Sunday, May 3, 2009

UAE 'Torture' Scandal and Cover-up Sparks Outrage in the US

Published on Sunday, May 3, 2009 by Salon.com

UAE 'Torture' Scandal and Cover-up Sparks Outrage in the US

by Glenn Greenwald

As more videotapes emerge documenting the torture inflicted on numerous victims by Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan, a prince of the United Arab Emirates, the controversy is beginning to jeopardize the UAE's relationship with the United States [1], a country that absolutely loathes torture and demands real accountability for those who do it:

"I have more than two hours of video footage showing Sheikh Issa's involvement in the torture of more than 25 people," wrote Texas-based lawyer Anthony Buzbee in a letter obtained by the Observer.

The news of more torture videos involving Issa is another huge blow to the international image of the UAE . . . . The fresh revelations about Issa's actions will add further doubt to a pending nuclear energy deal between the UAE and the US. The deal, signed in the final days of George W Bush, is seen as vital for the UAE. It will see the US share nuclear energy expertise, fuel and technology in return for a promise to abide by non-proliferation agreements. But the deal needs to be recertified by the Obama administration and there is growing outrage in America over the tapes. Congressman James McGovern, a senior Democrat, has demanded that Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, investigate the matter and find out why US officials initially appeared to play down its significance.

The U.S. is a very tolerant nation, but the one thing we simply cannot abide is when a government fails adequately to investigate allegations of torture on the part of key officials and fails to hold them accountable. That's where we draw the line.

The UAE royal family claimed that they had investigated and resolved the matter and made sure that it would not happen again -- but when it comes to torture, we have made clear that such a "look-forward-not-backwards/reflection-not-retribution" mentality is morally outrageous and unacceptable -- from the UAE:

The authorities in the UAE have certainly mishandled the emergence of the initial torture tape. The 2004 tape was obtained by ABC News and shown on television in the US. The UAE at first said that the matter had been privately settled between Sheikh Issa and his victim. They also added that UAE police had followed all their rules and regulations properly.

But that position did not last long in the face of a wave of international revulsion at the brutality on display. The fierceness of the criticism eventually forced the UAE government to both condemn the tape and announce a new investigation. The government "unequivocally condemns the actions depicted on the video", the state-run news agency said last week. It added that a government human rights group in the Judicial Department would also now review the matter. . . .

Buzbee welcomed the developments, but expressed scepticism that the investigation was genuinely motivated, because the authorities had known about the tapes for several years. "I am sceptical about whether there will be a genuine investigation, given that various officials have been aware of these issues for many years and given the fact that members of the government were actually involved in, or covered up, the torture," he said.

Indeed. What kind of primitive, brutal country knows for years that its own powerful government officials participated in torture and then fails even to investigate what happened, let alone impose meaningful accountability on the torturers? The international community simply cannot tolerate acquiescence to that sort of evil. Note that the UAE apparently compensated the victims of the prince's torture, whereas the U.S. blocked [2] -- and continues to try to block [3] -- its own torture victims from even having a day in court.

Had Issa -- who ordered these torture sessions recorded -- only looked to the U.S. for civilized and moral leadership on such matters [4], he almost certainly could have avoided this trouble:

U.S. Says C.I.A. Destroyed 92 Tapes of Interrogations

The government on Monday revealed for the first time the extent of the destruction of videotapes in 2005 by the Central Intelligence Agency, saying that agency officers destroyed 92 videotapes documenting the harsh interrogations of two Qaeda suspects in C.I.A. detention. . . .

It had been previously known that officials of the agency had destroyed hundreds of hours of videotaped interrogations, but the documents filed Monday reveal the number of tapes. . . . The destroyed videotapes are thought to have depicted some of the harshest interrogation techniques used by the C.I.A.

Only monsters and barbarians fail to destroy their own torture tapes. The New York Times previously reported [5] that the highest-level White House officials -- including David Addington and Alberto Gonzales -- participated in discussions about whether to destroy those videotapes (acts which the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have called "obstruction of justice" [6]), though because we need to Look Forward, Not Back, and this all happened in The Past, we don't know what was said and don't need to. Knowing that might disrupt our moment of quiet, contemplative reflection.

What's most notable about the Guardian article reporting on the emergence of the new UAE torture tapes is that it contains this link to one of the new torture videos (or, to use the high editorial standards [7] of our nation's leading newspapers [8]: "the 'torture' videos," or "videos depicting harsh techniques which critics decry as 'torture'"):

[9] But if you actually click on the warning link, it merely takes you to a video that -- although it's dramatically entitled "Sheikh Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan Torturing a man" -- shows nothing more than a tied-and-bound victim being slapped around a little bit and forced to eat some sand -- a technique that (a) nobody who has read the OLC memos could possibly find shocking, (b) would be dismissed by America's morally upstanding right-wing warriors as nothing more than a fun fraternity prank; and (c) would never qualify as "torture" as our own government defined that term, given that there's no organ failure, no permanent physical damage, and no death:

It's certainly true that the first released video of the torture inflicted by Issa depicted grotesque violence -- including severe beating, culminating with running over the victim with a car. But that level of brutality also isn't exactly unknown to the U.S., as the Far Leftist score-settler, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, recently pointed out on MSNBC [10]:

We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during a course of that, both by the armed forces and CIA. [Releasing the memos] was the right thing to do. . . . There is prosecutorial discretion. We shouldn't in my view go after the CIA officers involved in this. There is a good argument in my view for reviewing the White House justice council and the Attorney General's office who okayed this.

Gen. McCaffrey's point was echoed by the Hard Leftist Vengeful Partisan, Gen. Antonio Taguba [11]:

[T]here is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. . . . [T]he Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. . . . The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

Even by official U.S. Government acknowledgments [12], there have been numerous deaths of detainees in U.S. custody which "were acts of criminal homicide." Independent reports [13] make clear just how prevalent detainee death was.

But anyway, enough about all that divisive partisan unpleasantness -- back to this brutal, criminal UAE prince: let's watch more of those videotapes, express our outrage on behalf of international human rights standards, and threaten the UAE that their relationship with us will suffer severely unless there is a real investigation -- not the whitewash they tried to get away with -- along with real accountability. We simply cannot, in good conscience, maintain productive relations with a country that fails to take "torture" seriously. We are, after all, the United States.

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act? [14]," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy [15]", examines the Bush legacy.

Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net

"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs

Bernie Madoff

Published on Saturday, May 2, 2009 by Time

Bernie Madoff

by Time

by Michael Moore

Elie Wiesel called him a "God." His investors called him a "genius." But, proving correct that old adage from the country and western song, you never really know what goes on behind closed doors.

Bernie Madoff, for at least 20 years, ran a Ponzi scheme on thousands of clients, among them the people you and I would consider the best and brightest. Business leaders, celebrities, charities, even some of his own relatives and his defense attorney were taken for a ride (this has to be the first time a lawyer was hosed by the client).

We're clearly in one of those historic, game changing years: up is down, red is blue and black is President. Aside from Obama himself, no person will provide a more iconic face of this end-of-capitalism-as-we-know-it year than Bernard Lawrence Madoff.

Which is too bad. Yes, he stole $65 billion from some already quite wealthy people. I know that's upsetting to them because rich guys like Bernie are not supposed to be stealing from their own kind. Crime, thievery, looting — that's what happens on the other side of town. The rules of the money game on Park Avenue and Wall Street are comprised of things like charging the public 29% credit card interest, tricking people into taking out a second mortgage they can't afford, and concocting a student loan system that has graduates in hock for the next 20 years. Now that's smart business! And it's legal. That's where Bernie went wrong — his scheming, his trickery was an outrage both because it was illegal and because he preyed on his side of the tracks.

Had Mr. Madoff just followed the example of his fellow top one-percenters, there were many ways he could have legally multiplied his wealth many times over. Here's how it's done. First, threaten your workers that you'll move their jobs offshore if they don't agree to reduce their pay and benefits. Then move those jobs offshore. Then place that income on the shores of the Cayman Islands and pay no taxes. Don't put the money back into your company. Put it into your pocket and the pockets of your shareholders. There! Done! Legal!

But Bernie wanted to play X-games Capitalism, run by the mantra that's at the core of all capitalistic endeavors: Enough Is Never Enough. You have the right to make as much as you can, and if people are too stupid to read the fine print of their health insurance policy or their GM "100,000-mile warranty," well, tough luck, losers. Buyers beware!

It would be too easy — and the wrong lesson learned — to put Bernie on TIME's list all by himself. If Ponzi schemes are such a bad thing, then why have we allowed all of our top banks to deal in credit default swaps and other make-believe rackets? Why did we allow those same banks to create the scam of a sub-prime mortgage? And instead of putting the people responsible in the cell block in Lower Manhattan, where Bernie now resides, why did we give them huge sums of our hard-earned tax dollars to bail them out of their self-inflicted troubles? Bernard Madoff is nothing more than the scab on the wound. He's also a most-needed and convenient distraction. Where's the photo on this list of the ex-chairmen of AIG, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup? Where's the mug shot of Phil Gramm, the senator who wrote the bill to strip the system of its regulations, or of the President who signed that bill? And how 'bout those who ran the fake numbers at the ratings agencies, the lobbyists who succeeded in making sleazy accounting a lawful practice, or the stock market itself — an institution that's treated like the Holy Sepulchre instead of the casino that it is (and, like all other casinos, the house eventually wins).

And what of Madoff's clients themselves? What did they think was going on to guarantee them incredible returns on their investments every single year — when no one else on planet Earth was getting anything like that? Some have admitted they did have an inkling "something was up," but no one really wanted to ask what it was that was making their money grow on trees. They were afraid they might find out it had nothing to do with gardening. Many of Madoff's victims have told investigators that, over the years, they have made much more than the original investment they gave Bernie. If I buy a stolen car from the guy down the street, the police will take that car from me regardless of whether I knew it was stolen. If I knew it was stolen, then I go to jail for receiving stolen property. Will these "victims" give back their gains that were fraudulently obtained? Will the head of Goldman Sachs reveal what he was doing at the meetings with the Fed chairman and the Treasury secretary before the bailout? Will Bank of America please tell us what they've spent $45 billion of our TARP money on?

That's probably going too far. Better that we just put Bernie on this list.

Moore's new documentary on the wonders of capitalism will be in movie theaters this fall.

Michael Moore [1] is an activist, author, and filmmaker. See more of his work at his website MichaelMoore.com [2]

Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net

ACLU claims U.S. supported PMOI

http://www.metimes.com/Security/2009/05/01/aclu_claims_us_supported_pmoi/dffb/

ACLU claims U.S. supported PMOI

Published: May 01, 2009

LOS ANGELES, May 1 (UPI) -- Charges filed against Iranian dissidents for supporting a terrorist group based in Iraq are complicated by alleged U.S. military cooperation with that group.

The U.S. Justice Department accepted guilty pleas Wednesday from six men and one woman for collecting funds for the People's Mujahedin of Iran, a group listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization.

The American Civil Liberties Union in Southern California, which is representing some of the suspects, says it will challenge the claims on the grounds the PMOI poses no threat to U.S. national security. The ACLU also claims court documents show the U.S. government provided material support to the PMOI as well.

"It boggles the mind that these seven refugees would be charged with providing material support for a so-called terrorist organization, when the U.S. government has supported the same organization for years," said Ahilan Arulanantham with the ACLU.

There is widespread speculation the U.S. military had used the group to carry out attacks on Iran.

The PMOI received its U.S. listing in 1997 in part because of its violent opposition to the Iranian regime. Some observers suspect U.S. President Bill Clinton listed the group, however, as a favor to the moderate Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.

The PMOI surrendered to U.S. military forces in Iraq shortly after the invasion of 2003, and it claims to stand as a democratic opposition to the clerical regime in Iran. It has won several delisting campaigns in Europe and is in the process of similar efforts in U.S. courts.

The sentencing hearing for the California case is scheduled for August.

© 2009 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.

Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net

Pete Seeger: Elder Statesman of Topical Song

Pete Seeger: Elder Statesman of Topical Song

By John Pietaro
published by portside, May 1, 2009

Born 90 years ago this May 3, Pete Seeger has been a tireless performer of topical song and a champion of global folklore, focusing his strongest efforts on that which was created by, for and about, the so-called common man. The product of a Left-wing composer father and a concert violinist mother, Pete almost singlehandedly resurrected, of all things, the 5-string banjo and introduced its application as a fiercely American instrument, one derived from African origins and developed by the sweat and blood of the oppressed.

In his wake, the banjo-or at least his banjo-- became a symbol of the power of song and an icon of more than one "folk revival". It still sings with pride in light of the passage of time.even Bob Dylan's decision to go electric. No matter what, Pete and his music were always there and continue to ring out today.

During the depth of the Great Depression, Seeger took to folk song collecting with his father, Charles Lewis Seeger, a member of the Composers Collective of New York who saw the need for the dissolution of the Modernist, experimental music Collective once he became convinced of the revolutionary potential of traditional song. The mission was clear: American workers needed to hear accessible music with radical content; he never looked back and clearly neither did Pete. In the 1930s, Daily Worker arts columnist Mike Gold wrote of the need for, "a Communist Joe Hill", to offer musical organizing on the front lines: a few years later Woody Guthrie came to prominence in the political Left.

Guthrie, a firestorm of creative energy and radical philosophy was introduced, in 1940, to a young Pete Seeger by folk archivist Alan Lomax and the two became inseparable. Once Woody had taken up Pete's offer to join him in the Almanac Singers, they wrote and performed music together and Seeger, through musical and political osmosis, rapidly morphed into a new kind of cultural force.

Early on Pete developed a strong kinship with the political Left and quickly became a first-call performing artist for May Day parades in New York City and radical Labor unions around the country. Seeger became a prominent part of Communist Party cultural organizations, anti-fascist collectives and American Labor Party rallies throughout the 1940s and into the `50s, even as the specter of HUAC haunted his musical groups, the Almanacs and then the Weavers, as well as his organization People's Songs. By 1961, he too would be subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee which riddled him with questions that scandalized not only his patriotism but that of the many he'd been associated with. To his credit, Seeger refused to name names, but he did offer to sing for the HUAC inquisitors. They refused his offer and called it contempt of Congress.

A victim of the same tenacious Blacklist that had torn apart Hollywood and the CIO in the post-war period, Pete sang for college students and children, when no one else cared to listen...or, rather, when no one else could hear. And when he could not sing for them, he sang for the trees and forest life about him. Seeger was hell-bent on allowing music to touch deep, whether as a weapon or as a healing force. Uniquely, he almost always achieved both in tandem.

By the time folk music became an area of commercial success for the record business during the 1960s, Seeger was seen as a founder, an elder, but still a contemporary. If the forces of reaction shut him out of broadcast television or commercial radio, his voice resounded loudly as a songwriter. Pete's songs "Turn, Turn, Turn", "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?", "If I Had A Hammer", "The Bells of Rhymney", among others, were smashing successes for other artists, all of whom paid tribute to the composer during their performances.

As has been widely reported, it was left to the Smothers Brothers and their irreverent, cutting-edge television program, to break the Blacklist. When the networks refused to allow Seeger on to perform his "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy", a stinging anti-war song driven by Pete's grinding 12-string guitar, the Brothers fought back. It may have been a death-blow for their show, but they ultimately prevailed; Seeger was seen by millions on that historic night and the Blacklist, this terribly fascistic device used to silence so many, was effectively killed off.

With the wisdom of a sage, Seeger has made it a mission to keep the older songs of struggle alive, even through adversity. In performances all over the world, Pete presents the songs of Guthrie and Wobbly icon Joe Hill alongside the music of slaves, native peoples, workers, immigrants, farmers, men and women. He offers us the lost union songs and the disappeared music of repressed peoples. Pete taught us traditional songs of the Spanish Civil War--in Spanish. He sang the praises of Leadbelly, who never got to hear his song "Goodnight Irene" become a Weavers hit in 1951. Huddie "Leadbelly" Ledbetter had died the year prior, but Seeger made sure that his widow would continue to receive royalties, as he did for the family of Solomon Linda, the composer of "Wimoweh", an African song which immortalizes the symbol of the sleeping lion as an avenger-in-waiting, contemplating the atrocities committed by white imperialists.

While it is true that Pete has become a beloved figure with the passage of time, one celebrated at Madison Square Garden this May, and was given Kennedy Center honors a decade ago, his radical heart remains integral to his spirit. Performing for President Obama's inaugural celebration this January, Pete sang Woody's anthem, "This Land is Your Land" along with Bruce Springsteen and Seeger happily led the crowd on some of Guthrie's lesser-known, revolutionary verses including the one about that damned symbol of the high wall tagged "Private Property". In his lifetime, Pete stood onstage with Paul Robeson during "The Peekskill Riot" and marched with Dr. King through the bloodiest of Civil Rights battles. He was a loud opponent of the Vietnam War and a prime voice of the environmental movement. In more recent years, Seeger could be found, during the entire sickening debacle of the Bush Administration as an active part of protest actions, and still stands each week at a peace vigil in New York's Hudson Valley, through broiling heat and frozen winds.

Pete's songs are truly the story of 'the folk', and so they tell the people's story. Long before Howard Zinn wrote his 'A People's History of the United States', Pete Seeger sang it. He stands then and now as the very model of the cultural worker. Taking the distant advice of Joe Hill, he recognized long ago that more can be said in one topical song than in a hundred pamphlets. But, even in silence, Pete's philosophy can be understood by anyone who gets close enough to read what he long ago adorned on his banjo head: 'This Machine Surrounds Hate and Forces It To Surrender'.

-John Pietaro is a cultural worker and labor organizer from New York-www.flamesofdiscontent.org

_____________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that will help them to interpret the world and to change it.

Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Culture of Unpunished Sexual Assault in Military

Published on Thursday, April 30, 2009 by Inter Press Service

Culture of Unpunished Sexual Assault in Military

by Dahr Jamail

MARFA, Texas - Sexual assault of women serving in the U.S. military, while brought to light in recent reports, has a long tradition in that institution.

Women in America were first allowed into the military during the Revolutionary War in 1775, and their travails are as old.

Maricela Guzman served in the Navy from 1998 to 2002 as a computer technician on the island of Diego Garcia, and later in Naples, Italy. She was raped while in boot camp, but was too scared to talk about the assault for the rest of her time in the military.

In her own words she, "survived by becoming a workaholic. Fortunately or unfortunately the military took advantage of this, and I was much awarded as a soldier for my work ethic."

Guzman decided to dissociate from the military on witnessing the way it treated the native population in Diego Garcia. Post discharge, her life became unmanageable. The effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from her rape had taken a heavy toll.

After undergoing a divorce, a failed suicide attempt and homelessness, she moved in with her parents. A chance encounter with a female veteran at a political event in Los Angeles prompted her to contact the veteran's administration (VA) for help. She began seeing a therapist there who diagnosed her with PTSD from her rape.

She told IPS that the VA denied her claim nevertheless, "Because they said I couldn't prove it ... since I had not brought it up when it happened and also because I had not shown any deviant behaviour while in the service. I was outraged and felt compelled to talk about what happened."

Like countless others, Guzman learned early that the culture of the military promoted silence about sexual assault. Her experience over the years has convinced her that sexual violence is a systemic problem in the military.

"It has been happening since women were allowed into the service and will continue to happen after Iraq and Afghanistan," Guzman told IPS, "Through the gossip mill we would hear of women who had reported being raped. No confidentiality was maintained nor any protection given to them making them susceptible to fresh attacks."

"The boys' club culture is strong and the competition exclusive," Guzman added, "To get ahead women have to be better than men. That forces many not to report rape, because it is a blemish and can ruin your career."

She is not hopeful of any radical change in policy anytime soon, but, "One good thing that has come out of this war is that people want to talk about this now."

More than 190,000 female soldiers have served thus far in Iraq and Afghanistan on the front lines, often having to confront sexual assault and harassment from their own comrades in arms.

The VA's PTSD centre claims that the incidence of rape, assault, and harassment were higher in wartime during the 1991 U.S. attack on Iraq than during peacetime. Thus far, the numbers from Iraq show a continuance, and increase, of this disturbing trend.

The military is notorious for its sexist and misogynistic culture. Drill instructors indoctrinate new recruits by routinely calling them "girl," "pussy," "bitch," and "dyke." Pornography is prevalent, and misogynistic rhymes have existed for decades.

Understandably, Department of Defense (DoD) numbers for sexual assaults in the military are far lower than numbers provided by other sources, primarily because the Pentagon only counts rapes that soldiers have officially reported. Even according to the Pentagon, 80 percent of assaults go unreported.

Pentagon spokesperson Cynthia Smith told IPS, "We understand this is very important for everyone to get involved in preventing sexual assault, and are calling on everyone to get involved, step in, and watch each others' backs."

According to the DoD Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for Fiscal Year 2007, "There were 2,688 total reports of sexual assault involving Military Service Members," of which "The Military Services completed a total of 1,955 criminal investigations on reports made during or prior to FY07."

The criminal investigations yielded the shockingly low number of only 181 courts martial. "We understand that one sex assault is too many in the DoD," Smith told IPS, "We have an office working on prevention and response."

A 1995 study published in the Archives of Family Medicine found that 90 percent of female veterans from the 1991 U.S. attack on Iraq and earlier wars had been sexually harassed. A 2003 survey of women veterans from the period encompassing Vietnam and the 1991 Iraq attack, published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, found that 30 percent of the women soldiers said they were raped.

In 2004, a study of veterans from Vietnam and all wars since, published in the journal of Military Medicine, found that 71 percent of the women were sexually assaulted or raped while serving.

At the 2006 National Convention of Veterans for Peace in Seattle, April Fitzsimmons, who early in her career was raped by a soldier, met with 45 other female vets, and began compiling information.

"I asked for a show of hands of women veterans who had been assaulted while on duty, and half the women raised their hands," Fitzsimmons told IPS, "So I knew we had to do something."

She, along with other women veterans like Guzman, founded the Service Women's Action Network (SWAN) to help military women who have been victims of sexual violence.

It is an uphill battle for women in the U.S. military to take on the system that clearly represses attempts to change it.

"When victims come forward, they are ostracised, doubted, and isolated from their communities," Fitzsimmons told IPS, "Many of the perpetrators are officers who use their ranks to coerce women to sleep with them. It's a closely interwoven community, so the perpetrators are safe within the system and can fearlessly move free amongst their victims."

Fitzsimmons shared with IPS a view that underscores the gravity of the problem.

"The crisis is so severe that I'm telling women to simply not join the military because it's completely unsafe and puts them at risk. Until something changes at the top, no woman should join the military."

Two testimonies

April Fitzsimmons served in the Air Force from 1985 to 1989, as an intelligence analyst and intelligence briefer for a two-star general. Early in her military career, another solider sexually assaulted her.

Nineteen years old at the time of her rape, Fitzsimmons reported the assault, and named her perpetrator, who was removed from the base. However, she declined the offer of counselling "because there was a stigma attached to it," she told IPS.

"Those who seek counselling are perceived to be at risk, as being too weak and vulnerable and it would have meant forfeiting my top-secret clearance to keep military intelligence classified," she explained.

Another reason for maintaining silence on the matter was that Fitzsimmons was declared "airman (sic) of the year," in the European command.

"I didn't want to lose that," she says, "I wanted the whole thing to go away."

Fitzsimmons created a one-woman play, Need to Know, which has been running for six years. In the play, she addresses her own sexual assault in the military. When news of rapes and sexual assaults by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, against both other soldiers and Iraqis began to surface, Fitzsimmons became more active.

"After reading about the 14-year-old Iraqi girl, Abeer Qasim Hamza, who was raped by several soldiers, and about Suzanne Swift, a soldier who after being raped by another U.S. soldier went AWOL (absent without leave) rather than redeploy with the command that was responsible for allowing the rape to occur, I was convinced that there was a cycle of sexual violence in the military that was neither being seen nor addressed," she says.

It is not difficult to ascertain the reason for so few sexual assaults being reported in the military. Jen Hogg of the New York Army National Guard told IPS, "I helped a woman report a sexual assault while she was in basic training. She was grabbed between the legs from behind while going up stairs. She was not able to pinpoint the person who did it."

Hogg explained that her friend was afraid to report the incident to her drill sergeant, and went on to explain why, which also sheds light on why so many women opt not to report being sexually assaulted.

"During training, the position of authority the drill sergeant holds makes any and all reporting a daunting task, and most people are scared to even approach him or her," Hogg told IPS, "In this case, the drill sergeant's response was swift but caused resentment towards the female that made the report, because her identity was not hidden from males who were punished as a whole for the one."

The incident displays another tactic used in the military to suppress women's reportage of being sexually assaulted - that of not respecting their anonymity, which opens them up to further assaults.

"After this incident many of the males said harassing things to her as they passed her during training, so much so that she regretted having addressed the issue," Hogg continued, "You can be ostracised as the woman who had dared to speak up. Women willing to speak up are trained to shut up, which results in an atmosphere of silence. After my experiences in basic and advanced individual training I never reported an incident again."

Hogg herself faced verbal sexual harassment.

"When I removed my protective top in the heat I would often hear comments such as ‘where you been hiding them puppies' in reference to my breasts."

Based on her friends' experience, Hogg did not even consider reporting.

To make matters worse, according to Department of Defense statistics, 84-85 percent of soldiers convicted of rape or sexual assault leave the military with honourable discharges. Not only are they not penalised, they are honoured.

Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net

60 anti-torture activists arrested at White House

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/v-print/story/1025982.html

Posted on Thu, Apr. 30, 2009

60 anti-torture activists arrested at White House

By Associated Press

U.S. Park Police have arrested about 60 anti-torture activists in front of the White House.

Sgt. David Schlosser says the protesters violated a permit regulation that required them to remain in motion on the center portion of a sidewalk. The protesters, wearing orange jumpsuits to represent Guantánamo Bay detainees who have been cleared for release, remain in custody.

Earlier, protesters marched from the U.S. Capitol to protest detention policies in the United States and what they call the government's refusal to prosecute torture.

Activists say they support a criminal inquiry into torture under the Bush administration. They say President Barack Obama has been reluctant to begin such an investigation.

http://www.miamiherald.com

National Catholic Reporter

May. 01, 2009

"Catholic activists protest torture practice"

They say immoral, illegal policies of Bush administration remain

By Claire Schaeffer-Duffy

http://ncronline.org/news/catholic-activists-protest-torture-practice

WASHINGTON

Approximately 200 human rights activists rallied in Washington April 30 to urge President Obama to support a criminal inquiry into use of torture by the United States and to fully break with the detention policies of the Bush administration.

The anti-torture demonstration included a procession from the Capitol to the White House, where 62 activists were arrested. Dressed in orange jumpsuits and black hoods to resemble Guantanamo detainees, they stood behind a large banner that read: "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied." Stenciled on their uniforms were the names of prisoners who have been cleared for release but remain at the detention facility, as well as those who died in custody.

"Despite early, encouraging signs, the first months of the Obama administration have been a grave disappointment with respect to detainee issues and torture," said Matt Daloisio, a member of the New York Catholic Worker and co-founder of Witness Against Torture.

"Many of the immoral and illegal policies of the Bush administration remain in place, and President Obama has been reluctant to investigate possible past crimes," Daloisio said. The group of Catholic activists organized yesterday's action in collaboration with Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Torture Abolition Survivors Support Coalition.

During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to close Guantanamo and restore American commitment to the rule of law. On the first day of his presidency, he signed two executive orders that directed the closure of the U.S. detention facility by January 2010 and ended the CIA's use of secret prisons and coercive interrogations.

"Signing pieces of paper has done little to relieve the circumstances of Guantanamo's detainees," Daloisio said. By one count, 55 of the prison's 239 detainees have been cleared for release but remain incarcerated out of concern they could be mistreated if they returned to their home countries.

Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder asked European leaders to help relocate 30 detainees cleared for release. U.S. officials have appealed to Europe before. But a not-in-my-backyard attitude in the United States. and abroad has made it difficult to resettle men the American government once tagged as terrorists.

Yesterday's demonstration comes amidst revelations that, under the Bush administration, CIA operatives used extremely harsh interrogation tactics against detainees suspected of terrorism. Last month, the Justice Department released four torture memos which were written in

2002 and 2004.

The documents reveal that a handful of politically-appointed attorneys contended it was legal to subject people to forced nudity, slamming against flexible walls, extremes of hot and cold, sleep deprivation, and faux suffocation such as water boarding. One memo described CIA treatment of Al Qaeda operative Haled Sheik Mohammed, accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks. Within the first four weeks of his detention, he was beaten, thrown against a plywood wall, given a forced enema, put in stress positions, deprived of sleep, and waterboarded 183 times.

The revelations have created a furor in Washington. Some Democratic lawmakers have called for the impeachment of the federal judge who authored the memos while some Republican and former CIA officials have criticized the Obama administration for jeopardizing US intelligence gathering operations by publicizing the documents.

Although Obama has said he will not prosecute the CIA operatives or their lawyers, under the US Constitution, a president cannot decide who should or should not go to trial. The Associated Press reported April 28 that a Spanish magistrate opened an investigation of Bush officials' involvement with harsh interrogation methods. U.S. Attorney General Holder has reportedly not ruled out cooperating with the investigation.

U.S. and international law prohibit the use of torture. According to Matt Vogel, one of the organizers of the White House protest, that fact obligates the Obama administration to investigate and possibly prosecute. "President Obama cannot restore the rule of law while failing to enforce the law. We need accountability, not immunity," he said.

Police said they arrested yesterday's demonstrators, who were standing in front of the White House, because they violated a permit regulation that requires people to keep moving during pickets or rallies. All of the activists were given citations and released within hours of their arrest.

The April 30 event concluded Witness Against Torture's 100 Days Campaign to Close Guantanamo and End Torture. But according to Daloisio, Witness Against Torture's work is far from over.

http://www.witnesstorture.org/

"The group will continue its activities," Daloisio said, "until torture is decisively ended, its victims are fully acknowledged, Guantanamo and similar facilities are closed, and those who ordered and committed torture are held to account."

[Claire Schaeffer-Duffy is a frequent NCR contributor.]

-----------------------------------

Read the editorial from the May 1 print issue of National Catholic

Reporter: Torture as a wake-up moment.

http://ncronline.org/news/justice/editorial-torture-wakeup-moment

Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?_r=1

May 2, 2009

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts

By WILLIAM GLABERSON

The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.

Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week, perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the Bush administration’s system to provide more legal protections for terrorism suspects.

Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr. Obama’s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem of the effort to use Guantánamo to avoid the American legal system.

Officials who work on the Guantánamo issue say administration lawyers have become concerned that they would face significant obstacles to trying some terrorism suspects in federal courts. Judges might make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies.

Obama administration officials — and Mr. Obama himself — have said in the past that they were not ruling out prosecutions in the military commission system. But senior officials have emphasized that they prefer to prosecute terrorism suspects in existing American courts. When President Obama suspended Guantánamo cases after his inauguration on Jan. 20, many participants said the military commission system appeared dead.

But in recent days a variety of officials involved in the deliberations say that after administration lawyers examined many of the cases, the mood shifted toward using military commissions to prosecute some detainees, perhaps including those charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks.

“The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

Several officials insisted on anonymity because the administration has directed that no one publicly discuss the deliberations.

Administration officials said Friday that some detainees would be prosecuted in federal courts and noted that Mr. Obama had always left open the possibility of using military commissions.

Still, during the presidential campaign Mr. Obama criticized the commissions, saying that “by any measure our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure,” and declaring that as president he would “reject the Military Commissions Act.”

The military commissions, which were established specifically for trying Guantánamo detainees, have been subject to repeated delays and court challenges that argued that detainees were being denied basic rights of American law. Only two trials have been completed in the nearly eight years since the Bush administration announced that it would use military tribunals.

Any plan to adjust the military commissions would walk a tightrope of granting the suspects more rights yet stopping short of affording them the rights available to defendants in American courts. Several lawyers say the commissions are only beneficial for the government if they make it easier to win a prosecution than it would be in federal court.

The Bush administration’s commission system was criticized in part because it permitted evidence that would often be barred in federal court, like evidence obtained through coercive interrogations and hearsay.

The administration is likely to make it more difficult for prosecutors to admit hearsay, while not excluding it entirely, the lawyers said. The hearsay issue is central to many Guantánamo cases because they are based on intelligence reports and detainees may never be permitted to cross-examine the sources of those reports.

Human rights groups said Friday that using any form of military commission would be seen as permitting shortcuts that would not be available in existing American courts.

Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that Mr. Obama had pledged to return the country to the rule of law and that “continuing with the military commission system would be a retreat from that promise.”

Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First, said military commissions would only be necessary if the administration wanted to assure convictions that might not otherwise be certain.

“The administration is making a huge mistake,” Mr. Rona said, “if they believe getting convictions through suspect methods is more valuable than letting justice take its course.”

It is not clear how many of the remaining 241 detainees are likely to be prosecuted. The four-month suspension of military commission proceedings Mr. Obama ordered is to end May 20. As a result, administration officials are considering whether to ask military judges at Guantánamo for an additional delay. In making such a request, administration lawyers might outline their proposed changes.

In recent days, senior administration officials have hinted publicly that commissions were far from dead, yet offered no specifics and their comments drew little attention. In Congressional testimony on Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said, “The commissions are still very much on the table.”

In a news conference this week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. emphasized that if the administration did use military commissions, the rules must give detainees “a maximum amount of due process.”

But, speaking of detainees whom American officials have accused of involvement in major terrorist plots, Mr. Holder added, “It may be difficult for some of those high-value detainees to be tried in a normal federal court.”

Home

Donations can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218. Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net

Baltimore Nonviolence Center

Sunday, May 3, 2009

UAE 'Torture' Scandal and Cover-up Sparks Outrage in the US

Bernie Madoff

ACLU claims U.S. supported PMOI

Pete Seeger: Elder Statesman of Topical Song

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Culture of Unpunished Sexual Assault in Military

60 anti-torture activists arrested at White House

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts

U.S. May Revive Guantánamo Military Courts

Blog Archive

SiteMeter