she had.
“We’re going to have to check, sir…”
She wonders how one of them got this far. What are they doing over here? Who is their next target? Is it me?
She is fearful. No, terrified. She fears for her life. She is in danger, and she knows it.
Have I just sealed someone’s doom? Oh God, what if they’re planning to blow the airport up?
In Guantanamo Bay, a new prisoner has arrived. The routine interrogation is set for three pm.
A young corporal enters the cell. One look tells him all he needs to know.
Terrorist. Enemy. Pervert. Killer. Backstabber. All synonymous.
This creature in front of him must have been planning to kill innocent people. His friends. His family. It wants to hurt him and everyone he cares for.
He will make sure it can never do that.
A few days later, when asked to comment on the three suicides that took place in Guantanamo, the camp commander states, “They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.”
We’re the good guys. We’re the victims here.
We don’t kill people in barbaric ways by shooting them or stoning them like those terrorists do.
We kill them with nice, painless lethal injections.
Those three were probably terrorists anyways. The world’s a better place without them.
They all need to be hunted down and killed before they kill us all!
KILL THE TERRORISTS!
And the word still wanders, seeking new victims.
Kamil Hamid is an Earlham College student from Pakistan who graduated from Li Po Chun UWC of Hong Kong. He has worked with the AGHS law firm, run by human rights lawyer Asma Jahangir and Special Representative to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Hina Jilani. In addition, he has helped to found the Student Action Committee in Pakistan, a group dedicated to the restoration of the illegally deposed judiciary and rule of law in Pakistan. Kamil has been arrested twice for his activism but remains committed to his goals.
