New Orleans: Bush Can You See Us Now?

How can you help a neighbor, when you can not even take care of your own backyard, Mr. Bush?

Out of sight, out of mind?

Chavez: Bush a political 'cadaver'

Chavez claimed Bush's Latin American visit amounted to "an imperial offensive" [AFP]

March 10, 2007

"North America for the North Americans, South America for the South Americans"
Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela

Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's president, has called George Bush, the US president, a "political cadaver" and blasted US policies as "imperialist" as he led 20,000 supporters in an anti-American rally.

Chavez shouted "Gringo go home!" on Friday night to raucous applause in a crowded football stadium in the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires.

Alluding to Bush's waning years in office, Chavez said: "The US president today is a true political cadaver and now he does not even smell of sulphur anymore.

"What the little gentleman from the North now exudes is the smell of political death and in a very short time he will be converted into cosmic dust and disappear from the stage."

Chavez added that he did not come to "sabotage" Bush's visit, saying the timing was a coincidence, even as Bush landed in neighbouring Uruguay for a 36-hour visit.

He said: "This act was organised to say 'No!' to the presence of the imperial boss in these heroic lands of our America, in the heroic lands of South America."

'Against the poor'

"North America for the North Americans, South America for the South Americans. This is our America!" he said, standing under a large sign reading "Bush and Imperialism, Out!" and "Yes to Latin American unity!"

A woman at the rally, Carmen Inturias, explained why she attended the rally in repudiation of Bush.

She said: "Bush is always against the poor. Chavez is always for the poor."

Chavez was the only speaker at the event, which lasted nearly two hours.

Across the river border in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo, a rowdy group of anti-American demonstrators scuffled with bystanders and shattered windows at an American fast-food restaurant. The incident underscored tensions there as Bush arrived on Friday night from neighbouring Brazil and was driven in a bullet-proof limousine to his hotel.

"Exterminate the Empire!" a masked woman spray-painted on a business facade in Montevideo. But there were no reports of serious injuries as the visit began with Uruguay's first left-wing president, Tabare Vazquez, who seeks greater trade with Washington.

Latin America tour

Chavez said Bush's five-nation tour would fail to improve America's image and dismissed his pledges of US aid as a cynical attempt to "confuse" Latin Americans.

On Argentine state television, the Venezuelan leader on Friday, said: "It seems he's just now discovered that poverty exists in the region".

Hugo Chavez delivers a speech during a rally held against George Bush in Buenos Aires [AFP]

At the stadium rally, about 20,000 people, including men and women with children in tow, applauded Chavez.

Claudio Hernandez, a Chilean, said: "We are here to show our support of Chavez and our repudiation of Bush and imperialism. We are against Bush because of his oil wars and his other policies."

Anti-American and anti-Bush sentiments run high in the countries on Bush's tour, particularly over the war in Iraq and US trade negotiations.

During his first stop in Sao Paulo, Brazil, riot police fired tear gas and clubbed some protesters after more than 6,000 people held a largely peaceful protest march on Thursday.

In Asuncion, Paraguay, a few dozen pro-Chavez supporters turned up outside the US embassy in that capital to protest against Bush on Friday - even though the US chief was not stopping there.

Anti-Bush sentiment

In Argentina, many still blame Washington for tolerating the country's brutal military regimes of 1976-1983, when thousands of dissidents were tortured and killed.

The organisers of Chavez's rally included Mercedes Merono of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a group still searching for sons and daughters who vanished after being arrested under military rule.

Sao Paulo's military police on Thursday took action against anti-Bush demonstrators [AFP]

Merono said: "This counter-rally is extremely important. Bush seeks to take advantage of Latin America while Chavez supports the region's independence."

Police put down violent protests in Colombia in advance of Bush's visit there, and in Guatemala, Mayan leaders announced that Indian priests will purify the sacred archaeological site of Iximche to eliminate "bad spirits" after Bush visits there on Monday.

Juan Tiney, a Guatemalan activist, said: "That a person like [Bush], with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offence for the Mayan people."

Bush wraps up his trip next week in Mexico, where a handful of protesters demonstrated on Friday outside the US embassy.

Source

Further Reading:

Bush won't engage in fight with Chavez

President's Radio Address (March 10, 2007 ) Audio

Unity a Little Music

Palestinians: We have asked for peace many times and Israel rejects. You say we have to play by your music. Recognize our oppressor’s and renounce violence, but what about your side, Israel?

Israel: You still do not exist, except to us as little rats to be exterminated behind our barbed wire. We tell everyone God promised this country to us so it is easier to commit murder and do as we will, not you! Why do you think we refuse peace?

Palestinians: What about Unity and Peace for everyone?

Israel: All for us and you can either leave or die, your choice. We will never accept unity or peace on equal terms.

Abbas-Olmert Summit Set

A Palestinian boy runs away from burning tires during clashes with Israeli soldiers at the Kalandia checkpoint, near Ramallah, on Friday. (EPA)

Hisham Abu Taha & Mohammed Mar’i, Arab News

GAZA CITY, 10 March 2007 — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will meet tomorrow, officials said, but both sides sought to play down the chances of progress.

Olmert has vowed to boycott the Palestinian unity government that Abbas is forming with Hamas unless it recognizes Israel, renounces violence and accepts interim peace deals as demanded by the Quartet of Middle East mediators.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said after Friday prayers the unity government could be unveiled as early as Monday, once Abbas returns to the Gaza Strip and finalizes the Cabinet lineup.

“The meeting is definitely on Sunday,” Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said of the planned summit between Abbas and Olmert, their third since December.

Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin said some details of the meeting had yet to be finalized. “It will most likely be Sunday,” she said.

At the meeting, Olmert will tell Abbas the new government must meet the demands of the Quartet, Israeli officials said.

Olmert will also ask Abbas to account for $100 million in Palestinian tax money which Israel transferred to him earlier this year. Some Israeli officials questioned whether the money was used as promised.

Abbas will try to convince Olmert to soften his opposition to the unity government and is expected to raise the possibility of expanding a shaky Gaza truce to the occupied West Bank, Palestinian officials said.

Israeli officials say they will not consider expanding the cease-fire until Palestinians stop firing rockets from the Gaza Strip.

Some Palestinian fighters oppose expanding the truce and Haniyeh said he was unaware of any plans for Hamas to call on other factions to “broaden the calm.”

Senior Hamas lawmaker Mushir Al-Masri said Hamas and other fighter groups would not go along with Gaza’s truce being extended to the occupied West Bank unless Israel first halted all military operations and stopped excavations near Islam’s third holiest site in Jerusalem.

“There can be no talk about calm as long as the digging and harm to Al-Aqsa continued and as long as the Zionist aggression continued,” Masri said, referring to the Israeli archaeological excavations near the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem’s Old City.

Israel says the dig will do no harm to the holy sites on the plaza, which overlooks Judaism’s Western Wall.

The unity government agreement contains a vague promise to “respect” previous Israeli-Palestinian pacts. But it does not commit the incoming government to abide by those pacts, nor to recognize Israel and renounce violence.

Abbas said on Thursday the unity government was “99 percent” agreed but would not be announced until next week. “I can confirm that the remaining distance to forming a national unity government is short,” Haniyeh said yesterday. “These are simple matters and we will finish them when the president (Abbas) returns to Gaza on Monday.”

Abbas and Olmert held a three-way summit last month with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that was overshadowed by differences over the power-sharing deal.

Rice is expected to return to the region for separate talks with Olmert and Abbas later this month.

The FBI's lawbreaking is tied directly to President Bush

March 9, 2007

(updated below - updated again - Update III)

Multiple media outlets are focusing on the unsurprising story that the FBI seems to have been abusing its powers under the Patriot Act to issue so-called "national security letters" (NSLs), whereby the FBI is empowered to obtain a whole array of privacy-infringing records without any sort of judicial oversight or subpoena process. In particular, the FBI has failed to comply with the legal obligations imposed by Congress, when it re-authorized the Patriot Act in early 2006, which required the FBI to report to Congress on the use of these letters.

That the FBI is abusing its NSL power is entirely unsurprising (more on that below), but the real story here -- and it is quite significant -- has not even been mentioned by any of these news reports. The only person (that I've seen) to have noted the most significant aspect of these revelations is Silent Patriot at Crooks & Liars, who very astutely recalls that the NSL reporting requirements imposed by Congress were precisely the provisions which President Bush expressly proclaimed he could ignore when he issued a "signing statement" as part of the enactment of the Patriot Act's renewal into law. Put another way, the law which the FBI has now been found to be violating is the very law which George Bush publicly declared he has the power to ignore.

It was The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage who first drew attention to the Patriot Act signing statement in a typically superb article, back in March, 2006, which reported:

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."

Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "

The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.

When a country is ruled by an individual who repeatedly and openly arrogates unto himself the power to violate the law, and specifically proclaims that he is under no obligation to account to Congress or anyone else concerning the exercise of radical new surveillance powers such as NSLs, it should come as absolutely no surprise that agencies under his control freely break the law. The culture of lawlessness which the President has deliberately and continuously embraced virtually ensures, by design, that any Congressional limits on the use of executive power will be violated.

That NSLs are a dangerous and oversight-less instrument which entail enormous potential for abuse is hardly a new revelation. But those who tried to warn of such dangers were tarred and feathered as allies of the Terrorists, people who wanted to prevent the Commander-in-Chief from protecting the American people. Who else would possibly express concerns about The Patriot Act?

As a result of that commonplace, debate-precluding cartoon campaign, Russ Feingold -- the only Senator to vote against the original enactment of the Patriot Act -- was able to convince only nine of his fellow Democratic Senators to oppose re-authorization of the Patriot Act. And though the media aided the White House in obscuring the substantive objections he raised to that bill, Feingold repeatedly emphasized that he was in favor of many of the provisions of the Patriot Act, but was concerned about the lack of safeguards to protect Americans from abuse -- specifically the standard-less and oversight-less NSLs (as he said then: "we need to place safeguards on the broad NSL power and to put a sunset on that power so that Congress can make sure it's not abused"). But as usual, such concerns were drowned out by manipulative appeals to the need of the Commander-in-Chief to Protect Us from The Terrorists.

Back in November, 2005, when the re-authorization of the Patriot Act was being "debated," the abuse by the FBI of these NSLs was documented in an excellent expose by The Washington Post's Barton Gellman:

The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans. . . . .

A national security letter cannot be used to authorize eavesdropping or to read the contents of e-mail. But it does permit investigators to trace revealing paths through the private affairs of a modern digital citizen. The records it yields describe where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work.

In the same Post article, the genuine threat posed by this invasive instrument was made clear by Bob Barr:

"The beef with the NSLs is that they don't have even a pretense of judicial or impartial scrutiny," said former representative Robert L. Barr Jr. (Ga.), who finds himself allied with the American Civil Liberties Union after a career as prosecutor, CIA analyst and conservative GOP stalwart. "There's no checks and balances whatever on them. It is simply some bureaucrat's decision that they want information, and they can basically just go and get it."

One of the very few attempts over the last six years from Congress to impose at least some safeguards on the use of radical new executive powers was to require that the FBI report to Congress on the issuance of NSLs, so that Congress could at least know about (and, theoretically, take action in response to) any abuse of these powers. But the minute George Bush got what he wanted -- re-authorization of the Patriot Act -- he proclaimed for all the world to hear that he had the power to violate those provisions and refuse to comply with such safeguards. And now it is revealed that the FBI has, in fact, violated the very provisions which the President proclaimed he could violate. Perhaps someone other than Silent Patriot might want to take note of that connection.

The Bush administration has created vast and permanent data bases to collect and store evidence revealing the private activities of millions of American citizens. When the FBI obtains information essentially in secret -- with no judicial oversight -- that information is stored in those data bases. This is all being done by the executive branch with no safeguards and no oversight, and the little oversight that Congress has required has been defiantly and publicly brushed aside by the President, who sees legal requirements as nothing more than suggestions or options which he will recognize only if he chooses to. That is the constitutional crisis that we have endured under virtually the entire Bush presidency -- the crisis which, for the most part, our mainstream political and media elite have collectively decided not to acknowledge.

The story here is not merely that the FBI is breaking the law and abusing these powers. That has long been predicted and, to some degree, even documented. The story is that the FBI is ignoring the very legal obligations which George Bush vowed were not obligations at all, but mere suggestions to be accepted only if he willed it. It is yet another vivid example proving that the President's ideology of lawlessness exists not merely in theory, but as the governing doctrine under which the executive branch has acted, time and again and as deliberately as possible, in violation of whatever laws it deems inconvenient.

UPDATE: Russ Feingold issued the following statement this morning regarding these revelations (via e-mail):

This report proves that "trust us" doesn't cut it when it comes to the government's power to obtain Americans' sensitive business records without a court order and without any suspicion that they are tied to terrorism or espionage. I fought hard to prevent abuses of this power when the Senate debated reauthorizing the Patriot Act last year. I will work with Senator Leahy and Senator Rockefeller to make sure the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees conduct full and prompt investigations, and I will press for quick Senate action on sensible reforms to help prevent future abuses of National Security Letters.

One of the principal reasons why Sen. Feingold's warnings about the obvious dangers of re-authorization were so easily ignored was the media's tolerance for Op-Eds like this one -- published by The Washington Post in November, 2005 -- from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Needless to say, the first sentence of his argument urging re-authorization of the Patriot Act was this: "On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists inspired by hatred murdered nearly 3,000 innocent Americans."

Gonzales went on to brand as "unfounded" concerns over abuse of the powers granted by the Patriot Act, and said that this was the choice the country faced: "Congress must act now or risk bringing terrorism prevention to a halt. . . . Congress must act immediately and reauthorize the Patriot Act before the men and women in law enforcement lose the tools they need to keep us safe."

As always, the Bush administration presented a choice: (a) succumb to the Leader's will by vesting in him the unchecked powers that he demands, or (b) help The Terrorists attack and kill innocent Americans. That binary, exploitive formula was promoted by the media and it single-handedly prevented rational examination of any of these vital issues over the last six years. The FBI's illegal and abusive conduct is the direct by-product of that manipulation, and it is but a tiny fraction of the systematic law-breaking we have endured since 2001 at the highest levels of our government.

UPDATE II: The full report by the DOJ's Inspector General can be found, in .pdf form, here (h/t sysprog). This report was required by Congress when it re-authorized the Patriot Act, and it covers the FBI's use of NSLs for the period of 2003-2005; the second report, covering 2006, is due at the end of the year.

The report characterized the FBI's conduct as constituting "serious misuse" of the NSL powers, and it is suffuse with findings of the FBI's irregularities and improprieties. Several noteworthy aspects of the report, beginning with an illustrative passage of the report's findings:

And what is done with the information obtained by the FBI? It is stored on government data bases which thousands of government employees can access:

More disturbingly, NSLs are being issued with much greater frequency to obtain the records of "U.S. persons" (citizens and legal residents) rather than aliens:

And while the report concluded that it could not find that these violations were deliberate (hardly a dispositive finding coming, as it does, from the Bush Justice Department), the report emphasized that its investigation into the existence of criminality was itself often hampered by the FBI's failure to maintain proper records concerning its use of NSLs:

The report indicates that there is no consistency, virtually no controls, and continuous violations of legal and regulatory guidelines for how the FBI is using these extremely invasive NSL weapons. The information that the FBI is gathering on Americans simply gets deposited into widely accessed and permanent data bases.

And this report, as indicated, is from the Bush Justice Department. But this is the country we have created for ourselves by allowing the President to insist upon not only more and more invasive powers, but the ability to exercise those powers in virtual secrecy and with no limits. And the few limits which Congress has imposed are simply ignored because the administration knows that -- at least thus far -- there have been no consequences, and little public outcry, prompted by its law-breaking.

The information being gathered and stored on the private lives of American citizens by the federal government is vast and growing -- and that is the conclusion compelled by what we know about what this government has been doing. This is an administration that has operated behind an unprecedented veil of secrecy, and it is undoubtedly the case that there are whole surveillance programs about which we have not learned. Do Americans really want the federal government compiling electronic dossiers on them with virtually no safeguards and no oversight?

UPDATE III: This Daily Kos diarist makes the fair point that it is not technically accurate to say that Congress required the FBI itself to report to Congress on its NSL activities. Instead, Congress required that the Justice Department file the report which was disclosed today, the purpose of which is to report to Congress on the FBI's NSL activities. That point is true as far as it goes, but the fact remains that there is a clear connection between, on the one hand, the FBI's failure to comply with the legal restrictions governing NSLs and its accompanying documentation requirements, and on the other, President Bush's proclamation that those requirements can be ignored.

In other words, the Inspector General technically complied with the Congressional requirement by filing this report, but the report itself was woefully incomplete as a result of the FBI's failure to document its activities as it was required to do. And where the report was able to reach definitive conclusions despite the FBI's record-keeping failures, it concluded that the FBI has been repeatedly violating legal requirements governing NSLs in numerous ways.

-- Glenn Greenwald

Kidnapped to Guantánamo Bay

The Road to Guantánamo

March 8, 2007

After being wrongfully arrested, Moazzam Begg was tortured and held in Guantánamo Bay without trial for almost three years. He speaks to Miles Johnson about the darker side of the War on Terror

The War on Terror has marked many lives. Since the mass murder inflicted upon the United States in 2001 the world has witnessed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in which hundreds of thousands have been killed. It is rare for a night time news update not to include reports of casualties in a conflict that, while concentrated in the Middle East, has no clearly defined boundaries or participants. Yet as each night sees the pity of war beamed into living rooms, prompting ever louder public outrage as the carnage continues, there is another front in the War on Terror: one in which the cries of the victims, hooded and bound, are hidden from public view.

Just after midnight on 31 January 2002, Moazzam Begg was snatched from his rented house in Islamabad by the Pakistani security services, handcuffed, hooded and bundled into the back of a 4x4. It was the beginning of a journey that would eventually lead to Guantánamo Bay, the top security American detention camp in which he would become one of nine Britons held without trial in a place described by Amnesty International as “the Gulag of our times”.

Born in Birmingham to Pakistani parents, Moazzam Begg grew up in a Britain more multicultural than the country his father had emigrated to decades before. Living in a mixed area he attended a Jewish school, his father thinking it would be more suitable than the local comprehensive, and went on to study computing before working in an Islamic bookshop. It was at this time, after the end of the Afghan-Soviet war, that conflict began to erupt in Chechnya and the break-up of Yugoslavia saw thousands of Bosnian Muslims subjected to Serbian ethnic cleansing. Begg wanted to do something to alleviate the suffering of Muslims, and first crossed the border into Afghanistan during a family holiday to Pakistan in 1993. He returned several times during the next eight years to work on aid projects, happening to be there with his wife and children when planes hit the World Trade Center.

“When the attacks of September 11th happened I wasn’t aware at first how huge the reaction would be,” he says. On being warned that the United States planned to bomb the country Begg fled over the border to Pakistan. “It was only when I was kidnapped that I realised the fact that they can do this means we are in a completely different world now. The United States of America was doing what it always had the capacity to do, that is to dictate its orders to the rest of the world.” Being a British citizen he was confident that his country would intervene, a belief that was to be crushingly betrayed. “I was convinced at first that no matter how bad it got the British would always come to the rescue, but that hope was dashed when I discovered that they were utterly involved the whole way through. That was the bitterest pill for me to swallow.” His interrogators claimed he was involved in funding Al Qaeda, an allegation that has never been proved and one that Begg vehemently denies.

After questioning he was taken to Bagram airbase in Afghanistan along with other detainees destined for transportation to Guantánamo.

There he was subjected to a torture practice called “hogtying” during interrogation by members of the CIA and FBI. “Hogtying is when you have your hands tied behind your back and then tied to your legs with your ankles shackled as well”, he says. “In that position they then kicked and punched me and left me there for hours before coming back to interrogate me again”. The interrogators also placed a bag over his head despite knowing he suffered from asthma. Begg also alleges that in Bagram he saw two prisoners beaten so badly that he believes they died from their injuries. “They would also cover people’s faces in cellophane, covering their heads completely, and then pour water over not to drown them but to make them feel like they were drowning”, he says. “The captors kicked and punched people, using neck holds and twisting arms. The American government has always argued that this would never cause death even though, in my experience, it had caused death on a number of occasions. As far as they were concerned this was not really torture, they were just being a bit rough with prisoners.”

After months of interrogation he was transported in a hood and chains to Guantánamo Bay. The American government has classified prisoners in Guantánamo not as prisoners of war, a status that would have guaranteed their rights under the Geneva Convention, but as “enemy combatants”. This status sees prisoners neither granted the rights of captive soldiers nor the civil rights given to prisoners in criminal cases. In effect, they are without rights. Begg notes how “an Egyptian prisoner was so scared to go there that he said he would rather be taken to his country where the security services are notorious for their use of severe torture.”

Held indefinitely in diplomatic limbo, thousands of miles from home and without access to his family, he was isolated from the outside world. “I think even the most trivial things were immensely important to me. You can imagine that we were completely cut off from outside, from any news or knowledge at all,” he says. “Anything, even a football game, things that you overheard guards talking about became very important. I heard a bit about Iraq and even Abu Ghraib and also that they renamed French Fries “Freedom Fries” and that they were pouring French wines into the drains in American cities.”

He noted that many of the guards seemed to be deeply troubled by what they were being ordered to do. “In Guantánamo they were having victory celebrations and victory dinners continually to boost troop moral. But when I spoke to guards on an individual basis it was clear that especially the younger ones, the 18 or 19 year-olds, were severely affected by their duties. To my knowledge at least one soldier had committed suicide. They were said to have what is called “combat stress”. But in Guantánamo there is no war going on; it is not a combat zone.

“But in their minds many of them don’t feel what they are doing is wrong”, he continued. “They think it is justified. If you imagine the tier system present, not everyone knows every piece of the puzzle. This is part of the captivity process. There is then one person at the top who knows everything. He is then told that what is being done is completely justified as it is in the interests of national security and that these people are terrorists and killers. Just take our word for it. There is no accountability and this allows them to get away with anything.”

The British government, also present in Guantánamo, did nothing to intervene. “MI5 were always quite cold in their involvement”, he says. “One of their officers did seem slightly troubled but they were never troubled enough to say, ‘these are our citizens, this can’t be happening. You can interrogate them but you cannot treat them like this.’”

After nearly three years of imprisonment Moazzam Begg was released without pardon or apology. The governments of the United States and Britain did little more than shrug their shoulders. “I did a radio interview the day after the July 7th bombings in which I condemned them” he says. “MI5 phoned the next day saying they had heard me on the radio and asking if they could meet me. The person I spoke to was this woman who the last time I saw her was in Guantánamo Bay in isolation. She said, ‘Oh I don’t know if you remember me.’ I said, ‘Well how could I forget?’ She expressed regret for all that had happened and said, ‘I can only imagine what you have been through’. I was shocked at how patronising she could be when she knew what was happening the whole time. That is the job of intelligence agents, to extract information by any means possible. Morals and scruples don’t come into consideration.”

Since his release Begg has vigorously campaigned for human rights causes and against the continued imprisonment of the remaining 435 detainees. The US government has indicated that around 250 of these will continue to be held indefinitely. Throughout his wrongful imprisonment Moazzam Begg retained his dignity and humanity, values that in their fight against international terrorism both the United States and our own government have irreversibly tainted. His story serves as a stark reminder of the hypocrisy of those who claim to be safeguarding our “liberty” and “freedom” with torture and shackles.

March on the Pentagon!

Introducing the March on the Pentagon

Saturday, March 17, 2007

~ 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 march on the Pentagon ~

~ 4th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war ~

~ Where we will assemble on March 17th

~Download flyers

On March 17, 2007, the 4th anniversary of the start of the criminal invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of people from around the country will descend on the Pentagon in a mass demonstration to demand: U.S. Out of Iraq Now! 2007 is the 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 anti-war march to the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. The message of the 1967 march was "From Protest to Resistance," and marked a turning point in the development of a countrywide mass movement.

In the coming days and weeks, thousands of organizations and individuals will begin mobilizing for the upcoming March on the Pentagon. Organizing committees and transportation centers are being established to bring people to the March on the Pentagon.

We will assemble at 12 noon at Constitution Gardens. Click here for more information.

Click here to read the full ANSWER statement on why we're marching.

Say NO to war for empire!

Join the march on the Pentagon to demand an end to the war and bring the troops home!

Muslim Women Read the Koran at Al-Aqsa Masjid

Backdropped by the Dome of the Rock, Muslim women read the Koran inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in Jerusalem old city 20 Febraury 2007 .(PEDRO UGARTE)

Israelis 'use girl as human shield'

A Palestinian was pictured apparently being used by Israeli troops as a human shield [EPA]

March 8, 2007

Israeli soldiers have used an 11-year-old Palestinian girl as a "human shield" during an operation against fighters in the West Bank last week, an Israeli human rights group has said.

The Israeli army on Thursday said it was checking the information from the B'Tselem group, which monitors Israeli actions in the occupied territory.

B'Tselem said the girl, Jihan Daadush, told its interviewers that Israeli soldiers had entered her family home and questioned her and her relatives about the location of armed men who had fired at them during the raid.

'I was afraid'

The soldiers, she said, threatened to arrest her unless she led them to a nearby house.

"[A soldier] ordered me to go towards the house," B'Tselem quoted the girl as saying.

"Three soldiers walked behind me. When we reached the house, there were a lot of soldiers. The soldiers ordered me to go inside the house and I went inside."

B'Tselem said Jihan told them the soldiers asked about the rooms of the house. There was no mention in the report of whether troops found fighters inside.

The girl said two soldiers then returned her home.

"[One of the soldiers] told me, 'Thank you, but don't tell anyone,'" the girl said, according to B'Tselem.

"I was afraid they would kill me or put me in jail. I am still afraid the soldiers will invade the city again and take me away."

Shot dead

B'tselem also said the army had used a 15-year-old Palestinian boy and a Palestinian man for a similar purpose during the five-day raid in Nablus.

During the incursion, troops shot dead a Palestinian civilian who had observed the raid from his rooftop.

Soldiers also detained 11 suspected fighters.

The Israeli army ended the operation on March 1.

Israeli law bans the military from using people as human shields.

Source

How Far Have We Came?

The Man Who Looked On His Face In A Mirror

Have we gone this far, in our destruction?

David Rovics New Orleans

I wrote this while in a state of sleep deprivation in Beirut, Lebanon, in early September, 2005, and I recorded it at the studios of Amwaj Radio 91.5 in Ramallah, Occupied Palestine. You will find the song at the top of the "MP3 MUSIC" section of www.soundclick.com/davidrovics along with everything else I've recorded since 1998. As with all of my music, lyrics, etc., feel free to use it for any purpose and spread the word about the song if you're so inclined!

The Stain of Tears
This is a sculpture in the Metairie Cemetery.

America’s Baghdad

New Orleans residents march towards City Hall during a protest against violent crimes in New Orleans, January 11, 2007. New Orleans, the 'Big Easy' city famous for its good times and relaxed attitude, has become the Big Uneasy in recent weeks as its murder count has soared and anger grown at local leaders unable to stop the violence. (Sean Gardner/Reuters)

Part 1


Part 2

Abbas, Haniyeh at gridlock, unable to agree on minister of the interior, talks to resume on Wednesday

March 7, 2007

Gaza - Ma'an - Palestinian sources said that the consultations between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh will be resumed on Wednesday.

Ma'an learned from informed sources that Abbas presented 12 names for ministerial posts, including former judges and well-known political independent figures for the post of minister of the interior.

Amongst the candidates were former judge Hamdan Abadla from Khan Younis, in the Gaza Strip, the former deputy for the Attorney General, Judge Mazin Salim from Gaza City, journalist and former Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) Central Committee member Talal Awkal, Director of Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza, Raji As Sourani, General Abdul-Razzaq Al-Yahia and former general Suleiman Hillis.

The Hamas movement nominated Hammoudah Jarwan, General Nasser Muslih, both of whom were rejected by Abbas.

Yesterday Abbas and Haniyeh met and discussed the issue of the comprehensive truce with the Israelis and the reformation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the National Security Council.

Alia Muhammad Baker - Chief Librarian of Al Basrah (Iraq) Central Library, Cultural Heroine

by Julie L. Baumler

Iraq has a long and proud history of libraries. The Sumerians, an ancient people who lived in what is now Iraq, invented the first written language almost six thousand years ago. They wrote with a reed on clay tablets in a script we call cuneiform. The first libraries consisted of stacks of these clay tablets.

In the 13th Century C.E., Baghdad was a major intellectual center, featuring 36 public libraries and numerous private collections, one of which had a catalog that itself required 10 volumes.

It's been said that history belongs to the victors, and there is a long and sad tradition of burning or otherwise destroying libraries and other cultural treasures during wars and invasions. The 500,000 plus volumes of the great library of Alexandria, Egypt were burned in the third century, destroying priceless treasures. In the thirteenth century, Mongol invaders burned the Nizamiyah library in Baghdad and threw so many books into the the Tigris river that the water was reported to have turned an inky blue.

Alia Muhammad Baker, the chief librarian of Al Basrah Central Library; the Basra, Iraq public library; worked hard to make her library a community gathering place and resource. She was proud of her country's history and the priceless heritage provided by the books in her library. As a child she was impressed and horrified by the story of the burning of Baghdad's Nizamiyah library. When the invasion of Iraq started in early 2003, she worried about the safety of her library's collection. She asked the Iraqi officials for permission to move the books to a safer location and was denied.

When government offices moved into the library and an anti-aircraft gun was placed on the roof, Mrs. Baker started smuggling as many books as her car would hold home every evening. When the British invaded Basra, the government employees left and the library furnishings were looted. Mrs. Baker convinced the owner of the restaurant next door to library for help, and soon neighbors pitched in to help passing books over the wall to safe storage in the restaurant's dining room. The library was burned down before all the books could be saved, but due to Mrs. Baker's efforts, 30,000 books were saved. Once things calmed down in Basra, Mrs. Baker and her husband rented a truck and distributed the books among library employees, friends, and of course, their own home. The library was rebuilt and reopened in 2004 and Mrs. Baker was reinstated as chief librarian.

Mrs. Baker's heroism was first documented in an article by Saila Dewan in the New York Times. Two fabulous children's books followed. The first, Alia's Mission: Saving the Books of Iraq by Mark Alan Stamaty is a graphic novel. Alia's Mission is aimed at readers in the 3rd through 7th grade range, but as an adult I found it interesting and well worth reading. I'm not really a fan of graphic novels, but I loved this one. I particularly liked the page of further information on the history of libraries in Iraq and the Middle East. I also liked how it followed the documented events and only added fictional touches in the form of dialog. The second, Jeanette Winter's The Librarian of Basra, is a beautiful and lavishly illustrated picture book. It does not discuss the war and political issues in detail, but would be an appropriate conversation starter for younger children. The Librarian of Basra is a 2006 American Library Association (ALA), Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) Notable Children's Book. I did not enjoy it as much as Stamaty's book, but would definitely recommend it for younger children and those who particularly enjoy the art of the picture book.

Photos of war damage to the Basra Central Library and other Iraqi Libraries

For the World in Love Are My Children

"Salman Abu Atwa. Negev Desert Patrol. Palestine, [October 1946]." The World of Allah, p. 129.

In The Distant Winds of Time

Originally Published: May 06, 2006

by Housewife4Palestine

The memorable sounds
Of an Ancient land
Whispering softly in spring winds.
Tender calls of sorrow
Due to pain of tortures
The beatings of death.

Chariots drumming on cobblestones
Shouts of men
From distant countries
Take booty from another
Or a reprieve in security
Dissolving strife.

The elderly man sits solemnly
With his young granddaughter
On a work worn knee
Teaching the wisdom of sages
From his fading existence.

The humble soul
Hunched on a tired staff
In the pastures of humanity
Listening to the parallels
Passing on
Wondering what his voice
And his life will be
In the distant winds of time.

Commentary:

It is not often one can celebrate an anniversary, for me this one is the one year mark for this blog page. Actually, it all began March 5th, with the hope to make a difference to hearing the Palestinian voice in English.

For myself, it is a different view sometimes because I am a refugee of a war that has gone on much to long and continues to destroy countries as well as murder countless numbers of people. Which at this point and time lingers towards a full scale global war; that in my opinion needs to stop before needlessly the world suffers from a form extinction?

Since starting this page a year ago, I have been attacked and accused of countless things of my intentions or views that a far to may times was incorrect. For those who can actually see and understand, I thank you deeply from my heart.

I will readily admit, for global peace, the political system known as Zionism needs to be stopped for they not only murder the Palestinian people, but with their Allies in the West threaten all people of the world.

Where the counter measure would be full global peace for all people and all religions, where the world once again will never hunger and all the suffering for humanity would stop.

The world as it stands today is unraveling like thread with the full implosion to and abyss, that if it continues could very well threaten the core existence for all humanity and this would bring about every language to every culture in the world more suffering; then their begging to God for help.

To smell the stench of war and death is needless to the wellbeing and love for all mankind.

Finally, I have seen in other blog’s where they talk about themselves on and anniversary post, but for me this is fruitless because I am only one voice to hope, standing in a desert with my arms out stretched like a woman hugging her children. For the world in love, are my children.

War Solution or Another Broken Olive Branch

Israel Should Embrace the Revived Arab Plan

March 6, 2007

by Linda Heard

The 2002 Arab peace initiative is to be revived at a summit to be held in Riyadh at the end of March. It’s been agreed upon by all 22 Arab League members, thus representing an opportunity not to be missed.

Its first airing during an Arab League summit held in Beirut came just prior to Israel’s former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon going on a West Bank rampage in response to a spate of Palestinian bomb attacks and it was subsequently shelved. Its resurrection is long overdue.

It’s a simple plan that strictly adheres to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. It confirms that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of Arab nations.

Under the plan, Israel must confirm that it, too, seeks peace and in return for recognition and security it must withdraw from all land occupied during the 1967 War, accept the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and achieve a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem under the terms of UN Resolution 194.

The main sticking point from Israel’s point of view is the reference to UN General Assembly Resolution 194 — in particular, the following paragraph — Paragraph 11 — that relates to the rights of Palestinians displaced in 1948.

“Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has said the Arab plan would not be considered unless demands for Palestinians to return to their homes within Israel proper were dropped.

However, Arab League chief Amr Moussa told Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo last Sunday that “the Arab peace initiative expresses an Arab consensus and will not be redrafted as demanded by some foreign powers.”

He warned that “maneuvering and watering down” the plan would be “a strategic mistake” that could lead to new bloodshed.

The right of return has long stood as an obstacle to peace. Israel is concerned about maintaining a demographic balance so that Jews outnumber non-Jews. Fears are that should there be more Arab Israelis than Jewish Israelis Israel would no longer be able to label itself a Jewish state and would have to fend off calls for a one-state solution.

In reality, even if Resolution 194 was implemented it’s unlikely there would be a massive influx of Palestinians armed with rusting keys to their grandparents’ homes or yellowing title deeds.

It’s more probable that Palestinians would gravitate instead to their own fledgling state or those who are comfortably placed in their host countries with businesses, jobs and homes would be likely to stay where they are.

A Palestinian state should mean that Palestinians wherever they happen to be would have the right to live in Palestine and carry a Palestinian passport. All should, however, be recompensed for property grabbed or demolished by Israelis over the decades.

In essence, Israelis need peace more than Arabs. For instance, if Israel had embraced the initiative in 2002 they wouldn’t have been at the losing end of a war with Lebanon last summer or trying to get back soldiers detained by Hezbollah and Hamas.

If Iran signs off on the initiative — as some newspapers have indicated it would following President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent talks with King Abdullah — Israelis would have nothing to worry about from that quarter. And those US senators who are gaining political capital by swearing to defend Israel from a potential Iranian attack would have to put a sock in it.

In short, it would be a win-win situation for all concerned. The Israelis would achieve security and increased prosperity. The Palestinians would be free from humiliation and torment with their own state. And Arab nations would get new trading partners and benefit from a stable, conflict-free region.

Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it? That’s because it probably is.

How would the US react to a cozy tête-à-tête between Israelis and Arabs leaving Washington out of the loop? Is a comprehensive Middle East peace in America’s strategic interests? Put simply, what excuse would the US have for remaining in the region playing policeman if all in the garden was lovely?

Signs that the Bush administration isn’t out to further better relations between Israelis and Arabs came recently when, according to reports, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was instructed by the White House not to pursue talks with Syria. The only way to persuade the Israelis into accepting the plan is for the entire region and beyond to speak with one voice.

Turkey, whose foreign minister said his country wants closer ties with the Arab world, could be a trusted mediator. The Iranian leadership should assist by publicly backing the initiative.

In that event, the new Palestinian unity government along with all Palestinian factions should agree to recognize the new pre-1967 borders of the State of Israel.

This is a historic initiative that should be taken seriously by all involved parties and their allies. If Washington attempts to block it, it should be ignored or shouted down.

It’s time for the US to stop playing with peoples’ lives and liberty under the guise of being an honest-broker to further its own strategic goals. It should allow the peoples of this region to solve their own problems and dictate their own future.

Enough conflict and bloodshed! There is another way so let’s kick aside the obstacles and grasp it with both hands.

United States/Israel Steps Out of Line with Arab Bank

United States and Israel sue Arab Bank for facilitating aid to Palestinians

March 5, 2007

Bethlehem - Ma'an - United States daily, the Los Angeles Times has reported that the Jordan-based Arab Bank is being sued by Americans and Israelis that were injured by suicide bombings, or other clashes in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

Arab Bank is one of the largest and most influential Middle Eastern banks, but for the last three years has been the subject of criminal investigation conducted by the United States Justice Department. The New York branch of the Arab Bank has been accused of transferring funds to so-called 'terror' organisations in the Palestinian territories. These named 'terror' organisations include the democratically-elected Hamas political movement and Islamic Jihad.

The Justice Department are investigating the flow of dozens of millions of US dollars from wealthy Saudi Arabians to Palestinian groups. The prosecutors have alleged that some of the money was given as a compensation for the families of suicide bombers.

The LA Times quoted Stephen Kroll, a 'terrorism' finance specialist as saying that the case "will give people a better understanding of the way money moves in that part of the world to support Hamas".

He continued, "It's important in focusing the public's attention on the issue of what is and what is not acceptable for banks to be involved in".

In 2005, Arab Bank paid the United States federal government $24m US in fines for violating US laws created to prevent 'terrorist' financing and for failing to report 'suspicious' transactions.

The prosecuting lawyers have accused Arab Bank of facilitating acts of terrorism through providing bank accounts to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, among others. The prosecutors have also criticised Arab Bank for administrating a Palestinian Authority policy of compensating martyrs and the lawsuit has deemed that this provides an incentive for so-called 'terrorist' attacks.

Arab Bank stated that they have never knowingly supported acts of 'terrorism'. Bank officials pointed out that they provide an important financial service in the occupied Palestinian territories, which are being economically suffocated by Israeli policies and the embargo on the Palestinian government. The officials said that they act as intermediaries between banks representing Saudi donors and Palestinian organisations and individuals who are being compensated for their suffering at the hands of Israelis.

LA Times quoted a Washington-based spokesperson for Arab Bank, Robert Chlopak, as saying that "Arab Bank had reason to believe these were humanitarian payments or social welfare payments, and there was certainly nothing in any of the public information that suggested to the bank at the time that these were in any way [meant] to induce terrorism or reward terrorism."

The United States Treasury Department claimed that after the United States government had labelled the Palestinian movements 'terrorist', Arab Bank had failed to review its accounts with the organisations or report 'suspicious' activity.

Some of the the initial allegations of the legal prosecution were based on documents seized by Israeli forces during raids on charities and organisations in the occupied Palestinian territories. The documents are alleged to contain records showing that Arab Bank provided financial services for Hamas and another 41 organisations linked to Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

According to court documents, Saudi government officials created two special fundraising committees to aid Palestinians in resisting the illegal Israeli occupation and conducted transactions through Arab Bank.

The prosecutors allege that the Saudi Committee for Aid to the Al Quds Intifada, declared the life of anyone who died as a martyr, or resisting Israel, worth 20,000 Saudi riyals, $5,000 US. They wired the sum to the families of deceased victims of the Israeli occupation through Arab Bank branches.

LA Times reports that the Saudi Committee made around 200,000 financial transfers for the Palestinian cause, which amounted to over $90m US. A vast proportion of that aid went to hospitals and social welfare programmes, to compensate those injured or imprisoned, or the families of those who fell victim to the Israeli occupation.

The Bush administration has expressed concerns about the activities of the Arab Bank.

Outrage Over ‘Israeli Killing of Captured Egyptians’

CAIRO, 5 March 2007 — Egypt summoned Israel’s envoy to Cairo yesterday after Israeli media allegations that the Israeli Army may have killed 250 captured Egyptian soldiers at the end of the 1967 Middle East war. Two ruling party lawmakers demanded the ambassador’s expulsion. Another called for a special parliamentary session for a declaration of war on the Jewish state.

Egyptians were outraged by an Israeli documentary film which, according to media reports, alleged an army unit led by Benjamin Ben Eliezer, now Israel’s infrastructure minister, may have killed 250 prisoners of war in the Sinai Peninsula rather than transferring them to POW camps.

Egypt’s deputy foreign minister for legal affairs, Abdel Aziz Seif Al-Nasr, said Egypt had summoned Israeli ambassador Shalom Cohen to demand an explanation for the contents of the documentary, aired on Israel’s Channel One television last week. Egypt also asked its ambassador in Tel Aviv to obtain a copy of the film from the Israeli government, he said.

Israeli media quoted Ben-Eliezer as denying Egyptian prisoners were executed. He said Palestinian gunmen were killed during the fighting, not Egyptian soldiers.

“The Israeli ambassador must leave Egypt,” said Mahmoud Salim, a lawmaker from President Hosni Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party. Another ruling party lawmaker, Alaa Hassanein, said: “I demand the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador and the withdrawal of the Egyptian ambassador from Israel.” A spokeswoman for Israel’s broadcasting authority had no immediate comment.

Salaam Al-Ruqi’i, an independent Egyptian lawmaker from the Sinai Peninsula, said: “The only way this can be eased is through a declaration of a state of war. We are still finding mass graves of Egyptian soldiers, and two months ago we extracted the remains of unarmed Egyptian soldiers and civilians from Sinai.”

US Cherokees vote to expel descendants of Intermarried Slaves and White's

March 4, 2007

WASHINGTON (AFP) -Native American Cherokees voted to expel descendants of black slaves from their tribe nation in a special election that has prompted charges of racism, according to returns made public early Sunday.

But a vote of 77 percent to 23 percent, the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma adopted Saturday an amendment to their constitution that strips membership from so-called "Freedmen," those descended from slaves once owned by Cherokees, blacks who were married to Cherokees and children of mixed-race families.

"The Cherokee people exercised the most basic democratic right, the right to vote," Chad Smith, Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation, said in a statement. "Their voice is clear as to who should be citizens of the Cherokee Nation. No one else has the right to make that determination."

However, opponents of the amendment say it was a racist project designed to deny the distribution of US government funds and tribal revenue to those with African-American heritage, US media reported.

"This is a sad chapter in Cherokee history," Taylor Keen, a Cherokee tribal council member who opposes the amendment, told the New York Times.

"But this is not my Cherokee Nation. My Cherokee Nation is one that honors all parts of her past."

Advocates of changing the 141-year-old treaty rules defining who is a Cherokee say the tribal nation has a sovereign right to decide citizenship and that other tribes base membership on blood lines.

The Cherokee Nation, which ranks as the second-largest tribe behind the Navajo, has some 250,000 to 270,000 members and is growing rapidly. Members are entitled to benefits from the US federal government and tribal services, including medical and housing aid and scholarships.

Cherokees, along with several other tribes, held black slaves and allied themselves with the Confederacy during the US civil war. After the war, the federal government in an 1866 treaty ordered the slaves freed.

In 1983, the Cherokee Nation expelled many descendants of slaves as members but a Cherokee tribunal ruled last year that the Freedmen were fully-fledged citizens with voting rights. That court decision prompted Saturday's special vote.

Native American tribes recognized by the United States government have the right to self-determination and authority similar to US states.

Election results will remain unofficial until certified by the Cherokee Nation Election Commission, but officials said percentages were not expected to change significantly.



Further Reading:

2007 SPECIAL ELECTION DATES