Friday, February 12, 2010

Is Our Democracy Becoming a Joke?

Published on Thursday, February 11, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

by Daphne Wysham

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce held a dramatic press conference in October. The group promised to stop lobbying against pending climate legislation, and pledged to help make it even stronger. A few minutes later, the jig was up when an authentic Chamber representative barged in, sputtering, aghast.

The Yes Men had struck again. A lawsuit ensued, with the Chamber accusing the humorous anti-corporate activists of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising.

Established a century ago, the Chamber was originally intended to help state and local business leaders advise lawmakers on how best to meet American business needs. Together with its national subsidiaries, the Chamber spent $144.5 million last year on lobbying, grassroots efforts, and advertising—often aimed at defeating health care, climate change, and financial reform legislation.

America’s most profitable corporations tend to be oil companies. Even after a steep decline in profits from the year before, Exxon Mobil earned profits totaling nearly $20 billion in 2009. Not coincidentally, the Chamber has increasingly urged skepticism on action on climate change. The Chamber’s leaders have gone so far as to equate climate legislation with “suicide bombing the American economy for the promise of green jobs in heaven.”

A handful of major companies, including Pacific Gas & Electric Corp. and Apple Inc., have left the Chamber to protest its climate change positions. The Yes Men’s stunt drew attention to the outrageous propositions the Chamber of Commerce was putting forward while bankrolling a campaign so out of step with climate science.

Many newspapers around the country are slashing reporters' budgets and growing ever more reliant on powerful interests, including oil companies. As a result, the chances a local paper will track the insidiousness of the fossil fuel industry and its handmaidens at the Chamber of Commerce are pretty remote.

Opinion polls suggest the public has been lulled back to sleep on the issue of climate change, putting it last on our list of priorities. As a result, we may see little or no U.S. action on climate change any time soon. And a recent Supreme Court decision has made that slim chance slimmer.

With a 5–4 vote, the Court ruled last month in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission that corporations like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and others can now spend as much money as they wish promoting political candidates.

This virtually ensures that politicians will be increasingly beholden to oil interests. We’ll soon have in place a situation where “Citizen” Exxon will be lobbying “Politician” Chevron, with no evidence of their corporate sponsorship.

So, where do we go from here? The Yes Men have tried to wake us up to this crisis of democracy—one that affects the planet’s fate. But things seem to have only gotten worse since they pulled this stunt.

Here are three suggestions on how we can disentangle the fossil-fuel lobby from our democracy:

First we’ve got to revisit what it means to be a nonprofit, and ensure that nonprofits are in fact serving public interests, not corporate interests. All nonprofits should be required to disclose their corporate sponsors. If they're primarily serving those private interests, they should lose their nonprofit status.

For example, why is it that newspapers, which provide a vital public service—informing the public on issues vital to our democracy—must appeal to the corporations to survive, but a massively profitable corporation can secretly bankroll a non-profit, like the Chamber of Commerce, and take tax write-offs for activity that’s clearly in the private interest?

Second, we must amend our Constitution to make it clear, once and for all, that corporations aren’t people and don’t have the same rights as people in upholding our democracy.

And third, we must ensure all elected offices are supported with free coverage by nonprofit media in their race for office or by free advertising in for-profit media.

The Yes Men tried to wake us up with humor. But the fate of our democracy and our planet is anything but a joke.

Distributed by Minuteman Media

Daphne Wysham is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. www.ips-dc.org Find out more about the Yes Men by visiting their website http://theyesmen.org

An American Way of War for the Record Books

Published on Thursday, February 11, 2010 by TomDispatch.com

by Tom Engelhardt

Once is an anomaly; twice is the beginning of a pattern.  Right now, we're seeing the same sequence of events for the second time in less than a decade, and it looks like the signature American way of war in our time is coming into focus.

In 2003, when the Bush administration invaded Iraq, the Pentagon already had on its drawing boards plans for building a series of permanent mega-bases in that country.  (They were charmingly called "enduring camps.")  Once Baghdad fell and it turned out that, Saddam Hussein or no, the U.S. was going to have to fight rather than settle in and let the good times roll, hundreds of micro-bases were added to the mega ones -- 106 of them by 2005, more than 300 in all.  Then, in 2005, Washington decided to trade in its embassy in one of Saddam's old palaces for something a little spiffier.  In its place, on a 104-acre plot by the Tigris River in the middle of Baghdad, for at least three-quarters of a billion dollars after cost overruns, it built the largest, most expensive embassy on the planet.  It was planned for a staff of 1,000 "diplomats" with all the accoutrements of the good life and plenty of hired help.  (Even now, despite much discussion about "ending" the American role in Iraq, further plans are reportedly being made for the embassy's staff to double.)  This was clearly to be U.S. mission control for the Greater Middle East.

Building of this expansive kind is, of course, a staggering imperial undertaking.  It implies a global power with resources beyond measure, for which waste means nothing.  The mega-bases and the embassy were, in that sense, American wonders of the world, our own ziggurat-equivalents in Mesopotamia, right down to the multiple PXs, familiar fast food outlets, and miniature golf.  No empire had ever launched a base-building program quite like it (if, that is, you leave out the precursor to this whole experience, the U.S. in Vietnam in the 1960s).

The Iraqi base-building project alone had already absorbed several billion taxpayer dollars in just the first half-year of construction in 2003.  But it did look like a one-of-a-kind architectural adventure -- until, that is, the "forgotten war," the one in Afghanistan, came back into view.  Starting in 2008, base building ramped up there, went into overdrive in 2009, and hasn't come out of it yet.  The result: according to Nick Turse, author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, an even more staggering base-construction splurge, and with it, the announcement last year that another monster embassy would go up, this time in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, for another cool near-billion. (The already large U.S. embassy in the Afghan capital, Kabul, would also be further expanded to the tune of $175-200 million).  And keep in mind that none of this even includes the huge ring of supporting bases for America's Afghan and Iraq operations in the Persian Gulf, South and Central Asia, and even on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

Does anyone see a pattern here?  The American military must be the heaviest occupation force in history.  According to reports, it now has 1.5 million pieces of equipment, micro to mega, to get out of Iraq as U.S. forces draw down.  This is war and occupation of Guinness World Records proportions, a veritable Ripley's Believe It Or Not of imperial military construction.  The only thing that won't make the record books, of course, is the results: in war-fighting terms, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the world's mightiest military has been battled to at least a draw by rag-tag, lightly armed, minority insurgencies.

Who would believe any of this, if it weren't happening?  Given how our media reports on such things, who would even know about it if you didn't read it first here at TomDispatch.com?

Copyright 2010 Tom Engelhardt

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), an alternative history of the mad Bush years.

Intra Civilization Clash

By Mustafa Khan

11 February, 2010
Countercurrents.org

Bernard Lewis was the most remarkable critic of Islam for he never saw any good either in the faith or the people who live by it. It was he who had counselled George W Bush to attack Iraq because he thought that the Muslims were primitive people of barbaric practices incapable of any refinement of civilization. His hatred for the Muslim fuelled his epithet, The Clash of Civilization. Much after him Samuel Huntington developed it into an elaborate theory which the likes of Tony Blair and AB Vajpayee very eagerly bought outright.

However, as it turned out the clash of civilizations is rather intra than inter civilizations. As Attorney General Eric Holder of US said about Abdulmuttallab case : "There’s a desire to ignore the facts to try to score political points. It’s a little shocking.” This present trend in US of neo cons opposing the upholders of the civil laws and liberties is intra civilization clash. Much of the violations of human rights and collateral damages inflicted on civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan as well as the extraordinary renditions, manoeuring intelligence reports to prepare for war and water boarding are the works of Dick Cheny, George W Bush, Paul Wolfwitz, Elizabeth Cheny and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, etc. Eric Holder and Samantha Power among many others would like to turn against use of drones killing innocents or what transpired in the case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui and her two missing children.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a plane on Christmas day 2009. He was cleared by ICTS International security agency (founded by Shin Bet, Israel's civil security agency) at Schipho airport at Amsterdam. There was no passport with him. Strangely enough he bought first class ticket. He had a bomb sewn in the underwear. The security agency could see his crotch very well in the x-ray and yet it cleared him. He tried to blow up the plane but it failed because there was no blasting cap attached to it. The initial report did not mention about the Israeli company clearing him. Nor was it revealed that the amount of explosive could hardly destroy the arm rest. By the time it came out the harm was done. His name and alleged link to al Qaeda had been the headline news around the world. The purpose behind this is clear: stereotyping him as a fanatic Muslim terrorist. This happened notwithstanding the fact that his own father had alerted CIA station chief in Nigeria about it. What was not disclosed at first was that his father was a banker who oversaw defence deal with Israeli Defence Forces personnel to train Nigerians in security. FBI said that the radical Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki had told Abdulmutallab to blow the bomb. But there is no proof that he ever went to the cleric or had any contact with him. Thus he was made to fit in the pattern of 9/11 hijackers who were trained in San Diego, New Mexico (where Awlaki was born) and Mjor Nidal Hasan who were inspired by the cleric.

In India we have the cross fertilized breed. Far too long the IB and RAW and local investigation agencies in tandem with the police had been creating false impression. Their objective was more or less communal. When the truth dawned upon some it was stunningly shocking. It is pertinent to remember what the Union home secretary Gopal Krishna Pillai said on December 9 2009 about Hindu fringe groups' involvement when bombs went off in mosques in Hyderabad, Malegaon, Delhi and elsewhere. "It took us a few years to convince the system that we need to look out, and we were able to finally lay our hands on the Colonel Purohit (of the Malegaon blasts) network," Similarly, there have been several inputs that showed that terror against India has tentacles outside Pakistan. He said some of the emails and communication linked to Indian Mujahideen had originated from the US.

Inaddition to the truth that home secretary asserted there are other dark forces represented by RSS, Shiv Sena Shri Ram Sena in India who simply refuse to accept the truth. They vehemently opposed ATS chief Hemant Karkare and hinted darkly that unless he stopped in his track he would be in grave trouble. What happened thereafter is now history. These people are like Jack and his bloody hunters in "Lord of the Flies." In contrast Karkare was like Ralph the epitome of brilliance of mind and social harmony and commitment to civil laws. Both these groups are the product of the same civilization.

Bal Thackeray, Narendra Modi and VHP were breathing down the neck of Karkare when he caught sadhvi Pragyasingh Thakur and Purohit, etc. But when Karkare was killed they totally changed their stance and started calling him a martyr. Shiv Sena and Uma Bharti even offered Purohit tickets in the election. Shiv Sena wanted to pay for the lawyer who would defend Purohit and Sadhvi. On the other hand they openly threatened lawyers of any Muslim accused of the similar crimes. In most other cases like Samjhauta express incident the police and the investigating agencies fabricated all kinds of lies to blame Muslims when it was becoming clear that Purohit and Abhinav Bharat were behind them.

The recent report of arrest of Shahzad Ahmad has again refocused attention on the pattern of lies. Now we are told that he had fired a single bullet at inspector Mohan Chand Sharma. Till his capture we were told that Atif Ameen and Sajjad had fired from their guns and that caused the death of Sharma. Even the NCHR had bought this claim and accepted it. The neighbours in Batla house have maintained that there is one exit with two doors opening on the samd place and if Shahzas and Junaid had escaped the peple should have seen them. They did not see anyone escape. The cops who rushed up at hearing the shooting would have surely met and apprehended Junaid and Shahzad. They did not apprehend them. Then reports of Shahzad attending a flying course in Banglore to mount a 9/11 in India was leaked to media by the police obviously. The phodia rose in a crescendo. The route of escape Shahzad and Junaid took is another cocktail of lies. According to Indian Express the duo went to the bust station on foot and boarded a bus to Badarpur. Then they took train to Mumbai without knowing twhere it was bound. The Times of India carries two versions. One, the two went to Aligarh by train or bus, then to Lucknow and finally to Azamgarh. Two, they went to Aligarh, then to Blundhaer, Lucknow, Khalispure, Jaipur, Jodhpur and finally to Mumbai.

The police did not make an inventory of bullets and cartridges,etc. The scene was also without any residual evidence there much like the incident of Aafia Siddiqui. In her case she was accused of assaulting eight American military officers at Bagram prison in Afghanistan. She was too feeble to lift a gun let alone snatching it from the burly soldiers and belabouring them and then shooting them. Neither the soldiers nor the site gave any trace of the shoot out on July 18 2008. The American ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson had been denying till then that Aafia was even held by the Americans. In fact she, a US citizen as well as her two children, was kidnapped from Pakistan on March 30 2003 and put through the ignominious extraordinary renditions and taken to Bagram. She was raped and tortured for five years. She wailed so loudly in the lonely nights that her cries were heard ringing in the air far and wide. The US soldiers started calling her Lady Gray of Bagram. The ambassador would arrange luxurious parties and brief the journalists the version that the army gave out. In this way falsehoold was deliberately spread.

Her wailing and agonized shrieks would remind people here how Khawaja Yunus was tortured and given water boarding punishment in Mumbai. His mother also wept and cried in the stillness of the night in Parbhani. Police Inspector Vaze disposed off the body of Yunus much the same way Vanzara had done the body of Kauserbi, wife of Sohrabuddin in Gujarat. In all such cases the forces of evil were at work, forces which would like to use the extreme extent of terrorizing their hapless victims.

To oppose such evils there are people like Karkare and of late Chidambrum who would be upright and more responsive to human rights. This kind of clash is within the homeland culture of a country.

Currently Mumbai is a witness to this. The police and intelligence agencies have never bothered about the fiefdom over which Bal Thackeray ruled like a feudal lord. On the eve of the serial bomb blasts in locals on 7/11, the Shiv Sainiks had burnt vehicles and vandalized shops and commercial establishments protesting over the alleged mud slung at the statue of Thackeray's wife. When Annad Dighe, Shiv Sena pramukh of Thane, died, the sainiks had vandalized the Singhania hospital where Mr Singhania's aeroplane was also kept. In the emergency wards of the hospital there were very serious cases in ICUs. They had a hell of a time. There was also the murder case of Ramesh Kini in which a finger of suspicion pointed at the Thackerays. To show solidarity with the victims of medieval revenge even the prime minister, VP Singh, had visited the widow of Kini. This last captures the clash between the people who let loose the law of the jungle and those who abide by the rule of law. In the countdown to the release of My Name is Khan we wait with baited breath what might the hordes shouting My Name is Thackeray would do. Would they again set upon the hapless North Indians commuting long distances for jobs, interviews, examinations, driving their taxis, etc.

Politics, War And Yes Love!

By Aakanksha Mohan Sharma

11 February, 2010

Politicians love politics. Love for politics results into conflicts. Conflicts results into wars. Violence, killings, and destruction happen in wars. There is one more thing which happens in wars- LOVE. There are many forms of love which happen in politics and wars. The first one to talk about is jingoism. Well, these are not only policy makers and men with guns at borders in the trap of this love but countless others also. Media often shows it’s over whelming “love” with policies. Media’s love for getting trapped into this love is not exceptional. Coverage of Iraq’s invasion and bombing of Afghanistan shows that the government’s capacity to overwhelm the means of communication is truly awesome. Media is at consensus with officials at the helm of affairs.

Recently, Indian media reported about an avalanche in Kashmir which killed few Indian security officials and injured few of them when it made an Army training camp its target. They covered it in details but they forgot to report about the teenagers who got killed allegedly by Indian security forces in the same week. Earlier this week Wamiq Farooq was hit by a tear gas shell in his head when police was throwing tear gas shells on the protestors. Zahid Farooq also fed to death by a gun shot when he was playing cricket. Another teenager named as Inayat khan was also killed in such incident in the same week.

Killings of these teenagers could be dramatic breaking news if these killing would have happened in some other part of the country. But it got just one minute coverage in the era of 24/7 news channels. The Kashmir’s story is a prime example in this league of state lead journalism. This is not the first time police bullets killed innocent civilians but it has been happening since an armed insurgency broke against Indian administration twenty two years ago which hardly gets any coverage in national media.

Well, everything is fair in love and war. Though there are many who do not agree with benett’s indexing hypothesis but there is a fair degree of relevance of his indexing hypothesis in defining relationship between media and policies. . According to Gregory Nokes, a former correspondent with the associated press, the administration dominates the national news agenda “about 70 percent of the time. It determines when something becomes news, and how long it stays in the news.”

Well, much of this love which brings out hatred. There is another love which happens in wars and conflicts. Love which makes moon looks bigger, birds singing when actually they are just doing their daily routine, breeze flowing in rhythms, music becomes more musical, and even stars seems like falling from a blazing sky when actually they are the meteors heading towards earth. Every thing becomes beautiful when one gets trapped into this form of love.

A real life Romeo and Juliet story happened recently in Middle East with a Palestinian- Israeli twist. The boy was from Gaza and the girl lived in the West Bank. They communicated though internet and political problems prevented them to meet each other. So, this modern day Juliet travelled through dangerous tunnels to Egypt where she met her Romeo for the first time and they went to Gaza to marry. He saw her first time covered with sand all over head to toes.

One of my Hungarian friends told me about a play which she had watched about Romeo and Juliet in Budapest. It was about an Israeli Romeo and Palestinian Juliet. This time they weren’t the families on the opposition but the religion, culture and nationalities took the place. They didn’t die in the end as in the classic Romantic epic but they regained consciousness after consuming poison. She looked at as the solution for the political problem between Israel and Palestine. She thought that even they need to regain humanism and love for each other in solving their political problems.

There was another famous play “Palestinian Romeo and Israeli Juliet produced in 1990’s which talked about love in war.

In the same league is a docu- drama, “In fair Palestine- Romeo and Juliet” acted, directed and produced by the Palestinian high school students in Ramallah. It gives a picture of life of young people in Palestine.

Even in this production by young Palestinians, the Romeo and Juliet did consume poison but didn’t die in the end. Here, Romeo does not hear of Juliet's faked death because a messenger sent to bring him the news is stopped at an Israeli checkpoint.

There is a famous real life love story with American- Iraqi twist. The American soldier left Army to wed his Iraqi love who was a doctor. So, love do happens amidst all the bombs and destruction and so do the politics happen and so the do the war.

The trailer of this docu drama produced by young Palestinians high school students is for all those who are in love with love in the month of Love…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkGSGlpwUyw

Aakanksha Mohan Sharma

MA Political Communication, University of Leeds
email id- aakanksha.pallavi@gmail.com

US Says It Has Right To Kill American Terror Suspects Abroad Without Trial

By Sherwood Ross

11 February, 2010
Countercurrents.org

Aping the assassination tactics of Josef Stalin, the U.S. has created an illegal “hit list” of Americans abroad marked for murder.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told a House Intelligence Committee hearing February 3rd the U.S. may, with executive approval, target and kill American terrorist suspects, Inter Press News Service of Rome reported. ”We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said.

Blair’s statement recalls the policies of Soviet Russia’s secret police, who often murdered those who fled Stalin’s tyranny. Red Army founder Leon Trotsky, for example, was tracked to Mexico by a Soviet agent who killed him with an ice pick.

Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, said, ”It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified 'threat.'”

Blair's remarks followed a Washington Post article reporting President Barack Obama had embraced President George W. Bush’s policy of authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens involved in terrorist activities overseas.

The Post reported: “After the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for example, has to pose 'a continuing and imminent threat' to U.S. persons and interests.”

Attorney George Brent Mickum, an American lawyer who has defended a number of Guantanamo Bay detainees, told Inter Press, ”I guess my sense is that it's just more fear mongering. They kill somebody and don't need to offer any justification.”

”We have killed thousands of innocent civilians while attempting to target alleged operatives,” Mickum said. “And let us not forget how frequently our intelligence has been wrong about alleged operatives,” he added.

“My clients Bisher al Rawi, Jamil el-Banna, Martin Mubanga, abu Zubaydah, and Shaker Aamer all are alleged to have been operatives based on intel. In every case that intel was incorrect,” Mickum told Inter Press. “I don't have any expectation that our intel with respect to alleged American operatives is likely to be any better.”

“This extrajudicial execution of human beings constitutes a grave violation of international human rights law and, under certain circumstances, can also constitute a war crime under the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949,” said Francis Boyle, University of Illinois professor of international law at Champaign.

“In addition, the extrajudicial execution of U.S. citizens by the United States government also violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandating that no person "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Boyle said, “The U.S. Government has now established a ‘death list’ for U.S. citizens abroad akin to those established by Latin American dictatorships during their so-called ‘dirty wars.’”

He claimed President Bush “reduced the United States of America to a Banana Republic waging a ‘dirty war’ around the world in gross violation of international law, human rights law, and the laws of war. It is only a matter of time before the United States government will establish a similar ‘death list’ targeting U.S. citizens living here at home.” He added that, “As someone who used to teach Constitutional law, President Obama knows better.”

Boyle, a leading U.S. authority in international law, drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 for the U.S. He is the author of a number of books in his field, including “Destroying World Order”(Clarity).

Daphne Eviatar, an attorney with Human Rights First, told Inter Press, ”The short answer is that combatants can be targeted and civilians cannot under international law. Their citizenship isn't relevant. But just being a 'suspected terrorist' doesn't necessarily mean they're a combatant.”

She added, ”The key question, and where there may be serious disagreement, is whether the person targeted is 'directly participating in hostilities'. If not, and they're targeted, it's a war crime.”

Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, told Inter Press, ”As with its embrace of the [George W.] Bush approach to indefinite detention, the Obama administration's even greater reliance on targeted extra-judicial killing - including of U.S. citizens - is a tragic legal, moral, and practical mistake.”

”Even for those who accept the legitimacy of the death penalty,” Pitts continued, “this further undermines the rule of law that is our best weapon in the fight against true terrorists, while completely subverting due process and constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.”

In his testimony before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Blair said, ”We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community,” Inter Press reported. He said U.S. counterterrorism officials may try to kill U.S. citizens involved in extremist groups overseas with ”specific permission” from higher up.

In response to questions from the panel's top Republican, Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Blair said, if ”we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”

(Basic reporting for this article came from Inter Press News Service of Rome. Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based columnist who writes on world events. Ross formerly worked for the Chicago Daily News and wire services. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

Court-Martial For Soldier Who Wrote Angry Song About Stop-Loss

By Dahr Jamail

11 February, 2010
Inter Press Service

MARFA, Texas, Feb 10, 2010 (IPS) - Army Specialist and Iraq war veteran Marc Hall was incarcerated by the U.S. Army in Georgia for recording a song that expresses his anger over the Army's stop-loss policy. Now he waits to be shipped to Iraq to face a court martial.

Stop-loss is a policy that allows the Army to keep soldiers active beyond the end of their signed contracts. According to the Pentagon, more than 120,000 soldiers have been affected by stop-loss since 2001, and currently 13,000 soldiers are serving under stop-loss orders, despite public pledges by President Barack Obama to phase out the policy.

Attorney David Gespass, a member of the National Lawyers Guild and founding member of the Military Law Task Force, has been consulting on the case and will possibly represent Hall.

"It's not clear to me if he'll be tried in Kuwait or Iraq," Gaspass told IPS. "It may be a matter for the military judge to decide, once there is one."

Gespass explained he believes the Army is handling the case this way for two reasons.

"One, it will make it much more difficult to defend because it's impossible to get witnesses over to a war zone, and two, it denies Hall's right to a public trial. I think the fundamental reason is to make it more difficult for his supporters and witnesses to be there," he said. Gaspass believes the Army's position "is that that's where all the alleged victims are [Iraq], and they wanted to have the trial where their witnesses are going to be. For me, it's a lot easier for the Army to get witnesses back to the states than it is for Marc to get his witnesses to a war zone."

Hall, who is in the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, was placed in Liberty County Jail for the song, in which he angrily denounces the continuing policy that has barred him from exiting the military.

On Dec. 12, Hall was thrown in jail by his command, on the pretext that the song he had written is considered a threat, and he is facing charges under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which covers communication threats.

"The charges are connected to song lyrics allegedly written by Spc. Hall that allege deadly threats against his chain of command and fellow Soldiers, specifically shooting them," reads a statement released the by the Fort Stewart Public Affairs Office.

"I explained to [my first sergeant] that the hardcore rap song was a free expression of how people feel about the Army and its stop-loss policy," explained Hall, in response to the charges. "I explained that the song was neither a physical threat nor any threat whatsoever. I told him it was just hip-hop."

Military service members do not completely give up their rights to free speech, particularly not when they are doing so artistically while off duty, as was the case with Hall.

The military is claiming that he "communicated a threat" with his song. Hall mailed a copy of the song to the Pentagon after the Army unilaterally extended his contract for a second Iraq deployment.

The Army's latest decision to deploy Hall to Kuwait is an unusual twist in a case that has already attracted widespread criticism from GI rights lawyers. Once in Kuwait, Hall will be driven into Iraq to meet up with his is old unit, and placed in confinement and court martialed there.

Kevin Larson of the Fort Stewart Public Affairs Office says the trial will be held in Iraq because that is where important witnesses are.

"It makes sense from the standpoint of witnesses. Most of the witnesses are deployed," he said.

Jim Klimanski, a civilian military lawyer and member of the National Lawyers Guild and the Military Law Task Force, told IPS that he feels the military is overreacting to the case, and that it is simply a matter of free speech and that the Army's actions violate Hall's First Amendment right to free speech.

"It's a political case, and the military should know that," Klimanski explained. "I think they are overreaching and overreacting because of Maj. Hassan (who went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood on Nov. 5), and I can understand that to some degree, but cooler heads should prevail and they should deal with stop-loss, and maybe we'll get the case thrown out."

IPS obtained a redacted copy of the Army's Charge Sheet against Hall, filed by Marcus Seiser, which includes five charges. On the sheet, Hall is accused of telling someone he would "go on a rampage," that "the song makes threats of acts of violence," and that Hall is accused "of planning on shooting the brigade or battalion commanders."

Jeff Paterson, the director of the soldier advocacy group Courage to Resist, which is assisting Hall, told IPS, "Marc's case is unique in that the military hasn't shown a propensity to go after these political speech cases for several years. We think this is an important case because it could set precedent for free speech rights for those in the military."

Klimanski, along with underscoring the importance of the case for the First Amendment, thinks the case highlights the military's ongoing use of stop-loss, which also contributes to how they have responded to Hall's song.

"It's a song, and he puts it out to the public," Klimanski told IPS. "We're not talking about a Major Hassan who is quietly plotting violence ... this is political hyperbole. This is his rant on stop-loss. It's political speech."

"He's over there saying I have no control over my life," Klimanski added, "I could be in here forever. We're talking about a war that could go on forever. So poor old Marc Hall could possibility be in the military forever. I see this as an issue of political speech. The military may not like what they're hearing, but that's what it is. There are people in the military saying their being in it is/was wrong, and they want out."

"They are sending him to Iraq just to punish him," Klimaski believes. "Not that they need to do that to conduct a court martial. They are trying to find any which way to inflict punishment on Marc."

Hall's supporters also say that it is highly unlikely that his current military lawyer will be available to deploy at a moment's notice.

"He will get a new military lawyer who is probably very busy and won't have time to build a proper defence," said Klimaski, "They are trying to stack the deck. It is illegal to ship him to Iraq or Kuwait, but who is going to contest it? You would have to go to Iraq to contest it. They know that they are not going to have a civilian lawyer out there. They are just trying to punish him without due process."

At the time of this writing, Hall was awaiting his being shipped to the Middle East, which could happen any time.

Guantanamo Detainee Deaths: Responding To The Defense Department's Whitewash

By Stephen Lendman

11 February, 2010

On December 7, 2009, under the direction of Professor Mark Denbeaux, Seton Hall University School of Law's Center for Policy & Research (CP&R) published its 15th GITMO report titled, "Death in Camp Delta," covering three simultaneous deaths on June 9, 2006 in the maximum security Alpha Block. The detainees were found hanged in separate cells shortly after midnight on June 10, unobserved for at least two hours, rags stuffed down their throats, despite constant surveillance by five guards responsible for 28 inmates in a lit cell block monitored by video cameras. One of them was scheduled for release in 19 days, so why would he commit suicide?

The report found "dramatic flaws in the government's investigation (and) raise(s) serious questions about the security of the Camp (and) derelictions of duty by officials of multiple defense and intelligence agencies," who either let them die or killed them, then whitewashed the investigation to suppress it.

DOD responded, adding to the coverup, CP&R saying:

"The Center has found DOD's defense contradictory to, and inconsistent with, DOD's prior statement in its Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) report."

According to Professor Mark Denbeaux:

"Amazingly, some of DOD's statements purporting to defend the NCIS investigation actually impeach it; others are irrelevant or misdirected. The inflated number of statements supposedly supporting the NCIS Report are not as important as the statements omitted from the NCIS Report."

CP&R's 16th GITMO Report responded to DOD's thinly veiled defense titled, "DOD Contradicts DOD: An Analysis of the Response to Death in Camp Delta."

While confirming some of CP&R's criticisms, DOD also "contradict(ed) factual claims in its own investigation, raising new questions as to whether the DOD can be trusted to investigate its own conduct." The Center found:

-- DOD now says one detainee had a rag in his throat; the NCIS investigation showed all three had them;

-- DOD claims over 100 interviews were conducted during the first three days of investigation; in fact, 24 were conducted on June 10 and none the next three days; at most, investigators interviewed 45 individuals in total; in addition, NCIS investigators concluded that testimonies from all on-duty guards on the night of the incident were false, yet their statements are missing; further, most of them either refute or don't corroborate NCIS findings;

-- NCIS had a videotape record of events; DOD said nothing on it contained substantive evidence, an implausible claim as everything is recorded on it; and

-- DOD now says the lights were dimmed when detainees hanged themselves; Admiral Harry Harris said they were on.

In its December report, CP&R asked key unanswered questions, including:

-- the time and exact means of death;

-- how the dead men braided a noose using torn up sheets and/or clothing unobserved and made mannequins of themselves to look like asleep bodies in bed;

-- hung sheets to obstruct viewing into their cells;

-- stuffed rags down their throats to choke;

-- tied their hands and feet together;

-- hung the noose from the metal mesh of the cell wall or ceiling;

-- climbed on a sink, placed the noose around their necks, released their weight, and were strangled; and

-- did all this unobserved for two or more hours.

Yassar Talal Al Zahrani, Mani Shaman Turki Al Habardi Al Tabi, and Ali Abdullah Ahmed were the victims, called suicides by the military within hours as investigations were beginning. Over two years later they were released under court order. Heavily redacted, they were called a coordinated suicide, acts of "asymmetrical warfare" against America.

CP&R findings disagreed, said the investigation was "severely flawed" and the conclusions not supported by the evidence. Seven weeks after the Center's report, a DOD statement referred to "factual errors" in it. Yet their "assertions are as flawed as the infirm investigation they seek to defend."

Troublesome are contradictory statements, the number of interviews conducted, conflicting timelines, factual contradictions, "and a general sense of disarray," suggesting coverup. Sworn statements are required from everyone involved. Only partial ones were gotten, excluded from the NCIS report. Many are third-person summaries. Some suggest witnesses were manipulated to corroborate others. In sum, their statements leave many questions unanswered and contradict DOD's conclusions.

"The initial investigation into the deaths of three detainees on June 9, 2006, was flawed, the DOD's response is flawed, and a new investigation is necessary to find out what really happened that night."

Contradictory DOD and NCIS Statements

DOD Statement: "NCIS special agents who investigated this case found no evidence to suggest that the three detainees died by means other than suicide."

NCIS considered no other way. Contrary indications were ignored, including not interviewing Tower Guards able to look directly into cells to monitor all movement throughout the facility. Several now contradict the official NCIS account. At least four witnesses have different views of what happened. Why weren't they interviewed? Why were statements given of questionable value? How can they be considered trustworthy? The "suspect statements are nowhere to be found in the investigative file." Leaving them out suggests whitewash.

Colonel Bumgarner's (Camp Delta Joint Detention Group commander) is much like others - a supposed 11-page sworn statement, but he said it's "this page and two other pages." It has corrections, changes, and redactions "after nearly every paragraph."

Physical evidence suggesting murder isn't considered. Ahmed had a broken hyoid bone, "a distinct sign of manual strangulation." In suicidal hangings, neck injuries are rare. "This suggests that Ahmed at the least may have died by means other than suicide." Seven days after the incident, Colonel Bumgarner said in an official statement: "I was still not sure now it had happened."

DOD Statement: "On the contrary, it was clear from interviews and forensic evidence that these detainees wanted to end their lives and methodically took steps to accomplish that goal."

No evidence suggests it, including their state of mind. Colonel Bumgarner's official statement says: "Two of the three had been cleared by Behavioral Health Services just the week prior (to their deaths) and were noted to be in good spirits."

According to NCIS, the supposed evidence of intent was an unnamed detainee saying on the night of the incident - "tonight's the night." Yet nothing confirms it, and if it was known, why wasn't security tightened? The alleged detainee wasn't interviewed, and 21 others had no knowledge of planned suicides. Many, in fact, said they would have alerted camp personnel had they known.

In addition, no evidence corroborates a coordinated event or the ability of detainees to communicate. They're prohibited from conversing, being together in the same place at the same time, passing notes or anything between cells.

Alleged suicide notes on detainee bodies and in their cells had similar, ambiguous wording expressing no explicit intent to commit suicide. None, in fact, indicate a collaborative effort.

DOD Statement: "To hang themselves, they did not need to jump off the sinks as suggested by the author, but only had to apply the necessary pressure to the neck to cut off blood flow."

This contradicts the NCIS's report including sworn eyewitness statements saying, "It appeared to me that (they) climbed onto the sink and tied (themselves) off and then jumped from the sink." Each was found fully suspended close to their sinks, their feet not touching the floor.

CP&R "consistently maintain(s that) the three detainees did not necessarily die in the manner concluded by the DOD's investigators, and that the evidence in the NCIS file does not support the government's conclusions."

DOD Statement: "The knots, which bound their hands (and in one case, the decedent's feet), were not elaborate, but were indeed possible to make by each of the detainees who died."

The knots are irrelevant, the materials another matter. Specifically, the noose was braided from "bed sheets and tee shirts," then tied to the upper wall's mesh and wrapped multiple times around each detainee's neck. In addition, autopsy reports indicated their necks had deep furrows and abrasions, described as "intricate weave-type patterns." Masks also covered their faces, and they were gagged, no doubt to silence them. Further, they have no implements to cut fabrics, and limited amounts, yet Al Zahrani allegedly used a blanket, three sheets, and the braided noose. Inside his cell were a wash cloth, a white color cloth, clothes, a blanket, a rug, and multiple non-fabric items.

It's suspicious "how so many impermissible items were kept in their cells" or how guards could have been so derelict to allow it.

Neither the original NCIS report or DOD response explains how three detainees, under constant surveillance, managed to:

"1. Procure enough material to cover significant areas of their cells

2. Intricately weave fabric bindings

3. Repeatedly knot the bindings

4. Tie the binding material at a point in the cell high enough so that each detainee would be able to suspend fully without their feet touching the ground

5. Wrap the binding around their necks several times

6. Create knots to bind their limbs and torso

7. Gag themselves

8. And somehow hang to death while fully suspended (in plain sight under constant surveillance) without discovery by the guard force" for at least two hours.

Yet camp commander Admiral Harris said guards couldn't have prevented the "suicides." In polite terms, his explanation and DOD's are implausible. More to the point, they're ball-faced lies.

DOD Statement: "In addition, a short written statement declaring their intent to be martyrs was found in the pockets of the detainees. Lengthier written death declarations were also found."

Only two of the longer ones were apparently written by the detainees. In Arabic, they were accompanied by English translations, indicating the translator's interpretation. Key though is most comments suggest no intent to commit suicide. They may have reflected Islamic religious writing, expressions of oppression, or other emotions.

In addition, no collaborative conspiracy is hinted - no meetings, plans or any coordination. "Whether or not the written notes in question are suicide notes, their translations provide no evidence of a conspiracy between the three dead men."

DOD Statement: "The rulings of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), which determined the cause and manner of death, were wholly consistent with the NCIS investigative findings."

Inconsistencies, in fact, abound between DOD and NCIS accounts. "Most importantly, the autopsy reports conclude that each detainee was dead for hours before being found....NCIS does not mention this fact in its investigative findings."

It said all three had rags or cloths in their throats. Only Ahmed's autopsy report mentions them. Also, only Al Tabi's autopsy reveals no internal neck hemorrhaging. NCIS claimed all three men died the same way.

When found, they were in rigor mortis, beyond resuscitation. Yet, the autopsy says they were given invasive treatment, using oral-gastric tubes, orally placed endotracheal tubes, intravenous catheters with attached urinary bladder bags, electrocardiogram pads, and defibrillator pads. They also had puncture marks on their arms and hands, and the pathology rulings and NCIS investigation are in sync with the predetermined conclusion.

In addition, NCIS agents witnessed the autopsies, suggesting a collaborative effort for consistency, "two arms of the same investigation....start(ing) with the predetermined conclusion of suicide."

DOD Statement: "Regarding rags found in the mouth, there was only one rag lodged down the throat of one of the detainees."

The NCIS investigation contradicts this. Sworn statements said the three men had rags in their throats or mouths and throats. The unredacted evidence "demonstrates beyond a doubt that all three of the detainees had some form of cloth in their mouth, throat, or" both. "DOD's contention is in direct contradiction with its own investigation."

DOD Statement: "Rather than being 'proof' of homicide, this was due to the detainee himself positioning the rag in his mouth in order not to make any noise so as to alert the guards. The rag was inhaled as a natural reaction to death by asphyxiation."

CP&R didn't say rags proved homicide. It criticized NCIS because the investigation never addressed why they were there, that immediately should have raised suspicions. No evidence suggested they were to prevent noise, and investigators didn't address whether inhaling them is a natural reaction to death by asphyxiation, especially when it occurs by hanging. It's also unclear how inhaling a rag or cloth is possible with a noose cutting off all air.

DOD Statement: "Blankets and sheets had been used to obstruct the guards' views and to create the appearance that the detainees were asleep in the cells. During its investigation, NCIS discovered that detainees were allowed to hang sheets for privacy;...."

Obstructing cell views with blankets and/or sheets would have required detainees to violate standard procedures (SOPs), stating:

"Blankets or sheets may be temporarily hung up, no higher than half way up the cell walls, to provide privacy while using the toilet (or to dry). Once the detainee has completed using the toilet, the blankets and sheets must be taken down." In other words, they may only stay up for minutes, not hours, and not extend from ceiling to floor. Doing so constitutes "a grievous breach of SOPs...."

DOD Statement: "....(T)hey were allowed to have extra linens and/or blankets;...."

True for good behavior, but two of the deceased ended hunger strikes days before their deaths. It's unlikely they were rewarded, so "raises serious questions." Further, after the May 18 riots, Camp 1 was on lockdown, the guards and officers on high alert and not about to hand out favors.

DOD Statement: "....(S)ome of the lights in the detention facility were dimmed at night to permit better sleep. This explains how the detainees were able to obscure their actions and why the guards did not discover the deceased detainees right away."

Whether or not true, it contradicted Admiral Harris saying:

Based on the pathologist's estimated time of death, (I)f a couple of hours was more than two and a half hours, then the detainees hanged themselves while the tier was fully illuminated."

Procedures up to June 9, 2006 were to shut overhead lights on one side of the tier (half of them) at 10:00PM. Camp 1 has none inside cells. They're on the ceiling and shine into cells. Unredacted materials don't say which side stayed on. No matter, as guards had to maintain a continuous presence on the block, check detainees every 10 minutes, and their skin or movement at least every three hours. Following procedures made it impossible to miss seeing three men hanging for hours.

DOD Statement: "All available video footage was reviewed by NCIS, and nothing of evidentiary value was discovered."

"Available" leaves much unexplained, including whether key evidence was recorded, despite numerous on-site cameras showing guards removing detainees from cells; taking them through prison hallways; carrying them to the clinic; seeking help, coordinating medical support, and having other cells checked; besides taping three successful suicides.

It's implausible that cameras failed to notice. NCIS got videotapes on or about June 13, 2006, but no evidence shows they were reviewed. However, Rear Admiral Mark Buzby stated that Guantanamo hallway and common area video monitoring is standard practice.

The NCIC report includes a guard saying clinic videotaping began but was ordered stopped even though it's generally required - always during self-harm attempts, completions of serious incident reports, and whenever IRF (Immediate Reaction Force) teams are used.

DOD Statement: "NCIS conducted over 100 interviews during the first three days of the investigation, including interviews with all the guards who worked in the cellblock that day and all the detainees who were housed there. None of those interviewed told of any detainees being taken away or alleged homicide."

At most, 45 total interviews (excluding detainees) were conducted, and most had no first-hand knowledge of the events. During the crucial first three days, only 24 people were interviewed, but none gave first-person statements. On June 14, NCIS began collecting them, days after the deaths.

Statements from the six on-duty guards were most relevant, yet NCIS suspected their reliability and excluded them from their investigation. A select group of others were also, including from one Sally port guard, responsible for controlling access to all persons entering and exiting the camp.

Inexplicably, no tower guards were interviewed, even though they could look directly into cells and monitor all movement in the facility. In addition, only one day-shift guard was interviewed, although four were on duty that day and might have seen suspicious behavior.

DOD Statement: "AFIP sent a senior medical examiner to Guantanamo to perform the autopsies. In addition, an independent, state-level, senior medical examiner flew to Guantanamo to observe the autopsies, standard operating procedure for AFIP in high profile cases."

Five people witnessed them, likely the same ones in each case. However, medical examiner names were redacted. The AFIP one "conclude(d) that detainees Al Tabi and Ahmed were deceased for 'at least a couple of hours prior to the discovery.' " NCIS excludes this from its report.

DOD Statement: "All the materials released to date have been highly redacted. While Seton Hall students may have done the best they could with what they had, the fact is they only had available to them a small fraction of the reports."

Redacted material contained many contradictions and unusual events "that cannot be redressed through additional information."

DOD Statement: "The bodies were thoroughly examined for signs of torture. None was found."

Autopsy reports and the NCIS statement of findings said nothing about torture. "None of the statements in the investigation file mentions torture." The investigation only tried to determine if all deaths were suicides and began with that "predetermined conclusion."

DOD Statement: " A thorough, years-long investigation by NCIS concluded unequivocally that the detainees' deaths were the result of suicide. In addition, the Justice Department took this matter very seriously and a number of experienced department attorneys and agents extensively and thoroughly reviewed the allegations and found no evidence of wrongdoing."

The investigation was a whitewash. Admiral Harris signed off on his assessment on September, 6, 2006, less than 90 days after the deaths. NCIS looked no further. "This investigation was far from 'years-long;' indeed, it can barely be described as 'months-long.' " Its brevity weakens DOD's claim of thoroughness, and questions the overall investigatory seriousness.

Disturbingly, suicides were announced before autopsies occurred, and Admiral Harris claimed "(t)hey hung themselves with fabricated nooses made out of clothes and bed sheets," contradicting the same day press releases saying the manner of death was under investigation.

While not a formal DOD response, Colonel Bumgarner told AP:

"This blatant misrepresentation of the truth infuriates me. I don't know who Sgt. Hickman is, but he is only trying to be a spotlight ranger. He knows nothing about what transpired in Camp 1, or our medical facility. I do, I was there."

Apparently, he never got a clearance, as he said nothing further. Yet this statement alone questions NCIS's credibility. CP&R's report said he knew what went on because he was there. Yet his sworn statement to NCIS investigators said he spent the evening with Admiral Harris. At 00:48 June 10, the DOC called him after he returned home, and he immediately drove to the DET Clinic, following the ambulance into the Camp. Before leaving, however, he called Admiral Harris, telling him a suicide attempt occurred. The other deaths were then confirmed. He didn't know how, but noticed indentations on two detainees' necks. At 1:17AM, he reported the deaths, over 30 minutes before it was official at 1:50AM.

Final Comments

For years, Republican and Democrat administrations eroded constitutional freedoms and the rule of law, using the courts for hardline enforcement, especially since the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effect Death Penalty Act. It eased surveillance restrictions, included draconian death penalty and habeas-stripping provisions, and smoothed passage of the 2001 Patriot Act and other repressive measures, including authorizing torture as official US policy.

The Bush administration issued a blizzard of Executive Orders, National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, memos, memoranda, findings, and other official documents authorizing secret detentions, extraordinary renditions, assassinations, military commissions, and torture, even though these practices are prohibited under US and international laws.

A smoking-gun February 7, 2002 Order titled "Humane Treatment of al-Qaeda and Taliban Detainees" stated "none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaeda (or Taliban) detainees in Afghanistan 'or elsewhere throughout the world....' " It meant "terrorist" detainees have no rights. They can be imprisoned, held indefinitely, tried in military commissions (with no right of appeal), tortured and executed.

Other documents authorized anything in the "war on terror," including supreme presidential power.

A March 14, 2003 memo titled "Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States" became known as "the Torture Memo" because it swept away all legal restraints and authorized military interrogators to use extreme measures amounting to torture. It also let the president as commander-in-chief use "the fullest range of power....to protect the nation." (He) "enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his authority in conducting operations against hostile forces." It gave him life or death power over anyone called an unlawful combatant, including US citizens.

International law expert Francis Boyle denounced the designation, calling it a:

"quasi-category (of) legal nihilism where human beings (including US citizens) can be disappeared, detained incommunicado, denied access to attorneys and regular courts, tried by kangaroo courts, executed, tortured, assassinated and subjected to numerous other manifestations of State Terrorism" on the pretext of protecting national security.

What George Bush began, Obama continues, including at Guantanamo, despite issuing January Executive Orders banning torture, ordering the facility closed, and directing the CIA to shut its secret prison network.

That was then. This is now. Political persecutions, extraordinary renditions, secret detentions, kangaroo court justice, and torture remain official US policy as part of the administration's permanent war agenda and continued "war on terror," renamed the "Overseas Contingency Operation."

Defiled is Abraham Lincoln's Lieber Code on humane and responsible behavior toward combatants and civilians in times of war. Also the Hague and Geneva Conventions, Geneva's Common Article 3, Nuremberg Principles, UN Charter, UN Convention Against Torture, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, US Army Field Manual 27-10, US War Crimes Act and Torture Statute, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and other laws pertaining to crimes of war, against humanity, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

As a result, anyone, anywhere may be abducted, secretly imprisoned, tortured, and murdered in cold blood, the apparent fate of the three Guantanamo detainees CP&R addressed in its 15th and 16th GITMO reports.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to the Lendman News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Israel Gets Away With Murder… Again

By Tammy Obeidallah

11 February, 2010
Intifada-palestine.com

Amid the glamour of the world’s tallest building, gold bars, man-made islands, casinos and fashion, a man lay dead in his hotel room. Preliminary reports would say he had been suffocated with a pillow; further investigation would determine that he was injected with poison.

Post-mortem photos of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, age 50, told a story the media would not tell: the tip of his nose blackened, red blotches covering his cheeks and jaw and a horrific indentation on one side of his nose testified of torture and a cruel execution.

Most news sources subliminally justified Al-Mabhouh’s murder in Dubai on January 20. He was described only as a "senior Hamas militant," "founding member of Hamas’ military wing" or even "arch-terrorist." As someone who was allegedly involved in the deaths of two Israeli soldiers in the 1980s and committed numerous other acts of armed resistance against Israel, he was undoubtedly a menace by western standards.

Al-Mabhouh grew up in the squalor of Gaza’s Jabaliya refugee camp, but had lived in exile in Syria since 1989. He had been the target of two previous assassination attempts: a car bombing and a poisoning. The latter took place in Beirut only six months ago and rendered him unconscious for 30 hours.

The Israeli government issued a statement claiming Al-Mabhouh had traveled to Dubai en route to Iran in order to smuggle weapons back to his native Gaza. Israeli defense officials told the Associated Press that these rockets would be capable of reaching Tel Aviv 40 miles away. Evidently, there have been some major technological advances since Israel’s assault on Gaza last year, as retaliatory rockets fired from Gaza ranged only 25 miles.

While Israel has not officially acknowledged involvement in Al-Mabhouh’s murder, Israeli news agency Inyan Merkazi reported that a four-member squad of Shin Bet and Mossad agents interrogated Al-Mabhouh before executing him.

Whitewashed by western media as "extra-judicial assassinations" or "targeted assassinations," such acts are tantamount to premeditated murder against anyone suspected of resistance against Israel’s 62-year occupation of Palestine. Al-Mabhouh’s death is the latest of numerous executions carried out by the Mossad and other Israeli government agencies throughout the Jewish State’s existence.

In 1972, the Mossad began a series of assassinations in what was supposed to be retribution for the deaths of Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics. Thirty-five suspects believed to have been involved in the attack were systematically ambushed throughout Europe and Lebanon. Many had ambiguous ties at best to the Munich operation and in a case of mistaken identity Ahmed Bouchiki, a young Moroccan waiter, was gunned down in Norway. Throughout this and other operations, the Mossad used false passports without the issuing government’s knowledge or approval in what has become a trademark of that organization’s modus operandi.

In 1997, Mossad agents traveled with Canadian passports to Amman, Jordan in a botched attempt on the life of Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. In 2004, New Zealand jailed two Mossad agents for six months and imposed diplomatic sanctions against Israel after the pair illegally applied for passports in that country. Authorities in Dubai investigating the murder of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh have confirmed that his killers are traveling on Irish passports.

However, not all Israeli assassinations are clandestine operations.

Fateh co-founder Khalil al-Wazir, known as Abu Jihad, was killed in 1998 at his home in Tunis in front of his family. The 2004 Israeli airstrikes that killed Hamas founder and spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin and subsequently his replacement, Abdelaziz Al-Rantissi also killed Rantissi’s son, his bodyguard and eleven bystanders, including a five year-old child.

Not only are the leaders of armed resistance in the crosshairs of Israeli assassins, but political activists who speak out against the occupation of Palestine as well. Cartoonist Naji Al-Ali, whose brutally honest body of work earned him many powerful enemies, was murdered in cold blood in London on the way to his office. Although Al-Ali was critical of Arab governments and the corruption present in the hierarchy of Palestinian resistance groups, a preponderance of evidence points directly to the Mossad being responsible for his death.

Ten months after Al-Ali was killed, Scotland Yard arrested a student named Ismail Suwan, who turned out to be a Mossad agent. Suwan confessed that his superiors knew of the plot to kill Al-Ali. Upon refusing to cooperate further, Great Britain expelled two Israeli diplomats and closed the Mossad’s London base. Despite all this, no one was ever brought to justice for the crime.

In March 2003, a 23 year-old American college student named Rachel Corrie was killed by a bulldozer driven by an Israeli soldier while trying to prevent a home demolition in the Gaza Strip. It was learned through Corrie’s own writings that activists with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) had come under fire in the weeks prior to her death while trying to retrieve the body of a Palestinian killed by Israeli forces. She told also of how the camp’s water wells were being destroyed by the Israeli military and that members of ISM had slept in front of the wells to deter the attacks. Clearly the group’s activities were a source of consternation to the Israelis, one of whom took the opportunity to murder a young woman on a clear day in the Rafah refugee camp. Claiming Corrie’s death was "accidental," he was never punished.

Many have paid the ultimate price for challenging the Israeli juggernaut, no matter what form that challenge has taken. Many individuals who never picked up a weapon have been targeted by the Jewish State. And if Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh was attempting to procure weapons, he was simply guilty of trying to help his people defend themselves against Israeli aggression. Only when the western-dominated court of world opinion is no longer content to let Israel act as judge, jury and executioner, will there be justice for occupied Palestine and all the people who met untimely and brutal deaths in her defense

Tammy Obeidallah was born and raised in the suburbs of Dayton, Ohio. She graduated from Eastern New Mexico University, earning a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science. She has traveled to 44 countries including Palestine, Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Pakistan and lived in Amman, Jordan for one year. Ms. Obeidallah spends the majority of her time writing, doing the occasional public speaking engagement and attending any pro-Palestinian demonstrations within a 500-mile radius.

Holocaust: Israel's Ultimate Red Herring

By Khalid Amayreh

11 February , 2010
Islamonline.net

Whenever Israel's image suffers a setback, mainly because of its manifestly criminal treatment of the Palestinians, Israel invokes the holocaust. Israel does not openly link the Nazi-like brutality meted out to the Palestinians to the holocaust.However, the implied message in highlighting holocaust commemorations is inescapable.

The message is that what Germany did to European Jewry in the course of World War II justifies whatever Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians.

In other words, the perpetration of one holocaust by Germany against Jews should allow Zionist Jews — Israel— to carry out another holocaust against the Palestinians.

These seem to be the unspoken words of Zionist leaders. In the final analysis, their actions speak louder than their denials.

A few years ago, prior to the deadly Israeli onslaught against the Gaza Strip, Elie Wiesel – political activist, Nobel Laureate, and Holocaust survivor– argued that the world had no right to criticize Israel no matter what Israel did.

"I support Israel, period. I identify with Israel, period. I never attack, I never criticize Israel, and the world has no right to criticize Israel."

While in Poland recently to mark the "Holocaust Remembrance Day", Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu tried to blackmail humanity into supporting Israeli criminality against the Palestinian people and other peoples of the Middle East.

He claimed that the international community had an obligation to defend and protect Israel as if this nuclear-armed state, which also effectively controls the politics and policies of the only superpower in the world, the United States, were seriously under threat by foreign predators and needed immediate protection.

However, what Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders really wanted to say was that the world should turn a blind eye to the unmitigated brutality and repression to which the helpless Palestinians are constantly subjected by the Israeli army, the Wehrmacht of our time.

Israel's Wehrmacht

In short, Israel's ultimate goal behind the exaggerated and never- ending regurgitation of holocaust rituals is not really to remind humanity of the extent to which man can be cruel to his fellow man.

Rather, it is to obtain a license, or even a carte blanch, to torment and savage the Palestinians, destroy their homes, steal their land, and expel them to the four winds.

As victims of Jewish Nazism for over sixty years, we, the Palestinians, have no objection to remind the world of one of the greatest crimes committed by man against his fellow man. The Nazis, after all, were enemies of humanity and their crimes are outstanding in the annals of history.

However, it should be perfectly clear that the Nazis were evil, not because their crimes targeted Jews, among other peoples.

Their actions were evil, because they were simply evil, and even if six million non-Jews had been killed instead of the six million Jews we are told were killed, the nefariousness of the Nazi crimes would not have been any lesser.

This means that anyone or any people behaving in Nazi-like manner should be compared to the Nazis. In the final analysis, when Jews think, behave, and act like Nazis, as demonstrated in Gaza last year, they should not be spared the Nazi epithet no matter how long and how hard the Netanyahus, Wiesels, Liebermans, and Pipes of the world keep barking.

We are supposed to be living in a moral universe, and as such, none under the sun, "chosen" or otherwise, should be entitled to a special treatment based on ethnic or religious supremacy.

I understand why some Western countries, like Germany are reluctant to call the spade a spade when it comes to the Jewish terror. However, as consistent recipients of Israeli criminality for decades, we Palestinians should not hesitate to compare what Zionist Jews are doing to us with whatever the Aryan Nazis did in Europe during the World War II.

If the world, especially the West, raises its eyebrows in disgust or disbelief, we must ignore its reactions with the contempt they deserve. Instead, we should challenge them to come and visit Gaza and the West Bank and see for themselves. This is of course if they dare to face the brutal ugliness of their misbegotten brat.

The issue goes far beyond the size and magnitude of violence and terror here and there. After all, we do not claim that what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is a carbon copy of what the Third Reich did during that World War II in which more than 50 million people were killed.

However, there are shocking similarities between what happened then and what is happening now. Take, for example, the recurrent pogroms carried out by the para-military Jewish terrorists, otherwise known as settlers, against helpless and unprotected Palestinians in the West Bank.

These thugs carry out all sorts of lynching and assaults on unarmed civilians, including elderly Palestinians, nearly on a daily basis and often in the full view of the Israeli army. The Israeli society watches these crimes rather passively as if what is happening were perfectly acceptable.

The Judo-Nazi Thugs

Now, what is the difference between this and what the Hitler Youth Movement and other Nazi thugs were doing against Jews in the mid and late 1930s which eventually culminated in the Kristallnacht in November, 1938?

A few days ago, David Grossman, a noted Israeli writer and intellectual, spoke about the callousness with which the Israeli Jewish society is treating with settler terror and violence against the Palestinians.

"Sometimes," he said "it is not possible to sit and be silent. Settlers and the political right aided by the government, the legal system, and economic powers abuse the Palestinians in 1,001 different ways."

In addition, one could note the manifestly criminal act of taking over people's homes, land, farms, and vineyards in the name of Jewish nationalism. Is this much different from the Nazi concept of lebensraum?

Germans argued that they needed a breathing space; and the Jews are arguing that "well, Jews have got to live somewhere."!

When the Judo-Nazi thugs run out of arguments, they simply claim that "Jews are sons of kings, and non-Jews are animals." Israel has no right to use the memory of those who perished during the holocaust to justify decidedly criminal acts that differ little in substance from what the Nazis did. Yes, the magnitude is different, but the substance, the mentality, the maliciousness, and nefariousness are the same.

It is true that Palestinians are not being gassed in ovens. However, they are being systematically killed by other means and incinerated by White Phosphorus, as was the case in Gaza last year.

More to the point, we should always remember that the holocaust itself did not really start with Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen and other death camps, for in fact these were ultimate "effects" rather than "causes."

The real causes had materialized much earlier with the malignant metastasizing of Aryan racism, the kind of which the world is now witnessing permeating throughout Israel.

Now, it us usual to see an Israeli settler murders an innocent Palestinian and then claims proudly that "I felt I was slaughtering an animal not a human being."!

Furthermore, happy-go-lucky rabbis gleefully issue religious edicts permitting the cold-blooded killing of all non-Jews, including babies, on the ground that these babies might pose a threat to Jews when they grow up!

I do not know if 90 percent of Germans supported the holocaust. Yet, I do know that up to 90 percent of Israeli Jews have supported the atrocities in Gaza last year when the Israeli army and its air force were raining death on unprotected civilians, killing, maiming, and incinerating thousands of innocent people.

Likewise, I do not know why most Jews feel no shame when their "soldiers" create fire storms over Gaza, causing the death of multitudes of innocent people. Do they feel empowered? Virile? Or perhaps feel they are vicariously avenging the holocaust 65 years later?

Well, Israeli soldiers who murder innocent civilians knowingly and deliberately are not really soldiers. They are thugs, hoodlums, and common criminals that ought to stand trial for their evil deeds. They are no different from the German (and non-German) soldiers who committed crimes against humanity during the World War II.

The Israeli hasbara establishment, the most important organ in the Israeli government, wrongly thinks that all these scandalous crimes can be whitewashed through PR action, such as throwing the holocaust in the face of the world or highlighting a propagandistic act, such as the recent rescue mission that Israel dispatched to Haiti.

Nevertheless, as Gideon Levy, a prescient Israeli journalist, argues, no amount of PR lies or speeches will be able to extinguish the flames of shame created by Israel's criminal campaign against a thoroughly starved and thoroughly beleaguered people.

"It will not help much," argued Levy. "International Holocaust Remembrance Day has passed, the speeches will soon be forgotten, and the depressing every-day reality will remain, and Israel will not come out looking good, even after the PR campaign."

He is right. An irredeemable child killer is undoubtedly an irredeemable child killer, and it does not get himself rehabilitated if he helps an old lady mowing her lawn as he returns home from one of his murderous crimes.

Night Without End

Today in every junior high school in America, students read Anne Frank, while in every high school Elie Wiesel's "Night" is requisite reading. Wiesel is the man who says brazenly that he identifies with Israeli crimes and barbarianism and that he could not bring himself to say bad things about Israel.

The victims of the first Kristallnacht enjoy the world's approbation and sympathy, while at the same time having succeeded in demonizing an entire people, for whom Kristallnacht still remains a night without end.

However, unlike the German national socialists, Jewish national socialists are falsifying history and reality to justify their crimes against humanity.

The holocaust narrative, which has been elevated to the status of a religion, allows Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem, to invoke the mantra of "never again" while it sits on Arab lands stolen from Ein Karem, and overlooking the unmarked graves of the Palestinians massacred by Judeo-Nazi terrorists at Dir Yasin.

The same holocaust industry allows Israel to build a "museum of tolerance" right on top of the Mamanullah cemetery where thousands of Muslims are buried. You see, there is no limit to the brutal ugliness of the Zionist mentality.

It is really sad that most Jews are now finding themselves in the shoes of their former oppressors, knowingly and consciously.

On August 23, 1947, nearly one year before Israel's birth, Harry Truman wrote the following to Eleanor Roosevelt, apparently in the wake of another Zionist atrocity in Palestine:

"I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on the top they are just as intolerant and cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side."

In light of Israel's Nazi-like behavior in occupied Palestine, it is really hard to view Truman's prophetic words with indifference. In fact, it is a moral obligation upon humanity to oppose Zionism and Israel with the same vigor and same determination the world demonstrated in the face of Nazism.

Khalid Amayreh is a journalist living in Palestine. He obtained his MA in journalism from the University of Southern Illinois in 1983. Since the 1990s, Mr. Amayreh has been working and writing for several news outlets among which is Aljazeera.net, Al-Ahram Weekly, Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), and Middle East International. He can be reached through politics.indepth@iolteam.com.

Somalia: How Colonial Powers Drove A Country Into Chaos: Interview With Mohamed Hassan

By Grégoire Lalieu & Michel Colon

11 February, 2010
Investig'Action

Somalia had every reason to succeed: an advantageous geographical situation, oil, ores and only one religion and one language for the whole territory; a rare phenomenon in Africa. Somalia could have been a great power in the region. But the reality is completely different: famine, wars, lootings, piracy, bomb attacks. How did this country sink? Why has there been no Somali government for approximately twenty years? Which scandals stand behind those pirates who hijack our ships? Mohamed Hassan explains why and how imperialist forces have applied in Somalia a chaos theory.

How did piracy develop in Somalia? Who are those pirates?

Since 1990, there has been no government in Somalia. The country is in the hands of warlords. European and Asiatic ships took advantage of this chaotic situation and fished along the Somali coast without a license or respect for elementary rules. They did not observe the quotas in force in their own country to protect the species and they used fishing techniques –even bombs!- that created huge damages to the wealth of the Somali seas.

That’s not all! Taking also advantage of this lack of any political authority, European companies, with the help of the mafia, dumped nuclear wastes offshore Somali coasts. Europe knew of this but turned a blind eye as that solution presented a practical and economical advantage for the nuclear waste management. Yet, the 2005 Tsunami brought a big part of these wastes into the Somali lands. Unfamiliar diseases appeared for the first time among the population. This is the context in which the piracy mainly developed. Somali fishermen, who had primitive fishing techniques, were no more able to work. So they decided to protect themselves and their seas. This is exactly what the United States did during the civilian war against the British (1756-1763): with no naval forces, President George Washington made a deal with pirates to protect the wealth of the American seas.

No Somali state for almost twenty years! How is that possible?

This is the result of an American strategy. In 1990, the country was bruised by conflicts, famine and lootings; the state collapsed. Facing this situation, the United States, who discovered oil in Somalia a few years ago, launched Operation Restore Hope in 1992. For the first time, US marines intervened in Africa to take control of a country. It was also the first time that a military invasion was launched in the name of humanitarian interference.

The famous rice bag exhibited on a Somali beach by Bernard Kouchner?

Yes, everybody remembers those pictures carefully showcased. But the real reasons were strategic. An US State Department report recommended indeed that the United States must stay the lonely global superpower after the Soviet Bloc collapse. To reach that goal, the report advocated to occupy a hegemonic position in Africa, which enjoys a vast amount of raw materials.

However, Restore Hope will be a failure. There was even that Hollywood movie "Black Hawk Down", with those poor G.I.’s "attacked by the bad Somali rebels"…

US soldiers were indeed defeated by a Somali nationalist resistance. Since then, American policy was to keep Somalia without any real government, even to balkanize it. This is the old British strategy, already applied in many places: setting weak and divided states in order to better rule them. That is why there has been no Somali state for almost twenty years. The United States has implemented a chaos theory in order to stop any Somali reconciliation and keep the country divided.

In Sudan, due to the civilian war, Exxon has had to leave the country after having discovered oil. So isn’t letting Somalia plunge into chaos contrary to American interests, which cannot exploit the discovered oil?

Oil exploitation is not their priority. The United States know that the reserves are there but doesn’t need it immediately. Two elements are much more important in its strategy. First, prevent the competitors from negotiating with a rich and powerful Somali state. If you consider Sudan, the comparison is interesting. The oil that the American companies discovered there thirty years ago, Sudan is selling it today to China. The same thing could happen in Somalia. When he was president of the transition government, Abdullah Yusuf went to China although he was supported by the United States. US mass media had strongly criticized that visit. The fact is that United States have no guarantee on that point: if a Somali government is established tomorrow, whatever is its political color, it could probably adopt a strategy independent of United States and trade with China. Western imperialists do not want a strong and unified Somali state. The second goal pursued by this chaos theory is linked to the geographical location of Somalia, which is strategic for both European and American imperialists.

Why is it strategic?

The issue is the control of the Indian Ocean. Look at the map. As mentioned, western powers have an important share of the responsibility in the Somali piracy development. But instead of telling the truth and paying compensation for what they did, those powers criminalize the phenomena in order to justify their position in the region. Under the pretext of fighting the piracy, NATO is positioning its navy in the Indian Ocean.

What is the real goal?

To control the economic development of the emerging powers, mainly India and China. Half of the world’s container traffic and 70% of the total traffic of petroleum products passes through the Indian Ocean. From that strategic point of view, Somalia is a very important place: the country has the longest coast of Africa (3.300 km) and faces the Arabian Gulf and the Straight of Hormuz, two key points of the region economy. Moreover, if a pacific response is brought to the Somali problem, relations between African in one hand, and India and China on the other hand, could develop through the Indian Ocean. Those American competitors could then have influence in that African area. Mozambique, Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania, Zanzibar, South Africa etc. All those countries connected to the Indian Ocean could gain easy access to the Asian market and develop fruitful economic relationship. Nelson Mandela, when he was president of South Africa, had mentioned the need of an Indian Ocean revolution, with new economic relationships. The United States and Europe do not want this project. That is why they prefer to keep Somalia unstable..

You say that the United States does not want Somali reconciliation. But what are the roots of the Somali divisions?

In order to understand this chaotic situation, we must delve into Somali history. This country had been divided by colonial powers. In 1959, Somalia gained independence through the fusion of the Italian colony in the South, and the British colony in the North. But Somalis were also living in some parts of Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti. The new Somali state adopted a star on its flag, each branch representing one part of the historical Somalia. The message behind that symbol: "Two Somalias have been united, but three are still colonized".

Facing the legitimacy of those claims, the British – who controlled Kenya-, organized a referendum in the Kenyan area claimed by Somalia. 87% of the population, composed mainly of Somali ethnics, voted for the Somali unity. When the results were published, Jomo Kenyatta, a Kenyan nationalist leader, threatened the British to throw the colonists out if they gave a part of the territory up to Somalia. So Great Britain decided not to take the referendum into account, and today an important Somali community is still living in Kenya. You must understand that those colonial borders were a real disaster in the Somali case. The border issue was besides the object of an important debate among the African continent.

What was the issue of that debate?

In the sixties, as many African countries became independent, there was a debate between what we called the Monrovia and the Casablanca groups. This later, including among others Morocco and Somalia, resolved that the borders inherited from colonialism be discussed. For them, those boundaries had no legitimacy. But most of the African countries and their borders are colonialism products. Finally, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the ancestor of the current African Union, closed the debate by decreeing that the borders were indisputable: going back over those boundaries would provoke civilian wars everywhere on the continent. Later, one of the OAU architects, the Tanzanian Julius Nyerere, confessed that this decision was the best but that he regretted the Somali outcome.

What will be the impact of the colonial divisions on Somalia?

They will create strains with neighboring countries. During those years when Somalia advocated for revising the borders, Ethiopia became a US imperialism bastion. The United States had also military bases in Kenya and Eritrea. At this moment, Somalia, a young pastoral democracy, wished to build its own army. The goal was to not appear weak in front of the armed neighbors, to support Somali movements in Ethiopia and even to regain by force, if necessary, some territories. But the western forces were opposed to the creation of a Somali army.

So Somalia had tense relations with its neighbors. Was it not reasonable to be opposed to this Somali army project? It would have provoked wars, wouldn’t it?

The West did not care about conflicts between Africans but its own interests. The United States and Great Britain were providing and training militaries in Ethiopia, Kenya and Eritrea. Those countries were still under the yoke of very repressive feudal systems. But they were also neocolonial regimes devoted to Western interests. On the other hand, the power in place in Somalia was more democratic and independent. So the West had no interest in providing for a country that could escape its control.

As a consequence, Somalia decided to turn to the Soviet Union. This frightened the Western forces that feared Soviet influence stretching in to Africa. Those fears became more important with the 1969 putsch.

What do you mean?

Socialist ideas were spread in the country. An important Somali community was indeed living in Aden in South Yemen. However, this is where Britain used to exile persons it considered dangerous in India: communists, nationalists and so on. They used to be arrested and sent to Aden where nationalist and revolutionary ideas quickly developed and affected later both Yemenites and Somalis. Under the influence of civilians with Marxist ideas, a coup d’état was led by officers in 1969 and Siad Barre took power in Somalia.

What were the reasons of that coup d’état?

The Somali government was corrupted. He had however the cards in hand to erect the country to the great regional power rank: a strategic position, only one language, one religion and many common cultural elements. This is fairly rare in Africa. But, by missing the economical development of the country, this government has created a context favorable to divisions among clans. Under the pretext of doing politics, Somali elites become divided. Everyone created his own political party, without any real program, and recruited voters among the existing clans. This increased the divisions and turned out to be totally useless. A democracy in a liberal type was in fact unsuitable for Somalia: there were at once 63 political parties for a three million population country! And the government was even not able to adopt an official script, which was creating serious troubles in the administration. Education was weak. Bureaucracy, police and army were, however, established. This later will play a key role in the progressive coup d’état.

"Progressive"! With the army?

The army was the only organized institution in Somalia. As a repressive apparatus, it was supposed to protect the so-called civilian government and the elite. But for many Somalis coming from different families and areas, the army was also an exchange place where there were no borders, no tribalism, no clan divisions. This is how Marxist ideas from Aden circulated among the army. So the coup d’état was led by officers who were most of all nationalist. They did not have a good knowledge of socialism but they had sympathy for those ideas. Moreover, they knew what was happening in Vietnam, and that fed anti-imperialist feelings. The civilians, who knew Marx and Lenin’s teachings lacked a mass political party, supported the coup d’état and become the advisers of the officers who took power.

What changes did the Somali coup d’état bring about?

One important positive aspect: the new government quickly adopted an official script. Likewise, the Soviet Union and China were helping Somalia. The students and the population mobilized themselves. Education and social conditions were enhanced. The years that followed the coup d’état were in fact the best ones that Somalia never knew. That is, until 1977.

What happened?

Somalia, which has been divided by colonial forces, attacked Ethiopia to get the territory of Ogaden back. Ogaden was mainly populated by Somalis. At this time however, Ethiopia was itself a socialist state supported by the Soviets. This country had been led for a long time by Emperor Selassie. But in the seventies, there was an important mobilization to overthrow him. The students’ movement, in which I personally participated, made four major demands. First, to nonviolently and democratically resolve tensions with Eritrea. Secondly, to establish a land reform that would distribute the lands to the peasants. Thirdly, to establish the principle of equality among the nationalities; Ethiopia was a multinational country led by elite who did not represent the diversity. Fourthly, to abolish the feudal system and to establish a democratic state. As in Somalia, the army was the only organized institution in Ethiopia and the civilians joined the officers to overthrow Selassie in 1974.

How did two socialist states, each supported by the Soviet Union, enter conflict?

After the Ethiopian revolution, a delegation including Soviet Union, Cuba and South Yemen organized a round table with Ethiopia and Somalia in order to resolve their contradiction. Castro went to Addis Abeba and Mogadishu. To him, Somali claims were justified. Finally, the Ethiopian delegation agreed to seriously seriously its Somali neighbor’s demands. The two countries made an agreement stipulating that no provocation should happen as long as no decision has been taken. Things seemed to start well but Somalia did not honor the agreement…

Two days after the Ethiopian delegation returned to its country, Henry Kissinger, a former Nixon Secretary of State, turned up to Mogadishu. Kissinger was representing an unofficial organization: the Safari Club that was among others including Shah’s Iran, Mobutu’s Congo, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and French and Pakistani intelligence services. The objective of that organization was to fight against the Soviet infiltration in the Gulf and in Africa. Under the Safari Club pressures and help promises, Siad Barre committed a disastrous strategic mistake of attacking Ethiopia.

What were the consequences of that war?

Soviets left the region. Somalia, still led by Siad Barre, integrated the neocolonial network of the imperialist forces. The country had been seriously damaged by the conflict and the World Bank and the IFM were in charge of "rebuilding" it. This has aggravated infighting among Somali bourgeoisie. Each regional elite wanted to have its own market. They made the divisions among the clans’ worst and contributed to the progressive dislocation of their country up to Siad Barre’s fall in 1990. Since that, any head of state succeeded to him.

But, thirty years after the Ogaden war, the opposite scenario happened: Ethiopia was supported by the United States to attack Somalia…

Yes, as I said, since the Restore Hope failure, United States has preferred to keep Somalia in chaos. However, in 2006, a spontaneous movement developed under the Islamic courts to fight against the local warlords and bring unity to the country. It was a kind of Intifada. In order to stop this movement from rebuilding Somalia, United States decided suddenly to support the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) after having refused to recognize it before. In fact, they realized that their project of a Somalia without effective state was no more possible: a movement – furthermore Islamic!- was about to lead to a national reconciliation. In order to sabotage the Somali unity, United States decided to support the TFG. But this later was lacking any social basis and an army. So the Ethiopian troops, commanded by Washington, attacked Mogadishu to overthrow the Islamic courts.

Did it work?

No, the Ethiopian army was defeated and had to leave Somalia. On their side, the Islamic courts were dispersed in several movements that still control a big part of the country today. As for Abdulla Yusuf’s transitional government, he collapsed and United States replaced it by Sheik Sharif, the former Islamic Court spokesman.

So Sheik Sharif has passed to "the other camp"?

He used to be the Islamic courts spokesman because he is a good orator. But he has no political knowledge. He has no idea what imperialism or nationalism are. That is why western powers took him back. He was the Islamic court’s weak link. Today he chairs a fake government, created in Djibouti. This government has no social base or authority in Somalia. It only exists on the international level because the imperialist forces support it.

In Afghanistan, the United States said they were ready to negotiate with Taliban. Why don’t they look for discussing with the Islamic groups in Somalia?

Because those groups want to take the foreign occupier over and to allow a national reconciliation for the Somali people. As a result, the United States wants to break those groups: a reconciliation, through the Islamic movement or through the TFG, is not in the interests of the imperialist forces. They just want chaos. The problem is that today, this chaos reached Ethiopia too, which is very weak since the 2007 aggression. A nationalist resistance movement came to the light over there to fight against the pro-imperialist government of Addis Ababa. With their chaos theory, United States had in fact created troubles in the whole region. And now, they took it out on Eritrea.

Why?

This little country leads an independent national policy. Eritrea also has a vision for the whole region: the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia) do not need foreign powers’ interference; its wealth should allow it to establish new economical relationship on the basis of mutual respect. According to Eritrea, the region must get it together and its members must be able to discuss about their problems. Of course, this policy frightens United States that fears that other countries follow that example. So they accuse Eritrea of sending weapons to Somalia and instigating troubles in Ethiopia.

Isn’t Eritrea sending weapons in Somalia?

Not even a bullet! This is a pure propaganda as they did against Syria about the Iraqi resistance. Eritrea’s vision catches up with the project of Indian Ocean revolution that we spoke about before. The western powers do not want of that and wish to bring Eritrea back to the circle of the neocolonial states under control, such as Kenya, Ethiopia or Uganda.

Are there no terrorist in Somalia?

Imperialist powers have always labeled as terrorists the people who fight for their right. Irishmen were terrorists until they signed an agreement. Abbas was a terrorist. Now, he is a friend.

But we heard about Al Qaeda in Somalia?

Al Qaeda is everywhere, from Belgium to Australia! That invisible Al Qaeda is a logo designed to justify to the public opinion military operations. If United States say to their citizens and soldiers: "We are going to send our troops into the Indian Ocean in order to probably fight against China", people would be afraid of course. But if you tell them that it is just about fighting piracy and Al Qaeda, it won’t be a problem. The real goal is however different. It consists in setting forces in the Indian Ocean region that will be the theater of major conflicts in the coming years. This is what we will analyze in the next chapter…

Mohamed Hassan is a geopolitics and Arab world specialist. Born in Addis Abeba (Ethiopia), he participated in student movements on the occasion of the socialist revolution of 1974 in his country. He studied political science in Egypt before specializing in public administration in Brussels. As a diplomat for his country of origin, he worked in Washington, Beijing and Brussels. Co-writer of L’Irak sous occupation (EPO, 2003), he has also contributed to books about Arab nationalism, Islamic movements and Flemish nationalism. He is one of the best contemporary experts on the Arab and Muslim world.

To examine the subject in depth, Mohamed Hassan recommends the following publications:

Mohamed Omar, The Road to Zero: Somalia's Self-Destruction, Haan Publishing,1993

Babu, Abdul, Rahman Mohamed. African Socialism or Socialist Africa? Londres, Zed Press, 1981, 190 p.

Hersi, Ali Abdirahman, The Arab factor in Somali history : the origins and the development of Arab enterprise and cultural influences in the Somali Peninsula, Thesis--University of California, Los Angeles, 1977

Michel Caraël, La ruine du pansomalisme, in Le Monde diplomatique, octobre 1982

Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror,

John K. Cooley, Unholy wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, Pluto Press, 2000

John Drysdale, Whatever Happened to Somalia?, Haan Publishing, 1994

Translation review: Fausto Giudice

Courtesy: uruknet.info