Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts

Monday, 16 February 2009

The war on international law

BBC News:

Anti-terror measures worldwide have seriously undermined international human rights law, a report by legal experts says.

After a three-year global study, the International Commission of Jurists said many states used the public's fear of terrorism to introduce measures.

These included detention without trial, illegal disappearance and torture.

It also said that the UK and the US have "actively undermined" international law by their actions.

It concluded that many measures introduced to fight terrorism were illegal and counter-productive.
...
The panel of eminent lawyers and judges concluded that the framework of international law that existed before the 9/11 attacks on the US was robust and effective.


It's dangerous for countries to put reactionary anti-terror measures in place without considering their legal and ethical implications; the belief that their national security measures are outside the realm of international law is ignorant. The America's rash actions on this front in the past seven or so years have finally come to a close thanks to the arrival of the Obama administration, leaving us all to breathe a collective sigh of relief. However damage has been done and the United States and the countries that cooperated with such programs as 'extraordinary rendition' must do their best to reverse their actions. Sadly, however, justice will almost certainly evade the victims of the illegal post-9/11 anti-terror programs.

Thursday, 7 August 2008

Here come the Olympics!

Featuring China's blatant disregard for the basic rights of man!

Just one more day until the '08 games begin.

Sunday, 13 April 2008

Public discontent with China, and what to do about it

According to a Zogby poll,

70% Believe IOC Was Wrong to Award Olympic Games to China

and
48% believe U.S. political officials should not attend the opening ceremony due to China's poor human rights record

Feelings are even stronger in Europe, with the EU Parliament voting in favor of restrictions on attending the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing this summer due not only to China's overall human rights record but to its treatment of demonstrators in Tibet (FREE TIBET!). World leaders such as Britain's Gordon Brown and France's Sarkozy are refusing to attend the opening ceremony, and President Bush has been pressured to do so as well.

However not all are sure that a boycott would be a good thing.
71% believe any boycott of the Olympic Games in China by the U.S. would be hypocritical because the U.S. imports so many products from China and retains relatively close diplomatic ties with China that the U.S. has essentially endorsed China’s human rights record.


I'd say a total boycott of the Olympics would not be a good idea, but national leaders sitting out on the opening ceremony is a strong and righteous move, even if it is ineffective. Some say that we should not be mixing politics with sport, but China brought this upon itself with its atrocious conduct. Having visited China, I've witnessed firsthand the restrictions on fundamental liberties people face there, and the dire effects of the 'communist' government's policies. While nations should not isolate China outright, they should take a strong stand against tyranny and the mistreatment of citizens.

Saturday, 8 March 2008

Bush's continued assault on human rights

Another nasty veto...
BBC News:

US President George Bush says he has vetoed legislation that would stop the CIA using interrogation methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding".

He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

The president said the CIA needed "specialised interrogation procedures" that the military did not.


Make no mistake: waterboarding is torture. All human rights organizations agree, as well as other nations and even the American FBI! Waterboarding simulates drowning and leaves the victim psychologically — and sometimes physically — damaged.

There is no reason for torture. This is not a fight between human rights and national security. Torturous interrogation techniques do not get reliable information, countless studies have confirmed this common sense notion. In addition, the declining perception of the US because of the use of torture leaves it more open for attack and helps terrorist recruiters.

The issue of the CIA lies in the fact that by not leaving it objective, the White House opened the door for flawed, politically-motivated intelligence reports such as the ones justifying the Iraq war. The CIA has had continual use as a dirty political tool in the 'war on terror', where it has tortured and detained innocent people without respect to US or international law, whether in Guantanamo, 'black sites', or cases of extraordinary rendition.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe." Bush says. Mr. President, if I may counter. You have failed to produce any reliable evidence that torture has helped the United States. Yes, I know you don't use the exact term "torture". It's politically sticky. You stick to the euphemism "enhanced interrogation". Let's see how you would feel about having to stand up, shackled, for 40 hours or so, while being threatened by a CIA thug. Maybe that would change your mind about the true meaning of torture. You use the same justification for torture as you do for (previously) illegal domestic wiretapping: It has saved lives, it will save lives! We must counter the most dangerous terrorists! We must prevent another attack! While it is compelling for me to follow along with most Americans and politicians on your national security programs, you see, I have a respect for the law. I also recognize the fact that torturing terror suspects will get us nowhere in our fight against those who have wronged us.

The president's actions are inexcusable; this is one of the times I am seriously angry at George W. Bush and his ludicrous national security policies. Why can't he use at least one of his vetoes to cut spending like he has promised instead of fighting popular stem call initiatives or legalizing torture?

Sunday, 24 February 2008

China and Sudan: bedfellows in evil?

In another piece of bad news coming from the Sudan region...

The Sudanese military is said to have renewed its aerial bombing campaign in the west of the Darfur region.
The joint United Nations African Union mission in Sudan, Unamid, said it had received reports of aerial bombings in the Jebel Moun area of the region.

A Unamid spokesman said there was grave concern for the safety of thousands of civilians in the area.

The reports came as China's envoy for Darfur, Liu Guijin, began a five-day visit to the country to push for peace.

China has come under increasing pressure to use its influence with Sudan to end the fighting.

Mr Liu will travel to Darfur on Tuesday, the fifth anniversary of the start of the conflict which has left 200,000 people dead and 2.5m homeless.


This visit comes after it was revealed that China sold more weapons — both light and heavy arms — to Sudan.

One can see China's influence within Sudan as the up-and-coming superpower tries its best to gain political support in the whole of Africa — in a way filling the void there — as well as taking advantage of the continent's energy resources. While China is helping development there, it is also overlooking major human rights abuses, and, in some cases, encouraging them.

Bejing's relationship with Khartoum, as well as its human rights abuses at home, has led such heavyweights as Stephen Spielberg to denounce China and call for a boycott of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Try as it may to play down human rights fears, but there are supporters of human rights just as stubborn as the abusers — i.e. the Chinese government — themselves.

It's time to get serous with China about its support of the genocidal Sudanese regime. However, powers such as the US should not isolate the emerging giant in its race for economic supremacy or they will find themselves in a tough spot once China has the upper hand.

Sunday, 3 February 2008

Parallels between fictional barbarians and today's Islamic terrorists

Parallels between fictional barbarians and today's Islamic terrorists

In Booker- and Nobel Prize-winning author J. M. Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians, the 'barbarians' are very different compared to the terrorists the United States and its allies are fighting today. The barbarians are a set group, compared to the more ambiguous terrorist enemy. Also, they seem to attack when directly provoked (actually, during the course of the story there isn't concrete, objective proof of a barbarian attack on the Empire). They are a fairly peaceful, simple, nomadic people who live in fear of the Empire and suffer because of its expansion. However, there are some parallels between the barbarians and Islamist extremists. Many modern Islamic terrorists are waging jihad against the US because of its occupation of lands they see as sacred, belonging to Muslims, as well as its diehard support of occupiers of Mideast land like Israel. America is tainting these lands for its own profit (oil), or so their line of thought goes.

The stronger parallel between the Empire's wrath for the barbarians and America's 'war on terror' is the chilling aspect of torture used gratuitously by the Empire in the book and — to a lesser, more secretive extent, directly or indirectly — by the United States today. My personal view is not that the US is an empire in the way the one in the book is; whether it is at all is a point of contention among experts. Of course the US looks out for its own economic interests in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, as do all nations who rely on energy supplies from that region. It is the reality of men and nations that we take care of ourselves first and make sure our well being is well provided for.

The thing that has brought the world's sole superpower into such a great mess is security. Although oil has played an indirect role, those drawing such a strong line between Iraq and Exxon should reevaluate their logic. America supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1979 Soviet invasion and ensuing war to fend off its Cold War arch-rival. Today it faces the same people it supported in Afghanistan in a globalized 'war.' However, unlike the war in Waiting for the Barbarians, one side is ambiguous in the 'war on terror': the terrorists. This ambiguity allows the US more leeway in its 'war,' but also leads to more trouble: anyone could be a terrorist. These terrorists either operate relatively alone with influences from groups or in cells, often under the authority of others. What unites them for the most part is ideology, but there are devisions even within that radical anti-American foundation. The Bush administration has clumped its 'barbarians' together into one massive group of pure evil. It's 'us against them'.

Torture is made into entertainment in the book. The public is put at ease at the sight of a few innocent barbarians being abused and sometimes killed. The army turns fear into hate and allows the public an outlet for that hatred. In Waiting for the Barbarians the man plagued by this lack of human decency, the town judge, is displaced by all this mess as he attempts to take on the torture machine. He is arrested at the circumvention of the law — emergency powers are in the hands of the military because of the barbarians are apparently ready to pounce. The people in the remote frontier town in Waiting for the Barbarians are in constantly terrorized by the threat of a supposedly imminent barbarian invasion, yet another similarity between their society and America's (among others).

The us vs. them seen especially during wartime is seen in the book: "The soldiery tyrannizes the town. They have held a ... meeting to denounce "cowards and traitors" and to affirm collective alliance to the Empire" (Coetzee 130). There are elements of absurdity in the story of torture in Barbarians, but that same absurdity is seen in real life in the political rhetoric condoning torture. Innocent people — people who share fear if any ties with the enemy — are tortured needlessly for no real point. Whereas the fictional barbarian situation came to an end and just rule was reinstated, the terror subsided, there is no assurance that the same will happen in America's 'war on terror.'

Sunday, 6 January 2008

Terror suspect sues torture mastermind

Jose Padilla, who was held in a South Carolina military brig for years under suspicion of terrorism, only to be convicted on lesser charges unrelated to the original accusations, is suing former Bush administration legal mastermind John Yoo.

Chicago Tribune:

In the latest legal contest over the treatment of detained terrorist suspects, attorneys for Jose Padilla filed a suit in a California federal district court this morning against John Yoo, the former deputy assistant Attorney General whose legal opinions formed the basis for Padilla's detention and the interrogation techniques used against him that the attorneys call torture.
...
Padilla was eventually tried, and convicted in a federal district court in Miami last year, but on lesser charges that he was part of an overseas terrorist conspiracy-no mention of a planned dirty bomb attack inside the U.S..

The suit filed this morning in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, turns the spotlight of blame on Yoo, the author of a series of legal memoranda known collectively as the "Torture Memos." Drafted in 2002, when Yoo was a deputy assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department, they provided the legal justification for the interrogation techniques used on suspected Al Qaeda operatives that many, from former generals to presidential candidates, have since decried as torture.

"John Yoo is the first person in American history to provide the legal authorization for the instiution of torture in the U.S.," said Jonathan Freiman, an attorney representing Padilla in the suit. "He [Yoo] was an absolutely essential part of what will be viewed by history as a group of rogue officials acting under cover of law to undermine fundamental rights.it never would have happened without the legal green light. That made it possible."


There are few people I'd like to be brought down in a lawsuit over torture than John Yoo. His actions — which not only circumvented the Constitution and established laws over checks-and-balences but broke a handful of international agreements the US was a party too — brought shame to the reputation of America and showed just how much the administration is willing to break the law and disregard human rights in its 'war on terror'. Yoo also had a hand in the administration's domestic wiretapping program.

Saturday, 13 October 2007

Dreary Burmese days

China may have finally joined much of the world in condemning Burma's brutal regime for its recent actions, but the move is too little, too late. Is most hope already lost for the pro-democracy movement in the nation also known as Myanmar?

Following protests by monks and others, the military government jailed many religious figures and participants in the uprising. Now, nearly all major democracy activists have been arrested. Virtually no progress has been made in the area of human rights.

Sadly, it seems that mass protests don't always spark revolution, or even minor political change; but, if the protests are large enough, they do alert the world to the cause of the protesters. Protests can also be countered by pro-government rallies — there was a government-created rally held earlier today, in which tens of thousands participated.

Meanwhile, on the diplomatic front, the special UN envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, who visited Burma after protests heated up in September, is due to visit the country later this year. The nation's rich natural resources, especially its energy deposits, has allowed it to escape much pressure from international behemoths like China and India. The ASEAN bloc has been overly lax in its condemnation of the military junta, just as south African nations haven't put enough pressure on the deplorable state of Zimbabwe. The least that can be done internationally is ceasing the selling of arms to the nation.

Wednesday, 26 September 2007

Burma's march for freedom continues

Following a dawn-till-dusk curfew yesterday, Burmese protesters braved bullets, tear gas, and police force as they continued their push for democracy today. 10,000 people — many of them monks — demonstrated that they aren't going to stop what looks to be the largest uprising in nearly two decades (see previous post).

As the international community gets more and more concerned and unsure, China, one of Burma's only allies, remains silent. America is urging China to talk some sense into the illegitimate, despotic government of Burma, also known as Myanmar. The UN is leading the campaign for talks on the issue, and has already sent an envoy to Burma — although it is not known whether he will be allowed into the nation.

Why are we so unsure about what will happen next in Burma? The military junta rules the country in secrecy; few know its workings and even fewer know its plans. These protests could result in positive change — but what will probably come out of them is either a brutal crackdown like the one in 1988 where thousands were killed, or a less extreme but still hostile response from the government. I doubt they would move to the negotiating table.

As far as international pressure goes, Russia and China are still insisting the events in Burma are internal matters. Interesting how two nations who intervene and meddle so much in other nation's affairs — mostly for their profit and often resulting in disastrous consequences — would be against using diplomatic force against the regime in Burma. I can understand the impulse some have against intervention, I often share those views, but not only would upholding human rights diplomatically not be a rash measure that disrespects national sovereignty; in today's globalized and interdependent world — where one collapsed state in one far region of the globe can affect the affairs of a nation a hemisphere away — nations need to insure that their neighbors don't collapse... for their own good! That is why we finally saw China move forward with North Korea. If they were too extreme in their punishment of their 'friend', there could be collapse; but if they let the regime go mad with nukes and provoke some of the world's largest powers, instability could also be imminent.

Self-interest aside, it is important to at least acknowledge the human rights struggle in Burma. China and Russia, two veto-welding members of the UN Security Council, are wreaking of hypocrisy, as we have also seen on the Iran issue and a medley of other geopolitical matters. The need for stability, but also human rights and political legitimacy, should be rallying cries for those who call for change in Burma, and the need for states like China to push for change. Perhaps if Russia and China were more democratic and free, their people could force their governments to not be so stubborn. Alas, the freedom of one nation's people can so easily affect the freedom of another's.

Thursday, 30 August 2007

The Abu Ghraib scandal continues

The continued scapegoating in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse case.

The acquittal of a US army colonel on charges relating to the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib means no officers have been found criminally guilty.

The episode stained the reputation of the US military and may well have acted as a recruiting agent for insurgents.


Virtually all senior members of the US military have gotten off scot-free. From what I know of the case, Maj-Gen Miller should be punished for his major role in the human rights abuses (i.e. torture) at various United States military-led prisons, including in Guantanamo and the now-closed Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Thursday, 23 August 2007

Burmese protests crushed as usual

The tyrannical, isolated authoritarian state of Myanmar, aka Burma, has finally made its way into the headlines. As usual, the news is not entirely positive. Following a rare rally against the government in relation to soaring energy costs and low-as-usual standards of living, the military-led government cracked down on protests led by several participants of a 1988 student uprising.

Myanmar's military junta arrested 13 prominent dissidents and put gangs of spade-wielding supporters on the streets of Yangon on Wednesday to halt protests against soaring fuel prices and falling living standards.
...
Despite the clampdown and the overnight arrest of the activists, 100 people staged an hour-long march before being dispersed. Five women and a man were arrested, although there was no violence, witnesses told Reuters.

"Onlookers applauded but failed to join the march," one said.

In a rare announcement in all state-run newspapers, the junta said the 13 dissidents were arrested for "agitation to cause civil unrest" and "undermining peace and security of the state" -- charges that could put them in jail for up to 20 years.


It's time for the world to be serious with Myanmar's military junta and stop bending the embargoes (e.g. India may be supplying the Rangoon regime with military helicopters) put in place to harm the government — though not the people.

The south-east Asian state is home to one of the most brutal regimes in the world and its tens of millions of people have suffered for years. Perhaps their plight would be the subject of more public and political attention if Myanmar was lucky enough to have vast oil resources. Nevertheless, Myanmar has one of the worst human rights records and any dissent to its authoritarian rulers is met with oppression. It's time for the state that holds Aung San Suu Kyi and many other political prisoners to be shown for what it is to the international community: a regime more than worthy of the label repressive.

Friday, 20 July 2007

Another cop-out condemnation of torture

President Bush has signed "an executive order banning cruel treatment of terrorism suspects during interrogation", says the BBC.

Considering torture is already against the law — several laws in fact — this new order does little if any for helping America's tarnished image caused by its "war on terror". The administration will likely continue to turn a blind eye against operations deemed questionable in the area of human rights and will use this latest order as something to fall back on: 'the president has said he does not condone torture, he even made an executive order against it, so this case of "torture" is surely the case of a few bad apples'. Is this executive order, or EO, in fact a sort of admission that the White House has allowed torture to go on unabated? Probably not. But it has been known to use techniques and talk about them openly that it does not consider torture, but everyone else does, like waterboarding.

The damage is already done, and this latest cop-out by the Bush administration (see below) won't really alter the fact that the United States not only looks bad to the world, but will continue to act poorly, even when supposedly championing human rights, in the name of fighting terrorism. Innocents and terrorists alike will continue to be taken, detained, and treated unacceptably. The executive order still gives much authority for discretion to the relevant authorities to define which interrogation tactics are deemed "safe".

Here's what Marty Lederman over at Balkinization had to say about Bush's executive order on CIA torture:

The President has finally signed the Executive Order purportedly construing Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, as required by the Military Commissions Act (MCA). It is, in a word, worthless. Last month I surmised that the E.O. would be "very cryptic and uninformative, and that the public will not learn of what techniques our government is using and deeming not to be 'cruel treatment and torture.'"
...
Just as the details of the Army Field Manual are published and open to public debate, so, too, should be the legal limitations that our government has identified regarding the CIA's analogous activities. As it is, this hide-the-ball lawmaking is supremely cynical, and, after all these years of public debate, an insult to the public and to the Congress. It's not surprising, however.

Later in the post, he points out the flaws as well as the legal questions this order puts into play. If you want to learn more on the matter from someone who knows this topic well, see the above link.

Isn't it time for some public oversight of what is happening at Gitmo and elsewhere? Shouldn't the vagueness end and the 'government of the people' be honest with its people? Not all of that information is or should be 'top secret' and essential to be kept secret for national security purposes. Everyone can see through the hubris, and yet Congress limits itself to symbolic maneuvers when dealing with executive oversight.

By trivializing not only national security but human rights and civil liberties — like the right to privacy and a fair trial — and politicizing what's left, the Bush administration has made a mockery of American political values still weak from the dark ages of the Cold War and the liberty-restricting times preceding it. The Military Commissions Act was a terrible law. What's worse is that only its negative aspects have seen the light of day so far, and nothing seems to be stopping them.

Monday, 25 June 2007

'Redouble' or bust on Darfur

US Secretary of State Condi Rice attended a French conference on Darfur. On Sunday she urged the countries of the world to "redouble" their efforts on ending the horrendous conflict in Sudan's Darfur region.

Ms Rice said they could not "continue to sit by", after an international conference in Paris on the violence that has left some 200,000 people dead.

Officials from the US, Europe and the Arab League discussed how to speed up the deployment of UN troops to Darfur.

But Sudan said the talks were premature as it had already agreed to the force.

The Sudanese Foreign Minister, Lam Akol, told the BBC that his government was in complete agreement with the composition of the peacekeeping force, its command, the nature of its operation and its mission.

"The ball is actually in the court of the United Nations to expedite the operation."


As soon as the still-limited hybrid AU-UN force is created, no doubt Sudan will find another way to wrangle itself out of the situation, either by playing the 'neo-imperialism' card or another excuse. Or maybe it will just hinder any sort of peacekeeping operations like it has been doing since there has been one. In reality one of the reasons it's taking so much time is that the African Union is very short of troops. These kinds of things also take some time and planning.

'Sanctions' was a word Rice used often at the conference:
"Sudan has a history of agreeing to things and then trying to condition or change them or to backtrack and say, 'Well no, we didn't really agree to that,'" Rice said


Rice is sounding hasty. If the Bush administration would have focused on Darfur earlier, instead of loosing credibility and respect fighting international terrorism in its own special way, the conflict would not have gone as far. Is it just a coincidence that the White House notices and talks about Darfur only after a Save Darfur album becomes popular earlier this year? Sounding more, well, diplomatic is Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general.

"We have lost a lot of time while agreements have been made that have not been kept," Rice added. "We can no longer afford a situation in Darfur where agreements are made and not kept."

The U.N. chief, Ban Ki-moon, insisted at the meeting that "slow but credible and considerable progress" has recently been made to resolve the crisis.

This time I disagree with Ban. "Credible and considerable"? How about half-hearted and dismal. But it's his job to keep the slow process of diplomacy on track and looking as positive as it can within reason.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the world must be "firm" with Sudan. "Silence is killing" is one of the better quotes from the conference.

Sanctions may be a solution, but they are a solution China — a major business partner of Sudan — is unlikely to be happy with. China is thursty for oil and Sudan has it. China also has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which comes with veto power. US President Bush pushed sanctions last month; and the result remains to be seen.

So far any agreement on Darfur has come with little promise of real results; and if the international community won't get its act together, Khartoum sure as hell won't either. Sudan's government backtracks on ending the conflict in Dafur, but then when it is threatened with real action it accepts whatever meager steps are being proposed. Progress on Darfur is like running a marathon with an anvil tied to one leg (note: the Sudanese government is the leg with the anvil tied to it, the free leg represents the people who want the genocide to end).

So why isn't more action being taken by the international justice or human rights organizations of the United Nations? To safeguard national sovereignty, the UN — not counting the Security Council — has a basic rule: don't help unless asked by the government. This just cuts the UN-phobe's 'anti-soverignity international malevolent government' argument to pieces. Individual nations, however, can take actions like, say, invading a country against the will of its government, and they can have the blessing of the UN. But the UN's meddling in a country's affairs is often limited to just-a-piece-of-paper resolutions, and every now and then sanctions or other serious actions by the Security Council.

Up to 300,000 have been killed and 2.5 million made refugees, in addition to countless raped, since 2003. The Sudanese government is suspected — and practically confirmed — of aiding and assisting Janjaweed militias instigating the genocide. It's one of the worst human rights disasters of the still-young 21st century and receives less than 1% the attention as Paris Hilton.

Friday, 22 June 2007

The CIA: coming clean

The CIA is to declassify years of documents confirming many of it's shady and illegal Cold War practices. Topics like this — knowing, or rather not knowing, what a supposedly free and democratic country as the United States was and still is doing against any measure of human rights, freedoms, and more — get me a bit fired up.

The Washington Post reported:

The CIA will declassify hundreds of pages of long-secret records detailing some of the intelligence agency's worst illegal abuses -- the so-called "family jewels" documenting a quarter-century of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying, kidnapping and infiltration of leftist groups from the 1950s to the 1970s, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday.

The documents, to be publicly released next week, also include accounts of break-ins and theft, the agency's opening of private mail to and from China and the Soviet Union, wiretaps and surveillance of journalists, and a series of "unwitting" tests on U.S. civilians, including the use of drugs.

"Most of it is unflattering, but it is CIA's history," Hayden said in a speech to a conference of foreign policy historians. The documents have been sought for decades by historians, journalists and conspiracy theorists and have been the subject of many fruitless Freedom of Information Act requests.
...
The CIA documents scheduled for release next week, Hayden said yesterday, "provide a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency."
...
Hayden's speech and some questions that followed evoked more recent criticism of the intelligence community, which has been accused of illegal wiretapping, infiltration of antiwar groups, and kidnapping and torturing of terrorism suspects.


The BBC went further into what exactly these papers will reveal.
The papers, to be released next week, will detail assassination plots, domestic spying and wiretapping, kidnapping and human experiments.

Many of the incidents are already known, but the documents are expected to give more comprehensive accounts.
...
Among the incidents that were said to "present legal questions" were:

* the confinement of a Soviet defector in the mid-1960s
* assassination plots of foreign leaders, including Cuba's Fidel Castro
* wiretapping and surveillance of journalists
* behaviour modification experiments on "unwitting" US citizens
* surveillance of dissident groups between 1967 and 1971
* opening from 1953 to 1973 of letters to and from the Soviet Union; from 1969 to 1972 of mail to and from China


These actions are not those of an agency of a free, liberal democratic government. While not turning into a paranoid, "everyone's out to get me"-ist, a citizen should always remain aware of what his or her government is doing to prevent the removal of their own liberties. Those of us who live in America, Germany, India, and other democratic countries should protect our freedom by using the powers democratic governance gives us; those who live in unfree states should also do what they can for freedoms. Moreover, fake wars are no excuse for taking away the freedom of citizens or of others outside of the country. Doing so is counter-intuitive and, as I said before, not the actions of a free state.

People like former secretary of state and still-foreign policy leader Henry Kissinger want skeletons like these to remain in the dark closets of the CIA, so to speak. He has fought any investigation into America's intelligence agency's misdeeds. Perhaps the reason he fights against the ugly truth is because he himself was a proponent of despicable policy, like bombing civilians in Cambodia or overthrowing democratically-elected world leaders and killing many for the sake of posturing. Why stoop to the enemy's level? Who did Kissinger turn to to commit these misdeeds? The CIA. These are no conspiracy theories.

In 1975, CIA Director William Colby told then-President Gerald Ford that his summary of the CIA's activity had descriptions of "things [the CIA] shouldn't have done". A day later on 4 January, Secretary of State Kissinger told Ford that divulging these documents — in effect telling a nation the truth about all the horrible things its government has been doing — would result in a political disaster, like a new Watergate. Further withholding information of illegal and shady deeds from the public for your own political security is pretty sad on the part of Kissinger and the Ford administration.

While it's good that the CIA is finally doing this (a bit late though), I wonder how exactly some of these — need I emphasize it more — horrible acts are, as Hayden calls them, "crown jewels". Moreover they are reminders of a time which I for one hope America never returns too. The Cold War was much worse than the current GWOT in how the government acted and how people's freedoms were suppressed — but that's no excuse for the Bush administration's condemnable "war on terror" actions either.

Many of the misdeeds listed above were similar to what the unfree, authoritarian Soviet government agencies were doing, just as Bush is in some ways using similar scare tactics as the terrorists he is fighting against. See a pattern? An enemy develops, government takes advantage of people's fear, government gains power and engages in illegal and bad activities for its own power and for whatever other reasons in its 'war'.

Nowadays the CIA is actually weak. It has lost the badge of authority it carried as it painted a picture of the Red Army marching across American soil and performed commonly operations like the ones listed above. Now the Defense Department has far more power; the CIA is underfunded and the intelligence community often thrust aside — even when it is right, like in the case of 9/11 and the failure in Iraq; and more directly under the president's political authority, the FBI is more notorious for restrictions of domestic civil liberties.

For a bit more on the foreign policy of America during and before the Cold War, see my Monroe Doctrine essay. The National Security Archive has a page on these "family jewels".
The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s, according to declassified documents posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.


Let's just hope that chapter in the American intelligence community's history has come to a close, or is to end at least with the next president. I highly recommend checking out the archive page linked above; it also documents all the CIA's broken promises of declassification — making Hayden's announcement look less and less like a positive step forward and more like something that should have happened long ago.

Saturday, 9 June 2007

More confirmation of CIA secret prisons

Another development in the story of secret jails run by the American CIA in the "war on terror".

IHT:

Investigators have confirmed the existence of clandestine CIA prisons in Romania and Poland housing leading members of Al Qaeda, according to a report issued Friday by the Council of Europe, the European human rights monitoring agency.

Dick Marty, the Swiss senator who has been leading the inquiry, said in a recent interview that his conclusions were based on information from intelligence agents on both sides of the Atlantic, including members of the CIA counterterrorism center.

The report says the prisons operated from 2003 to 2005.
...
But the report contends, "What was previously just a set of allegations is now proven."
...
Apart from the statements of what his report describes as former and present intelligence agents, Marty quotes aviation records that he suggests provide detailed evidence of clandestine visits by CIA planes to Szymany, Poland. He also quotes the text of confidential military agreements signed between the United States and Romania that, he suggests, allowed the establishment of a CIA base in the country.
...
The report includes more specific conclusions than a study released in June last year that contended that at least 14 European countries had accepted secret transfers of terrorism suspects by the United States. That report listed a web of global landing points that it said had been used by the American authorities for their air network.


The report found Poland and Romania were sites for the secret prisons, which President Bush has confirmed the existence of last year. There have been conflicting European reports on these "black sites". Often detainees are transported via "extraordinary renditions"; European nations have acted more as terminals — or the origin of the prisoners — than bases for the prisons. Nonetheless, many laws — international and national — have no doubt been broken even with the programs that have been admitted.

The CIA denies this latest report, as do the Polish and Romanian governments.

Tuesday, 29 May 2007

Teletubbies equal gay?

Here's the culprit:

How unimaginably evil. Don't be fooled by his innocent caricature, this guy is out to get you.
Some facts/things to consider about this vile character:

  • The late Rev. Jerry Falwell, in all his craziness, once attacked the Telletubby named Tinky Winky.
  • A malevolent homosexual wishing to make your kid gay in some way or another? A menace to your child's morals and heterosexuality? ...Or an innocent young children's TV character?

    The Polish government is quite worried about a certain television show. No, its not because of sexual content or violence, or any other inappropriate content for that matter. Their worries stem from what is perceived as homosexuality exhibited in a TV show aimed at children not even old enough to write.

    BBC News:
    A senior Polish official has ordered psychologists to investigate whether the popular BBC TV show Teletubbies promotes a homosexual lifestyle.

    The spokesperson for children's rights in Poland, Ewa Sowinska, singled out Tinky Winky, the purple character with a triangular aerial on his head.

    "I noticed he was carrying a woman's handbag," she told a magazine. "At first, I didn't realise he was a boy."

    EU officials have criticised Polish government policy towards homosexuals.

    Ms Sowinska wants the psychologists to make a recommendation about whether the children's show should be broadcast on public television.

    Poland's authorities have recently initiated a series of moves to outlaw the promotion of homosexuality among the nation's children.
    ...
    One radio station asked its listeners to vote for the most suspicious children's show. Some e-mailed in, saying that Winnie the Pooh had only male friends.
    ...
    Poland was criticised recently after its education ministry announced plans to sack teachers who promote homosexuality.

    Last month the European Union singled out Poland for criticism in its resolution condemning homophobia in the 27-member bloc.


    Even if the show did 'promote a homosexual lifestyle' — which it obviously doesn't — wouldn't that be fine considering the countless shows that promote purely heterosexual 'lifestyles'?

    Before I get to the whole 'there's something wrong with being-gay' part, or rather my argument quashing the 'evil homosexual agenda' homophobia, let me just say this: Kid's aren't going to turn gay from watching the Telletubbies, nor any other television shows. The same applies to the fact that one will not turn magically into a gay fashionista by watching Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. And you certainly won't likely become the next Sherlock Holmes by watching all the crime dramas you can.

    Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice, and it certainly is not a dangerous ideology being imposed involuntarily. In fact, if a parent — in Poland or anywhere else — does not think their child should watch a certain TV program, all they have to do is press a button. It's hard to grasp how somehow the perceived homosexual qualities of the Telletubbies — which doesn't even have sex nonetheless things that would imply a character's sexual orientation — are malevolent, a menace to their children so large that the government needs to step in and take care of the problem! In addition, this homophobia, while not uncommon, emphasizes the public in belief in gender role stereotypes (e.g. that a guy with a purse is gay, just because he has a purse). Something as simple as stopping with a click of a button should not create this much stir; nor should the government care if Tinky Winky has a handbag and an upside-down triangle on the top of his head; or whether he's a boy or a girl, or whatever he is. None of that is a danger to Polish children.

    The EU is right to denounce Poland's state-sponsored human rights abuses and homophobia. However the United States and many other countries have the same problems of homophobia and not accepting differences as Poland. And it's not only the government — it's society too. There is rampant homophobic nonsense echoing from governments everywhere too, and a state's politics greatly shapes its society and its qualities, for better or for worse. Considering America is more developed, open, democratic, and liberal than Poland, one would hope it would also clean up its act. It's pitiful, the state of LGBT rights in the US.

    With Poland (still) being bullied by its neighbors to the east and immediate west, Russia and Germany, over energy resources this time loosing political support from other countries and the European Union is not a good thing as Polish political policies go down the drain.

    It is now — and has been — completely known that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it's biological.

    Thank goodness we have the Polish government to protect our young's sexual orientation...

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Friday, 25 May 2007

    A look at a repressed democratic activist: Aung San Suu Kyi

    Aung San Suu Kyi — democratic activist continually detained by her military state

    Her name is known worldwide as a woman who stands for democracy in the face of brutal authoritarian oppression. She is a Nobel Peace Prize winner (1991) — the only currently imprisoned one in fact — and an enemy of the military junta that rules Myanmar, known also as Burma. Her party rightly won the election in 1990, but the ruthless military set in. Suu Kyi has been detained for over a decade, and her detention has just been extended. The only reason she isn't dead is because she is one of the most popular and notable figures from Burma, a state that is odd in itself (see secret and mysterious capital change).

    Burma is among one of the most human rights abusive countries on the planet, and is often ignored as authoritarian nations like North Korea and Sudan take center stage. In fact, the news about Suu Kyi was barely covered in the western media, even for a person who the United States, European Union, and others, as well as a UN official, have spoken recently in support of. General Than Shwe and his military thugs govern the country, with no respect for the people.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

    Sunday, 15 April 2007

    Rhetorical questions from recent news

  • Supermassive (legal) black hole
    Amnesty International says new conditions in Guantanamo are even worse.
    Could it be any worse?

  • It’s getting hotter in here
    Climate change striking sooner than expected, says the new UN IPCC report — which is not good news. The impact is vast too.
    Can you feel it now?

  • Bush asks Congress to allow more eavesdropping
    Reuters: "The Bush administration asked Congress on Friday to expand the number of people it can subject to electronic surveillance...also protects companies that cooperate with spy operations." Such a change would modify the existing 1978 law.
    Isn't there enough already?

  • Deal or no deal on nukes
    North Korea's got the money it wanted from a frozen bank account, and everything about the oft-rogue state's deal with the international community to close down some of its nuclear facilities seems to be going alright, except the whole closing down the facilities part.
    DPRK: Compliant or defiant?

  • And an irreverently irrelevant question:
    What if Bush was a Democrat?

  • Thursday, 22 March 2007

    Slavery and more

    Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. See here (official UN site) for more details.


    "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms." Article 4, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    It's been about 200 years since the abolition of slavery in Britain and the British Empire, and an odd altruistic sort of crusade against slavery by the British. It's also around two centuries since US President Thomas Jefferson signed an act banning the slave trade, though slavery continued for years to come.

    Of course, slavery and similar practices are still around today.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

    Thursday, 8 March 2007

    No surprises: Sudan government hurting Darfur more

    As if they hadn’t done enough by supporting and instigating the genocide…

    BBC News:

    The Sudanese government is "paralysing" the aid operation in its conflict-torn western region of Darfur, the US special envoy to Sudan has said.

    Andrew Natsios said there had recently been a big increase in red tape and the harassment of aid workers.

    He was speaking after talks with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

    The operation is the biggest of its kind in the world, with about two million people in Darfur's camps fully dependent on aid agencies for food.

    "The [Sudanese] government has constructed a very onerous set of bureaucratic requirements which are essentially paralysing the relief effort," Mr Natsios said after the talks in Khartoum.

    The US envoy also said Khartoum had created unacceptable delays in the transition to a joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force in Sudan's western region.
    ...
    Khartoum rejects plans for it to hand over to a larger, stronger UN mission, with President Bashir calling it an attempt by the West to colonise Sudan.
    ...
    Sudan's government and the pro-government Arab militias are accused of war crimes against the region's black African population, although the UN has stopped short of calling it genocide.

    But the current force has failed to halt attacks on civilians which has led to some two million people living in camps.
    "The greatest immediate thereat to the people on the ground is the deteriorating humanitarian space in Darfur"
    Andrew Natsios
    US special envoy to Sudan


    A recent US State Department report listed the strife in Darfur as the worst human rights abuse of 2006.

    Genocide is unacceptable. Not only is President Omar al-Bashir's government preventing crucial aid, they are at fault for people even needing the aid. Hundreds of thousands have died, though it is hard to know exactly how many, in a genocide following the one in Rwanda, which killed close to a million — roughly 800,000 or more. 'Never again', said the international community, would a genocide like Rwanda happen, with ethnic fighting and government support for a side. The promise has been broken.

    Out of the foreign policy maneuvers this US administration has made, the amount that have been positive ones are restricted to what I can count using my fingers. Their outspokenness on the Darfur genocide, and their proper labeling of it as 'genocide', is one of those few positives. However, not enough action has been taken. Out of the things Bush can do to brighten up what history will judge of his presidency, creating some sort of international momentum on Darfur is one of them. It is not like there are not things the international community can do to make Khartoum change its ill ways. Sudan is an oil-producing state and has contracts with many foreign powers. If countries really want to do something about Darfur, they have to squeeze the Sudanese government. UN peacekeepers are the best and only viable option, and the same government that has created the need for peacekeepers is the one keeping them out. African Union troops are underfunded, understaffed, under-trained especially for this kind of work, you name it. Plus, they don't seem to be getting anywhere because they have to avoid the militias and military instead of protecting the people they are supposed to be protecting, which is not their fault.

    Genocide, and many things relating to Africa, must be particularly un-sexy — compared to foreign troop (not civilian) death and celebrities and any sort of power rhetoric — because, as I said in this post, Darfur has been greatly under-reported, especially in American media.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,