Obama - Same old shit

Thought Obama was the saviour? Don't be a fool. He is no different to all other post-war Presidents:

Barack Obama's government was accused of "blackmail" after it emerged that America had threatened to withdraw co-operation in terrorist cases if a UK court ordered the disclosure of secret torture evidence.

In the first real test of the "special relationship" between Britain and the US since Mr Obama's inauguration, MPs and human rights groups called for an inquiry into the case that concerns the treatment of a British resident, Binyam Mohamed, still being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Secret CIA documents held by the Foreign Office detail the interrogation and treatment of Mr Mohamed, who claims he was brutally tortured after being flown by US agents to a secret prison in Morocco before his detention at the US naval base in Cuba.

Good work Messiah.

Waterboarding Was 'Actively Sought' by US Officials

That's according to Carl Levin who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

US military officials actively sought ways to implement harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding used at Guantanamo Bay despite legal objections, a senior Democratic senator has said.

Carl Levin, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, told a hearing the US government had "twisted the law to create the appearance of legality".

"If we use those same techniques offensively against detainees, it says to the world that they have America's stamp of approval," he said in Washington DC on Tuesday.

The committee was also shown US military memos saying that the techniques should be curbed while international monitors were present.

The hearing is the committee's first attempt to discover the origins of the harsh interrogation methods used in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq and how policy decisions on interrogations were agreed across the US department of defence.

The CIA has admitted it used waterboarding, which simulates drowning, on several suspected al-Qaeda leaders, while US soldiers were photographed using dogs against prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

The interrogations have been widely condemned by international human rights groups.

Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator, said the Bush administration's legal analysis on detainees and interrogations following the September 11, 2001, attacks would "go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and shortsighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation's military and intelligence communities".

Interrogators At Guantanamo Told To Destroy 'Handwritten Notes'

Yet more evidence of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Bu$h administration:

Guantanamo Bay interrogators were told to destroy handwritten notes in case they were called to testify on detainee treatment, a military lawyer alleges.

The lawyer, Lt-Cmdr William Kuebler, said the instructions were contained in a Pentagon operations manual.

He said this apparent destruction of evidence at the prison camp stopped him from challenging alleged confessions in the case of his client, Omar Khadr.

He would use the document to seek a dismissal of the charges, he said.

Mr Khadr - a Canadian - is the only Westerner still held at the jail.

The 21-year-old is accused of killing a US soldier and wounding another during a battle in Afghanistan in 2002.

Mr Khadr was 15 when he was captured during the firefight at a suspected al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.

He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted.

Two weeks ago, Canada's Supreme Court ruled the Canadian government had acted illegally by handing over documents from an interview with the suspect by its own intelligence services a year after his capture.

Berlusconi, Civil Liberties and the Hypocrisy of the Right

One of the most 'interesting' developments in recent years had been the attempts by the right to wash their hands of their involvement with fascism during the 1930s. So embarrassed are they by their craven worship of the 'virtues' of fascism during this period, they have even branded Hitler's nationalist ideology as somehow socialist (the argument normally so simplistic as to point to the fact that they were the National Socialists - of course this ignores Hitler's purge of the 'left' in his party and his links with big business amongst others). This argument has now moved on to what they call 'Islamofascism'. A doctrine that suggests that an Islamic based dictatorship is on the horizon. In their urge to make up for the mistakes of the past, they are eager to claim that any group perceived as a threat is part of some wider 'fascist' movement.

So detached from reality these people have become, and so determined to present themselves as the defenders of a culture under attack, they even attempt to present themselves as defenders of civil liberties in the face of a new aggression. This is an extension of their belief that all dictators are 'left-wing' whereas all right-wing societies support liberal values and are, in essence, the opposite of the 'left-wing' dictatorships in every way. The argument maintains that intrusive governments are the preserve of the left, whilst the right is concerned with free societies that preserve the rights of the individual. Thus it becomes the case that civil liberties and libertarianism becomes the sole preserve of the right. This is, of course, entirely false.

Such a misguided belief is false on many grounds. Encounter any political commentator who claims the above as wholly accurate and their argument soon flounders when you introduce the concept of libertarian socialism. Of course, another term for libertarian socialism would be anarchism. Although there are many strands of anarchism, essentially most of it's adherents believe in the destruction of the state, private ownership and the means of production to be in the hands of the worker. This would then free the populace from their slavery to the capitalist economy and ensure true freedom and liberty. Clearly, all these elements can be closely identified with the left, after all, they underpin much of left-wing ideology (certainly the non-totalitarian elements of the left). Despite the obvious contradiction with right-wing ideology, there are still those on the right that insist this is compatible with right-wing thinking (even taking into account the abolition of private ownership - the very foundation of right-wing ideology). Take, for example, the following commentator over at the right-wing conspiracy site Biased BBC:

Nearly Oxfordian:

"Anarchism is not a right-wing ideology by any stretch" -
err, actually it is. Since it believes in (extreme) personal freedom, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called anything but. It is diametrically opposed to lef-wingism, which requires the state to intervene in order to right (real or imagined) inequalities.

Nearly Oxfordian 13.05.08 - 7:24 pm

Such comments come from (allegedly) educated individuals I hasten to add. The fact that the two ideologies are diametrically opposed hardly seems relevant.

In terms of the civil liberties argument, perhaps there are more obvious examples of the right's negation of basic civil liberties. Take, for example, Guantanamo Bay. Here is a prime example of the destruction of one of the most basic civil liberties. Not only is it a massive affront to civil liberties, it is also indicative of a large overbearing state that views the populace with suspicion. Despite this rather obvious fact, there are many of those on the right who continue to defend the practice, even when it contradicts their loudly stated 'beliefs'. How can anyone opposed to a large state and a supporter of civil liberties claim that Guantanamo is anything but a monstrosity? So bizarre is their argument in this case, that it seeks to defend the altruistic nature of the one arm of the state that is most likely to undermine civil liberties. Take, for example, the argument of one right-winger who claims to oppose the power of the state, yet supports civil liberties:

Do I belive that governments have the right to conduct surveillance on certain members of the populace that they have cause to belive are a threat to society and act in such a way that prevents those individuals from carrying out an act that endangers said society? Youbetcha. Indeed, protecting society and enforcing rule of law and security is one of the few roles that right wing thinkers approve of handing over to the state (with appropritate checks abnd balances). I draw the line at such left wing institutions as Stasi and gulags though.

As I said above, it is rather odd that, despite 'opposing' a large state apparatus and distrusting the state as a whole, the one area that they feel they can trust it (indeed, they approve of 'handing over to the state') is the one arm of the state that can do the most amount of damage to the civil liberties of society as a whole. Why is this such an exception? Is it only an exception when both the commentator and the state share a common enemy? If this were a right-wing commentator in a left-wing society, would the same still apply? I very much doubt it. The right have made a habit over the years of seeing things through a typical double standard. Which brings me to the picture at the top of the post ("At last!" I hear you cry!)

As I have mentioned above, much talk has been made of the 'link' between fascism and the left over the years. Despite the evidence of the Spanish Civil War, the left has been painted as appeasers and supporters of the rise of fascism in 1930's Europe. Given that this has been the case, recent events in Italy have provided a stark reminder of where fascism truly draws it's support. Berlusconi has been the darling of the right in Europe for many years, a man beyond reproach. However, his fascistic tendencies have been rising to the surface of late and, like the growth of fascism in the 1930s, the right has been noticeable by it's silence. Although it would be fair to say that Italy isn't a fascist state at this moment in time, it is displaying signs of a sudden lurch to the disturbing politics of the past. Take, for example, Berlusconi's words soon after retuning to power:

"We are the new Falange."

The Falange being the fascist party in Spain during the Civil War era. Then there was the election of the new mayor in Rome (a supporter of Berlusconi) who was greeted with cries of "Duce". Following these disturbing developments, a new echo from 1930's Europe has emerged.

According to reports during the week, the new government and it's supporters have turned their attention to immigration and the gypsy population. As part of efforts to 'get tough' on illegal immigration, the Italian government has rounded up 400 'illegal' immigrants in preparation for their removal. In tandem with this policy, there has also been a crack down on gypsy camps, particularly around Naples. However, this policy has been 'pre-empted' by the local population who have taken the law into their own hands. The following is taken from The Times:

But in Naples local people have anticipated the new policy, taking the law into their own hands.

This week’s assaults on Roma shanty towns by scores of youths on scooters and motorbikes wielding iron bars and throwing Molotov cocktails were sparked off by the capture of a 17-year-old Roma girl who last weekend entered a flat in Ponticelli and tried to steal a 6-year-old girl. Chased by the mother and neighbours, she had to be rescued by police from being lynched.

The city erupted in fury, with local women leading the marches on the Roma camps to the chant of “Fuori, fuori [Out, out]”. Night after night young men — allegedly acting on the orders of powerful local clans of the Camorra, the Naples Mafia — have set the sites ablaze, blocking attempts by the fire brigade to put out the fires, with exploding gas canisters completing the destruction. The women jeered at the firemen, shouting, "You put these fires out, we start them again”.

Plumes of smoke were still rising yesterday from the smouldering, blackened ruins of a Roma gypsy camp attacked and burnt to the ground by local vigilantes in Ponticelli, a rundown industrial suburb in the east of Naples in the shadow of Mount Vesuvius.

The charred remains of the makeshift wooden shacks at the site on Via Malibran crunch underfoot. The only sign of life is dogs scavenging through the neighbouring mountain of uncollected, rotting rubbish.

There are similar scenes of devastation at camps nearby, including one in the incongruously named Via Virginia Woolf. At one squalid “nomad camp” beneath a motorway flyover, intact but deserted, a policeman guarding the site said that the inhabitants had fled during the night to avoid being attacked.

The signs of hasty panic were everywhere, with doors to the shacks left open and the ground strewn with clothing, shoes, bicycles, plastic bottles, pots and pans and children’s toys.

Hundreds of Roma families have fled for their lives with their belongings piled on to small pick-up trucks or handcarts. Some have been taken under police protection to a former school used to house illegal immigrants in a northern Naples suburb. Others have found refuge at Roma camps elsewhere in the Campania region, while a few have been taken in by Naples residents shocked at this outbreak of “xenophobia”.


Sound familiar? An ethnic group being blamed for society's ills? A community forced to flee for fear of their own lives? Property destroyed? Has an eerie ring to it does it not? According to some sources, over 500,000 gypsies were exterminated in Nazi Germany. Only the Jewish community suffered greater losses. So here we have a political leader echoing the sentiments of the fascist leaders of the past, an ethnic group persecuted for bringing 'urban degradation' upon the community, an ethnic community fleeing their dwellings for fear of being murdered and where are the voices of the right? Where are the voices of those who claim to support civil liberties? Where are the voices of those that claim fascism is a left-wing ideology? Why are they prepared to repeat the mistakes of the past? Surely if they believe what they espouse they would condemn Berlusconi at all costs. That they do not suggests that their concern for civil liberties is only skin deep. Scratch the surface, and they bleed the blood of fascists.

William Haynes Chevron

(Apologies for the poor grammar in the headline, there is a reason.)

Well, someone at Chevron certainly is keeping their eye on blogs posting about Ecuador, Chevron and William Haynes. In the past week, I have had no less than four visits from someone holed up at Chevron HQ (lucky old me). Generally speaking, they appear to use the search term that I have used as the title of this post, which then leads them to this lovely little post I wrote on the connection between William Haynes and the 'war on terror'. One wonders how many other visits they will pay to this blog in the near future.

In honour of my new found friends at Chevron, I would like to dedicate the following short animation to their tireless work in Ecuador. You deserve it chaps, no really.

What's The Link Between Chevron, Guantanamo and Ecuador?

So, at long last the mainstream media appears to be catching up with reality of torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghriab. Whilst stories surrounding the extent to which those closest to Bush were aware of the new policy regarding torture has been doing the rounds on the internet for some time, it is only now that it is being taking seriously by one of the 'quality' newspapers in the UK. The Guardian's Weekend magazine prints an extensive excerpt from Philippe Sands' Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty And The Compromise Of Law which explores Donald Rumsfeld's authorisation of previously illegal interrogation techniques. Although Rumsfeld's name sticks out like a sore thumb, there is one other name that repeatedly surfaces in this expose: William J Haynes II. Yes, the very same William J Haynes II who has recently been employed by Chevron.

Sands' piece makes a pretty damning case against Haynes. Sands writes:

....in the Pentagon, an event took place for which there was no comment, no fanfare. With a signature and a few scrawled words, Rumsfeld reneged on the tradition of valour to which Bush had referred. Principles for the conduct of interrogation, dating back more than a century to President Lincoln's famous instruction of 1863 that "military necessity does not admit of cruelty", were discarded. He approved new and aggressive interrogation techniques that would produce devastating consequences.

The document had been drafted a few days earlier by the general counsel at the Defence Department, William J Haynes II (known as Jim Haynes), Rumsfeld's most senior lawyer. The Haynes memo was addressed to Rumsfeld and copied to two colleagues: General Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the most senior military official in the US, and Doug Feith, under-secretary of defence for policy and number three at the department.

Yes, Haynes was the man responsible for the policy of torture and human rights abuses that the Bush administration employed across the globe. But to what extent did Haynes approve of new interrogation techniques?


[Attached to the memorandum] was a list of 18 techniques of interrogation, set out in a three-page memorandum.

These techniques were new to the military. Category I comprised two techniques, yelling and deception. Category II included 12 techniques, aiming at humiliation and sensory deprivation, including stress positions, such as standing for a maximum of four hours; isolation; deprivation of light and sound; hooding; removal of religious and all other comfort items; removal of clothing; forced grooming, such as shaving of facial hair; and the use of individual phobias, such as fear of dogs, to induce stress.

Finally came Category III. These methods were to be used for only a very small percentage of detainees - the most uncooperative (said to be fewer than 3%) and exceptionally resistant individuals - and required approval by the commanding general at Guantánamo. In this category were four techniques: the use of "mild, non-injurious physical contact", such as grabbing, poking and light pushing; the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences were imminent for him or his family; exposure to cold weather or water; and, finally, the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation. This last technique came to be known as water-boarding, described on a chat show by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, as a "dunk in the water" and a "no-brainer" if it could save lives.

The Haynes memo recommended "blanket approval" of 15 of the 18 techniques, including just one of the four techniques listed in Category III: mild, non-injurious physical contact. However, he did not reject the others, nor did he advise that they were contrary to the Geneva conventions. Rumsfeld signed his name next to the word "Approved", and added his comment at the bottom of the page: "I stand for eight to 10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours?"

'Blanket approval'. Not 'contrary to the Geneva convention'. Haynes essentially gave the administration the go ahead to indulge in torture on a scale never seen before. Haynes is culpable for one of the greatest crimes against humanity since the Second World War. And now, he has been enlisted to work on legal matters with Chevron. Legal matters that may well include the dispute with Ecuador regarding the alleged damage to the local environment. A dispute that has led to allegations of intimidation of key players in the prosecution (see Chevron in Ecuador label). A dispute that has been subject to a massive smear campaign by Chevron. One does not have to consider for long what Mr Haynes might bring to the dispute. Perhaps new techniques that will encourage the prosecution to drop it's case? One thing can almost be guaranteed. Haynes will explore avenues that will push the boundaries of the law in Chevron's favour. However, as Sands points out, there is still an opportunity for Haynes to receive the justice he deserves:

In June 2006, the Supreme Court overturned President Bush's decision on Geneva, ruling it to be unlawful. The court confirmed that Common Article 3 applied to all Guantánamo detainees. It was as simple as that. Whether they were Taliban or al-Qaida, every one of the detainees had rights under Common Article 3 - and that included Mohammed al-Qahtani.

The majority opinion, reaffirming the "minimal protection" offered by Common Article 3, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. One of the Justices went even further: Common Article 3 was part of the law of war and of a treaty that the US had ratified. "By Act of Congress," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote pointedly, "violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes', punishable as federal offences, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel."

Justice Kennedy's remark put the issue of war crimes on the American political agenda. Individuals who had contributed to a violation of Common Article 3 would know that they were at risk of criminal investigation and prosecution. Even more ominously, it underscored the risk of being investigated outside the US.

Parties to the international Torture Convention are required to investigate any person who is alleged to have committed torture. If appropriate, they must then prosecute - or extradite the person to a place where he will be prosecuted. The Torture Convention is also more explicit than Geneva in that it criminalises any act that constitutes complicity or participation in torture. Complicity or participation could certainly be extended not only to the politicians and but also the lawyers involved in the condoning of the 18 techniques. After all, the scheme applied to al-Qahtani was devised by lawyers, reviewed by lawyers, overseen by lawyers.

Haynes could yet be prosecuted for his abuse of the most basic of human rights. These final few paragraphs might also explain one other aspect of the situation in Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr is seen as a real threat to US power in the region. A threat that needs to be crushed in order for the US plan to be fully carried out. What, perhaps, makes this even more crucial is the realisation that should al-Sadr wield any power in Iraq, the consequences could be very serious indeed for various members of the Bu$h clique. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that leading members of the current administration could face extradition to Iraq for their flagrant abuse of the Torture Convention at Abu Ghraib. This, from their point of view, cannot be allowed to happen. Consequently, it is vital for al-Sadr to be portrayed as a dangerous Iranian proxy (ridiculous considering the extensive links between the current Iraqi government and Iran) by the Western establishment (politicians and the media). The thought of Western leaders being exposed as war criminals would be too much for the Western system of government to contend with.

Chevron in Ecuador

Given Chevron's existing links to the White House (Condoleeza Rice sat on the board of Chevron for many years), it is perhaps unsurprising that another name connected to the White House has joined the company. However, given the recent revelations about the extent to which those at the seat of power had authorised torture techniques, it is quite surprising to learn who this man is, a certain William Haynes II.

Haynes was general counsel to the Pentagon from 2001 until February this year. As general counsel, Haynes was heavily involved in crafting legal policies that led to the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. So involved was Haynes, that he is currently under investigation by the Senate for his role at the Pentagon during this period. Perhaps his most important contribution to the Bush terror regime, was a memo relating to a further memo that claimed that torture conducted overseas is not covered by federal law. Consequently, Haynes and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, used this memo to justify harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. In short, Haynes was a crucial component of the Bush presidency who was particularly close to both Bush and Dick Cheney. In fact, he was such an ally to Bush, he even volunteered to make calls on Bush's behalf when Bush was up for election in 2000.

Haynes' role as chief corporate counsel could have serious repercussions for Chevron's ongoing battle in Ecuador relating to a charge of environmental damage. The damage is such that Richard Cabrera, a geologist appointed by the court, set a minimum of $7 billion in damages to remediate damage. He also added a maximum figure of $16 billion which would include penalties for "unjust enrichment." Of course, Chevron dismissed the findings out of hand and have attempted to have the report struck from the case claiming it is "flawed and patently partisan". Furthermore, there have been numerous accusations about Chevron's conduct during investigations, particularly regarding the efforts of Cabrera.

During the course of the investigations, Chevron has been accused of "engaging in a pattern of vicious,defamatory and unethical attacks" . These attacks include full page advertisements accusing Cabrera of being a criminal, stalking him whilst he was completing his fieldwork and filing a separate motion with another court to have him removed from the case. In fact, the harassment became so grave, that the trial judge 'ordered security agents to keep Chevron representatives away from Cabrera so he could complete his field work without interference or fear of intimidation'. Furthermore, although there is no proof that Chevron were responsible, Cabrera's office was broken into and a laptop containing files relating to the case went missing. Undoubtedly, there have been real concerted efforts to de-rail this case by Chevron. The efforts they have gone to underline quite how damaging this court case could be if they are ordered to pay damages to the people of Ecuador.

Chevron have already shown how far they prepared to push the boundaries of the law in Ecuador in order to protect their interests in the country. With the addition of Haynes to the team, there is no doubt that Chevron seem set to explore new methods to achieve their aims. If Chevron are willing to appoint a man who is partially responsible for gross human rights abuses in the name of national interest, one wonders just how far they are prepared to go in defending corporate interest. One can be sure that both Chevron, and Haynes, are preparing to take this battle to another level - a level that could have serious consequences for those seeking justice in Ecuador.


Further Information: ChevronToxico: Clean Up Ecuador Campaign

Children Held in Guantanamo

Guess this shouldn't really be considered 'news', we all know the horrendous abuses that have been carried out in the name of the 'eternal war' set out by Bu$h Corp. Still, the following clip of an interview with a former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo makes for uncomfortable watching (Length: 2.21mins).

Bush Administration Invoke Nuremberg - I Say "Bring it On"

RickB picked this up at Ten Percent and I have never laughed so hard in all my life (at the concept, not RickB!):

The Bush administration has instructed U.S. diplomats abroad to defend its decision to seek the death penalty for six Guantanamo Bay detainees accused in the Sept. 11 terror attacks by recalling the executions of Nazi war criminals after World War II.

A four-page cable sent to U.S. embassies and obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press says that execution as punishment for extreme violations of the laws of war is internationally accepted and points to the 1945-46 International Military Tribunals as an example. Twelve of Adolf Hitler’s senior aides were sentenced to death at the trials in Nuremberg, Germany, although not all were executed in the end.

The unclassified cable was sent by the State Department to all U.S. diplomatic missions worldwide late on Monday. [Taken from Yahoo!]

Ok, why so funny? Ok, well one of the major principles of the Nuremberg trials was as follows:

Principle Vl

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

a) Crimes against peace:

i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

If the Nuremberg trials are suddenly the basis of how international criminals are prosecuted, the underlined sections make a very compelling case for Bush and Blair to stand trial for war crimes. Note from part (a), there are no exceptions and no examples when such action is justified. As such, the war in Iraq was a 'war of aggression'. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot apply the principles of the Nuremberg trials when you see fit. It either applies to all, or it does not. By using the justification of the Nuremberg trials as reason enough to execute those 'convicted', the Bush administration is also providing us with the rope from which to hang them. So yes, I accept this justification, provided you really accept every principle outlined in the Nuremberg trials. Otherwise, you might start to look like a hypocrite.

I was always taught at uni never to end with a quote, but bollocks to that I'm going to. This is what chief U.S. Prosecutor, Robert Jackson, said when he addressed the Nuremberg tribunal:

“.....we should remember that we’re handing these Nazi war criminals a poisoned chalice. If we ever sip from it we must be subject to the same principles or else the whole thing is a farce.”

How to Create A Martyr.....

Step 1:

The Pentagon has announced charges against six Guantanamo Bay prisoners over their alleged involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.

Prosecutors will seek the death penalty for the six, who include alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Yeah, cos that'll really put an end to terrorism won't it?

Bush Threatens to Destabilise Cuba

George Bush has made yet another attempt to determine the future of the Cuban people. As most sane people have suspected, Bush is eager for Castro to die in order for the American empire to extend to one of the few countries prepared to adopt an alternative system to the US. His speech, riddled with double standards, contained the usual posturing synonymous with Bush's supposed moral high ground. In his address, Bush claimed:

"As with all totalitarian systems, Cuba's regime no doubt has other horrors still unknown to the rest of the world. Once revealed, they will shock the conscience of humanity, and they will shame the regime's defenders and all those democracies that had been silent."

One wonders how the President of the United States can adopt such a self-righteous tone. The only difference, one supposes, being that the horrors of the American regime are well known (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Blackwater etc etc). In fact, Bush even had the cheek to describe Cuba as a "tropical gulag". Do the words "glass" and "houses" sound familiar??

The address itself also made it quite clear that the US would waste no time in influencing the post-Castro Cuba. Bush added:

"Now is the time to support the democratic movement growing on the island. Now is the time to stand with the Cuban people as they stand up for their liberty. And now is the time for the world to put aside its differences and prepare for Cubans' transitions to a future of freedom and progress and promise."

The 'world' is, of course, a euphemism for the US and her allies. However, this passage raises one very obvious question: what right has the 'world' got to 'prepare' for Cubans' transitions??? It is quite clear that the US is preparing to spend big in the event of Castro's death in order to influence the post-Castro regime. Have no doubt that, come Castro's death, the US will ensure some US friendly party will mysteriously come to power. Either by military means or by applying pressure for 'democratic' elections (Cuba does already have elections of course, but this is barely mentioned).

Once more, the American state is attempting to destabilise a foreign nation. Only imagine if another country made similar statements about the US. They would be widely condemned. We live in a world in which everything is seen through the prism of American hegemony. Anything that doesn't fit in with this view is to be opposed at all costs. Every nation that takes an opposing ideology to US based capitalism must be destabilised, invaded and converted. No country must be permitted its own free existence if it contradicts the American way. This was the same arrogance upon which the British Empire was built and every other empire before and since. It will sow the seeds of its own destruction. The attacks of 9/11 were, after all, a direct result of US imperialism (despite what the nutjobs say about Islam and all the other bullshit they spout).

Thankfully, not everyone is blinded by the supposed universal truth that guides US policy. Dr Ian Gibson, of the All Party Group of MPs on Cuba, chastised the US with this statement:

“the aggressive interventionist foreign policies of the US were not appropriate in Iraq and they are not appropriate for Cuba. The US must stop attempting to undermine the sovereignty of nation states and recognise the important strategic role Cuba now holds in Latin America. We must promote stability through engagement and leave behind these US bullying tactics.”

MP Colin Burgon also added:

“The ignorance of international law of the current US President is very well known. However, this latest statement on the internal affairs of Cuba is tantamount to calling for a coup against a sovereign state. The arrogance of the US is both worrying and lamentable.”

As Rob Miller, the director of the UK-based Cuba Solidarity Campaign, puts it: the US needs to move to a policy of engagement rather than "aggression, intervention, destabilisation and conflict". It could be a hard habit to break for a state hooked on empire building like some crack addicted whore.

UPDATE: Davide at Nether-World writes the post that I wish I had written.

David Hicks - Nothing More Than A Political Pawn For John Howard

Hot on the heels of the announcement of John Howard's day of reckoning with the Australian electorate, comes news that is a stark reminder of the what this man stands for. You may remember the case of David Hicks (if not, here is a clip developed by my good friend RickB at Ten Percent) and the appalling treatment he suffered at the hands of the American and Australian governments. It transpires that, what a surprise, his eventual release into Australian custody was a political stunt aimed at securing Howard another election victory. From The Age:

Hicks had been held by the US at Guantanamo Bay since January 2002, a month after his capture in Afghanistan, where he fought with the Taliban.

The father of two was sentenced to nine months jail and, under a plea bargain, was transferred to Adelaide to serve the remainder of the sentence at Yatala, where he remains in solitary confinement.

He is due for release on December 30.

A report in Harper's magazine said it was Mr Cheney and Mr Howard who cut the deal to release Hicks from Guantanamo Bay.

Quoting a military officer, it said a military staffer was present when Mr Cheney interfered directly to secure the plea deal.

"He did it, apparently, as part of a deal cut with Howard," the officer was quoted as saying.

"I kept thinking: this is the sort of thing that used to go on behind the Iron Curtain, not in America.

"And then it struck me how much this entire process had disintegrated into a political charade."

Mr Hicks said if the report was true it was further evidence of how political his son's case had become.

"I've said all along that David's issue was political," Mr Hicks said.

"You're not allowed to go through a court of justice, you've got to be dealt with by politicians."

A political charade indeed. What makes it all the more laughable is that this blatant emulation of Soviet tactics is being carried out by a right-wing administration backed by a highly vocal gaggle of right-wing foot soldiers (not to mention so-called members of the 'left'). This process has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with politics.

Guantanamo 'Close' to Shutting Down?

I won't hold my breath, but encouraging signs from Al Jazeera:

The White House has refused to confirm a report that it is close to a decision to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

A White House spokesman told Al Jazeera that George Bush, the US president, had "long expressed a desire" to close the prison in a "responsible way".

The Associated Press had reported that the Bush administration was close to a decision to shut down the prison and move detainees to military prisons on US soil.

Although miserable evil genius, Dick Cheney has other ideas:

Cheney's office and the justice department have been firmly opposed to the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the United States would give them undeserved legal rights.

Of course, the question still remains as to what would happen to the inmates were Guantanamo to close. I suspect the US government will be less than straightforward in how they deal with this matter.

News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International

Guantánamo: Amnesty International responds to Military Commission Judge’s ruling to drop Khadr charges

Jumana Musa, Amnesty International’s legal observer at the military commission hearings in Guantánamo Bay for the last two years issued the following statement in response to today’s significant ruling by the military commissions judge to drop charges against Omar Khadr:

“Today’s ruling is the most significant setback since the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the original military commissions. It also signals that these commissions need to be scrapped and the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay must be closed now. The judge’s decision clearly indicates that a fair trial is not possible within a system that is being developed as it proceeds. It raises more questions about the Bush administration and Congress’ wisdom and logic in rushing to patch together a new system of justice, when there are fully functioning federal courts that can not only offer fair trials but also come with established procedure.”

For more information, please see United States of America: Justice delayed and justice denied? Trials under the Military Commissions Act on http://amnesty-news.c.topica.com/maagEs4abyZS7cksvcKb/

***************************************

You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the list subscription message may be removed.

***************************************

Past and current Amnesty news services can be found at http://www.amnesty.org/news/ . Visit http://www.amnesty.org for information about Amnesty International and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@amnesty.org if you need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of AmnestyInternational.

Privacy policy http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-privacy-eng

David Hicks Back in Australia

So at long last, David Hicks has returned to Australia. Although this is clearly fantastic news, it doesn't mean that his fight is over. As long as Hicks is incarcerated in Australia, he remains a potent reminder of Howard's blatant support for the principles of Guantanamo Bay. The very same principles that he abhors in Zimbabwe, a country who's dictator he willingly props up. Howard has shown his true colours. He does not believe in a 'fair go' for Australian citizens. He does not truly believe in fighting grubby dictators. While the campaign for David continues, so must the campaign to remove Howard step up a gear. Justice will be served when he is thrown out of office. That should be the overriding goal of the next 9 months.

As for David himself, it is an absolute disgrace that this man has to spend the rest of his life branded as a terrorist. This very notion was laughably exposed as a fraud when he was sentenced to only nine months further imprisonment in Australia. NINE months??? Surely if he was that much of a danger, the Australian government would have pressed for a longer sentence? The fact that they didn't speaks volumes about the level of threat that Hicks possesses. They know he is no serious threat to the people of Australia, but they want to be seen to be 'tough on terror', just like Howard's ideological ally in the White House.

As for David's press ban, I am quite willing to publicise his story if he so wants to talk to me. So, if anyone representing David is reading this, feel free to email me and I will happily oblige.

USA / Guantánamo: Omar Khadr to face trial by military commission

News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty International

25 April 2007

Reacting to the charges brought against Guantánamo detainee Omar Khadr, Amnesty International said:

“The treatment of Omar Khadr over the past five years exemplifies the USA’s disregard for international law in the ‘war on terror’. Unless the US authorities bring him to trial in a civilian court, taking full account of his age at the time of any alleged offences, he should be returned to Canada.”

Amnesty International reiterates its call to the US authorities to abandon trials by military commissions and to bring any prosecutions of Guantánamo detainees in the ordinary civilian courts. Anyone who is not to be tried in full accordance with international standards should be released.

Background Information

Canadian national Omar Khadr is accused of offences committed in the armed conflict in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old. Instead of taking his age into account when US authorities took him into custody in 2002, as they were obliged to do under international law, they subjected him to years of indefinite detention without charge in Guantánamo.

Omar Khadr, who has alleged that he has been ill-treated in Bagram and Guantánamo, was one of 10 detainees to be charged for trial by the earlier military commissions struck down as unlawful by the US Supreme Court in 2006. Omar Khadr has now been charged for trial under the Military Commissions Act, under procedures that fail to comply with international law and standards.

For further information, please see: USA: Justice delayed and justice denied? Trials under the Military Commissions Act http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510442007
(For information on Omar Khadr and the issue of children, see pages 25-26).

25 April 2007

**********************************

You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the list subscription message may be removed.

**********************************

Past and current Amnesty news services can be found at <http://www.amnesty.org/news/>. Visit <http://www.amnesty.org> for information about Amnesty International and for other AI publications. Contact amnestyis@amnesty.org if you need to get in touch with the International Secretariat of AmnestyInternational.

Privacy policy <http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-privacy-eng>

More Orgasmic Fury

Interesting piece from Mel 'I get horny over World War III' Phillips (although there appears to be no acknowledgement of Easter - is she getting all politically correct all of a sudden???). Here's a few hints as to how her argument is as weak as her previous attempts at constructing an intelligent polemic:

1) Replace the word 'Iran', with the word 'America'.
2) Replace the words 'sailors' or 'Royal Marines' with the words 'David' and 'Hicks'.
3) Replace the word 'Britain' for 'Australia'.
4) Replace the words 'Tony' and 'Blair' for 'John' and 'Howard'.

And then compare with her glowing comments on that bastard Howard.

The Spin Zone

Royal Navy Headquarters, Portsmouth

Brainstorming session in progress......

Officer 1: Right chaps, the Prime Minister is furious. This whole saga over our personnel has made us look very bad indeed. We have to come up with some ideas to turn this back in our favour. Any ideas?

Officer 2: Well, we could start by claiming that they were made to wear distinctive clothing, to humiliate them.

Officer 1: Good, that's a start. We might need to crank it up a little though. Anyone else?

Officer 3: We could say that their hands were bound.

Officer 1: That's more like it.

Officer 4: What about solitary confinement?

Officer 1: Excellent!

Officer 2: And that they were subjected to 'mind games'.

Officer 1: Great work chaps, we're getting some excellent stuff here.

Officer 3: We could also mention mock execution.

Officer 2: And that they were heard cocking guns.

Officer 1: Great stuff chaps. The PM will be pleased. All we need to do is get the media onboard and we're onto a winner. No-one really trusts those Iranians anyway, this will just prove it. One more thing, where did you get those ideas from?

Officer 2: Are you joking sir? They have been the policies of the coalition for the past five years.

Further information: The Final Draft Statement.

Close Guantanamo Bay

With thanks to Saboma at Maryannaville™:

President Bush is holding nearly 400 detainees without criminal charges nor trials at Guatanamo Bay. For the first time, some of his top advisors have called for closing this affront to international law, including his own Secretary of Defense. This split inside the Administration gives us a real chance close Guantanamo forever.

There is a new campaign to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. The campaign group's name is Avaaz The whole of this group's purpose has been toward putting together a global petition in order to close Guantanamo Bay and its prison. The petition will be running in key US newspapers and soon as they have signatures from every country so why not join in and add your convictions toward having the place closed down for good.

Avaaz.org is a community of global citizens who take action on the major issues facing the world today. Its aim is to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people -- and not just political elites and unaccountable corporations -- shape global decisions. Avaaz. org members are taking action for a more just and peaceful world and a vision of globalization with a human face. Avaaz means voice in a variety of Asian, Middle Eastern and European languages. There are already 1 million people from 182 countries that form the Avaaz.org community.

I've added my name to the list. Please, will you help out by joining in and signing your name in support of this action?

Sign the Petition Here

Guantánamo: Conditions Getting Worse

Also from Amnesty International:

A new facility at Guantánamo Bay is creating even harsher conditions of extreme isolation and sensory deprivation for detainees, according to a new Amnesty International (AI) report.

Conditions at Camp 6, which opened in December 2006, are described as "cruel and inhuman". Detainees are confined for 22 hours a day to individual, steel cells with no natural light and minimal human contact. No activities are provided, with detainees subjected to 24-hour lighting and constant observation by guards.

According to the Pentagon, 165 men had been transferred to Camp 6 within a month of its opening. Many were previously held in Camp 4, where detainees lived communally in barracks with access to a range of recreational activities. Camp 4 is now reported to house just 35 detainees, down from 180 in May 2006.

Despite the US authorities describing Camp 6 as a "state-of-the-art modern facility" that is "more comfortable" for detainees, the conditions appear more severe than the most restrictive levels of "super-maximum" custody in the US. There is growing concern they could have a serious adverse effect on the psychological and physical health of many of the detainees.

A further 100 detainees are held in solitary confinement at Camp 5, while there may be as many as 20 on Camp Echo, a facility set aside from the others where conditions have been described as "extremely harsh". In all, it appears that 80 per cent of detainees are held in isolation.

AI is calling for Guantánamo to be closed and for detainees to be brought to fair trial, or else released. In the meantime, the US government must take immediate steps to improve conditions in the camp.

For the full report, see: USA: Cruel and inhuman – Conditions of isolation for detainees in Guantánamo Bay

For more information about AI's campaign to Close Guantánamo, visit www.amnesty.org/closeguantanamo