LATEST NEWS FROM PERDANA GLOBAL PEACE ORGANISATION

After months of waiting, President Obama is about to announce the new US strategy for Afghanistan. His speech may be long awaited, but few are expecting any surprise: it seems clear he will herald a major escalation of the war. In doing so he will be making something worse than a mistake. It is a continuation of a war crime against the suffering people of my country.

I have said before that by installing warlords and drug traffickers in power in Kabul, the US and Nato have pushed us from the frying pan to the fire. Now Obama is pouring fuel on these flames, and this week’s announcement of upwards of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan will have tragic consequences.

Already this year we have seen the impact of an increase in troops occupying Afghanistan: more violence, and more civilian deaths. My people, the poor of Afghanistan who have known only war and the domination of fundamentalism, are today squashed between two enemies: the US/Nato occupation forces on one hand and warlords and the Taliban on the other.

While we want the withdrawal of one enemy, we don’t believe it is a matter of choosing between two evils. There is an alternative: the democratic-minded parties and intellectuals are our hope for the future of Afghanistan.

It will not be easy, but if we have a little bit of peace we will be better able to fight our own internal enemies ? Afghans know what to do with our destiny. We are not a backward people, and we are capable of fighting for democracy, human and women’s rights in Afghanistan. In fact the only way these values will be achieved is if we struggle for them and win them ourselves.

After eight years of war, the situation is as bad as ever for ordinary Afghans, and women in particular. The reality is that only the drug traffickers and warlords have been helped under this corrupt and illegitimate Karzai government. Karzai’s promises of reform are laughable. His own vice-president is the notorious warlord Fahim, whom Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch describes as “one of the most notorious warlords in the country, with the blood of many Afghans on his hands”.

Transparency International reports that this regime is the second most corrupt in the world. The UN Development Programme reports Afghanistan is second last ? 181st out of 182 countries ? in terms of human development. That is why we no longer want this kind of “help” from the west.

Like many around the world, I am wondering what kind of “peace” prize can be awarded to a leader who continues the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and starts a new war in Pakistan, all while supporting Israel?

Throughout my recent tour of the US, I had the chance to meet many military families and veterans who are working to put an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They understand that it is not a case of a “bad war” and a “good war” ? there is no difference, war is war.

Members of Iraq Veterans Against War even accompanied me to meet members of Congress in Washington DC. Together we tried to explain the terrible human cost of this war, in terms of Afghan, US and Nato lives. Unfortunately, only a few representatives really offered their support to our struggle for peace.

While the government was not responsive, the people of the US did offer me their support. And polls confirm that the US public wants peace, not an escalated war. Many also want Obama to hold Bush and his administration to account for war crimes. Everywhere I spoke, people responded strongly when I said that if Obama really wanted peace he would first of all try to prosecute Bush and have him tried before the international criminal court. Replacing Bush’s man in the Pentagon, Robert Gates, would have been a good start ? but Obama chose not to.

Unfortunately, the UK government shamefully follows the path of the US in Afghanistan. Even though opinion polls show that more than 70% of the population is against the war, Gordon Brown has announced the deployment of more UK troops. It is sad that more taxpayers’ money will be wasted on this war, while Britain’s poor continue to suffer from a lack of basic services.

The UK government has also tried to silence dissent, for instance by arresting Joe Glenton, a British soldier who has refused to return to Afghanistan. I had a chance to meet Glenton when I was in London last summer, and together we spoke out against the war. My message to him is that, in times of great injustice, it is sometimes better to go to jail than be part of committing war crimes.

Facing a difficult choice, Glenton made a courageous decision, while Obama and Brown have chosen to follow the Bush administration. Instead of hope and change, in foreign policy Obama is delivering more of the same. But I still have hope because, as our history teaches, the people of Afghanistan will never accept occupation

Guardian

The attorney general was under intense pressure tonight to order a wider series of police investigations into British complicity in torture after one of the world’s leading human rights organisations said there was clear evidence of the UK government’s involvement in the torture of its own citizens.

After an investigation spanning more than a year, Human Rights Watch (HRW) today condemned Britain’s role in the torture of terror suspects detained in Pakistan as cruel, counter-productive and in clear breach of international law.

Critically, a report published today by HRW ? entitled Cruel Britannia: British Complicity in the Torture and Ill-treatment of Terror Suspects ? draws upon corroborative evidence received from the Pakistani torturers themselves.

Researchers at the New York-based NGO spoke to Pakistani intelligence agents directly involved in the torture who say their British counterparts knew they were mistreating British terrorism suspects. These agents said British officials were “breathing down their necks for information” while they were torturing a medical student from London, and that British intelligence officers were “grateful” they were “using all means possible” to extract information from a man from Luton being beaten, whipped, deprived of sleep and threatened with an electric drill.

“UK complicity is clear,” the report says, adding that it had put the government in a “legally, morally and politically invidious position”.

The attorney general, Lady Scotland, has already asked Scotland Yard to investigate two alleged cases of British complicity in torture, one involving Binyam Mohamed, a British resident tortured in Pakistan and Morocco, and a second involving an unnamed MI6 officer and an alleged victim not identified.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said it was vital that Scotland be asked to examine all cases where there is credible evidence of British complicity. “We believe that any credible allegations of UK complicity in torture should be referred to the attorney general to establish whether police investigation is necessary,” he said.

“The prime minister made a commitment to do just that. It is up to the government now to say what it will do in light of the allegations contained in the report.”

The former shadow home secretary David Davis said the report was “astonishing”, in that it “destroys the last remnants of any defence the government might have”. He called on the government to hold an independent judicial inquiry.

HRW added to the growing number of calls for an inquiry into Britain’s role in the torture. Among those issuing demands are parliament’s joint committee on human rights, the Liberal Democrats, Amnesty International, and the former director of public prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald. Lord Carlile, the government’s independent reviewer of counterterrorism legislation, Lord Guthrie, a former chief of defence staff, and Lord King of Bridgwater, a former Conservative defence and Northern Ireland secretary, have also called for an inquiry.

HRW pointed out todaythat the government may have little choice but to investigate British complicity, not only because a failure to do so is threatening to undermine its core values, but because it is a requirement of international law.

“The convention against torture requires states to reinforce the prohibition against torture through legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures,” the report says.

Privately the Conservatives are aware that they may inherit this problem if they win the next election.

Asked todaywhether the government’s repeated insistence that it does not condone, encourage or solicit torture was any longer credible, a Foreign Office spokesperson replied with the prepared statement: “There is no truth in the more serious suggestion that it is our policy to collude in, solicit, or even directly participate in abuses of prisoners.” Human Rights Watch had not suggested any direct British participation in torture.

The Guardian reported this year that an official government policy, devised to govern British intelligence officers while interrogating people held overseas, resulted in people being tortured, and that Tony Blair, when prime minister, was aware of the existence of this policy.

The Guardian has repeatedly asked Blair about any role he played in approving the policy, whether he knew that it led to people being tortured, whether he personally authorised interrogations that took place in Guant?namo and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan, and whether he made any effort to change the policy. Blair’s spokesman responded by saying: “It is completely untrue that Mr Blair has ever authorised the use of torture. He is opposed to it in all circumstances. Neither has he ever been complicit in the use of torture.”

When the Guardian pointed out to Blair that it had not suggested that he had authorised the use of torture ? as opposed to asking him whether he had authorised a policy that led to people being tortured ? and that his spokesman had not answered the questions that were asked, his spokesman replied: “Tony Blair does not condone torture, has never authorised it nor colluded in it. He continues to think our security services have done and continue to do a crucial and very good job

Military commanders are expected to tell the inquiry into the Iraq war, which opens on Tuesday, that the invasion was ill-conceived and that preparations were sabotaged by Tony Blair’s government’s attempts to mislead the public.

They were so shocked by the lack of preparation for the aftermath of the invasion that they believe members of the British and US governments at the time could be prosecuted for war crimes by breaching the duty outlined in the Geneva convention to safeguard civilians in a conflict, the Guardian has been told.

The lengths the Blair government took to conceal the invasion plan and the extent of military commanders’ anger at what they call the government’s “appalling” failures emerged as Sir John Chilcot, the inquiry’s chairman, promised to produce a “full and insightful” account of how Britain was drawn into the conflict.

Fresh evidence has emerged about how Blair misled MPs by claiming in 2002 that the goal was “disarmament, not regime change”. Documents show the government wanted to hide its true intentions by informing only “very small numbers” of officials.

The documents, leaked to the Sunday Telegraph, are “post-operational reports” and “lessons learned” papers compiled by the army and its field commanders. They refer to a “rushed” operation that caused “significant risk” to troops and “critical failure” in the postwar period.

One commander said the government “missed a golden opportunity” to win support from Iraqis. Another commented: “It was not unlike 1750s colonialism where the military had to do everything ourselves”. One, describing the supply chain, added: “I know for a fact that there was one container full of skis in the desert”.

Some troops were deployed in civilian flights to countries neighbouring Iraq with their equipment “brought in by hand baggage”. Items considered dangerous, including penknives and nail scissors, were confiscated from them.

Interviewed for the postwar report drawn up by the MoD, Brigadier Bill Moore, commander of 19 Brigade, was asked: “Did you receive the correct level of advice for the nation-building you faced?” He replied: “We got absolutely no advice whatsoever. The lack of advice from the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office], the Home Office and DFID [the Department for International Development] was appalling.”

The “lessons learned” report stated: “Never again must we send ill-equipped soldiers into battle”. However, many of the failures recounted in leaked documents and given in evidence to Commons committees, notably relating to equipment, were repeated in Afghanistan as inquests have shown.

Significantly, the documents support what officials have earlier admitted ? that the army was not allowed to prepare properly for the Iraq invasion in 2002 so as not to alert parliament and the UN that Blair was already determined to go to war.

The documents add: “In Whitehall, the internal operational security regime, in which only very small numbers of officers and officials were allowed to become involved [in Iraq invasion preparations] constrained broader planning for combat operations and subsequent phases effectively until Dec 23 2002.”

Blair had in effect promised George Bush that he would join the US-led invasion when, as late as July 2002, he was denying to MPs that preparations were being made for military action. The leaked documents reveal that “from March 2002 or May at the latest there was a significant possibility of a large-scale British operation”.

Documents leaked in 2005 show that, almost a year before the invasion, Blair was privately preparing to commit Britain to war and topple Saddam Hussein, despite warnings from his closest advisers that it was unjustified. They also show how Blair was planning to justify regime change as an objective, despite warnings from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, that the “desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

Chilcot says he and his team would not shrink from making criticisms of individuals or organisations if they were justified. But he stressed the inquiry was not a court of law set up to determine issues of guilt and innocence.

“Mr. President:

I are writing to urge you to announce an immediate cease-fire followed by a withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan in the fastest way consistent with the safety of our forces.

I urge you to end the use of Predator drones that kill civilians.

I call upon you to cease all covert operations in Africa, Asia, and North and South America.

Too many of your military advisors are implicated in torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace. Your Justice Department operates at the zenith of injustice, defending Bush Administration criminality in U.S. Courtrooms.

I wrote to you earlier suggesting that if you did not investigate the crimes of the Bush Administration, you would be viewed as their accessory. Sadly, war crimes and torture are now committed with your name on them.

Please bring our troops home now.”

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10641

The World Council of Churches (WCC) has asked the United Nations Secretary-General to make sure that recommendations of a key report about war crimes committed during the conflict between Israeli and Palestinian armed forces in Gaza at the beginning of 2009, are properly followed up.

In an 18 November letter, the WCC General Secretary, the Rev Dr Samuel Kobia, urged the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, to take steps in order to press both Israel and Hamas to “unconditionally concede the need for complete and credible investigations into their actions during the war”.

In his letter, Kobia cited “growing anxiety” amongst members of the international community that at the UN Security Council “there could be a resolution that dilutes the intent and scope of the Goldstone report”.

The Goldstone report, produced by a UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict led by Justice Richard Goldstone and released in September 2009, found evidence that both parties had committed actions which amounted to war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, during the three-week long armed conflict.

The report recommended that the UN Security Council require Israel and the relevant Gaza authorities to report to it within six months, on investigations and prosecutions both parties should carry out with regard to the violations identified in the report. If independent proceedings were not carried out in good faith, the Security Council should refer the situation in Gaza to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

“If the recommendations of the Goldstone report were pursued, it would send a strong message to combatants in all conflicts that nations or groups cannot act with impunity and that there must be appropriate channels of accountability for the perpetrators of crimes in any form of conflict”, Kobia pointed out in his letter to Ban.

“During the Gaza War, civilians on both sides suffered and yet atrocities were significantly higher among the Palestinian population”, Kobia stated. “The people of Gaza have suffered enough, and they deserve a respite in the knowledge that the perpetrators of indiscriminate violence against them will be brought to book.”

As “durable peace, reconciliation and healing between Palestinians and Israelis should be based on justice”, Kobia added, “the need of the hour is an unequivocal affirmation of the highest principles of justice, human rights and humanitarian practices”.

2009-11-16

High profile support from father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, former President of the UN General Assembly.

Extract of his message:

“Father Miguel (d’Escoto Brockmann) has only recently returned to Managua after a year and a half in New York, where he served as 63rd President of the UN General Assembly.

“Father Miguel is very pleased to learn of your initiative to file a case against the US and the UK for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Iraq… It is a matter which he has raised repeatedly both publicly and in private. He also referred to the issue during a keynote address to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on 4 March of this year [constituting the first time a General Assembly president addressed the Council].

“Father Miguel is more than glad to give his wholehearted support and prayers for the success of this initiative. Please DO add his name to your list of supporters/endorsers.

“(…) Father Miguel would like to know how the case is proceeding and to be kept informed.”

We hope we can count on your cooperation and support for this important initiative.

Warmest regards.

Members of the BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee.
http://www.brusselstribunal.org

Please see:
FOR JUSTICE FOR IRAQ:
LEGAL CASE FILED AGAINST FOUR US PRESIDENTS AND FOUR UK PRIME MINISTERS
FOR WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND GENOCIDE IN IRAQ
http://www.brusselstribunal.org/Genocide070909.htm

The Independent

Palestinian leaders from President Mahmoud Abbas down have alarmed Israeli ministers by swinging their weight behind a planned effort to secure UN backing for a unilaterally declared independent state in the West Bank and Gaza.

In an innovative strategy which would not depend on the success of currently stalled negotiations with Israel, the leaders are preparing a push to secure formal UN Security Council support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders as a crucial first step towards the formation of a state.

Although there is no fixed timetable, Palestinian officials see the second half of 2011 as a plausible starting date for such a process. That is when the Palestinian Authority is due to fulfil Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s widely applauded two-year plan for completing work on all the institutions needed for a fully-fledged state.

One senior Palestinian official said here that the new plan was “the last resort of the peace camp in Palestine” given the current negotiating impasse left in the wake of the US failure to persuade Israel to agree a total freeze on Jewish settlement building in the West Bank as a preliminary to talks.

The moderate Palestinian leadership also sees the unilateral process as a viable ? and, in internal political terms, significantly more credible ? alternative to surrendering to intense US pressure to enter negotiations without the settlement freeze.

As the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepared to denounce the Palestinian plan in a speech last night, Israel’s President Shimon Peres declared in Brazil, “A Palestinian state cannot be established without a peace agreement. It’s impossible and it will not work. It’s unacceptable that they change their minds every day. Bitterness is not a policy.”

But officials here are hoping that, without any progress towards “final status” negotiations on a future state, the US could be persuaded not to veto such a resolution. Explicit UN Security Council support for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders would, the officials believe, dramatically intensify legal and moral pressure on Israel to lift the 42-year-old occupation.

Some officials are even drawing a direct comparison with the diplomatic process by which Israel itself was established as a state: a UN resolution endorsing it in November 1947, the Declaration of Independence by David Ben Gurion in May 1948 and the subsequent swift recognition by the US and Soviet Union.

The strategy is tied closely to ? though not specified in ? Mr Fayyad’s plan, “Palestine: Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State”, and is thought to have originated with the Prime Minister, an independent who has recently publicly questioned the willingness of Mr Netanyahu’s government to grant more than a “mickey mouse” state in any negotiations. But it has since had strong backing from Mr Abbas, and other leading figures in his Fatah faction.

At a commemoration of his predecessor Yasser Arafat’s death, Mr Abbas declared last week, “The Palestinian state is a fact which the world recognises”. Saying that more than 100 countries supported Palestinian aspirations for a state, he added: “Now we are fighting to get the world to recognise the borders of our nation.” Mr Abbas, who reaffirmed his intention not to run again as President, has insisted that he will not return to negotiations without a settlement freeze and clear terms of reference specifying a state based on 1967 borders, East Jerusalem as the capital, and an agreed solution for refugees.

The leading Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat yesterday followed his Fatah colleague Mohammed Dahlan in strongly endorsing the plan. “We have taken an Arab foreign ministers’ decision to seek the help of the international community,” Mr Erekat told Reuters, adding that the US and other leading international players would be consulted before any UN move. “If the Americans cannot get the Israelis to stop settlement activities, they should also not cover them when we decide to go to the Security Council,” he added.

Ghassan Khatib, head of the Palestinian government’s media centre, said that the international community should confront Israel with a choice of a clear negotiating path towards a state based on 1967 borders, or international recognition for a Palestinian state without an agreement. “They cannot block the negotiating approach to two states and at the same time refuse the alternative,” he added.

He said that progress by the current “peace camp” in charge in Ramallah was essential if it was not to “run out of ammunition” against the alternative offered by Hamas. “I honestly think there is no future for the peace camp in Palestine if this is not going to work,” he said, adding that it would be “political suicide” for the present leadership to enter negotiations on present terms. He said the international community had long been striving “for an agreed end to the conflict ? a two-state solution as a result of an agreement. But we are saying it’s not working. Why not recognise a Palestinian state when it is ready, without necessarily relying on Israeli consent?”

Mr Khatibadded that recognition for a unilaterally declared state would parallel Israel’s recognition as in 1948. “The other side was not [then] expected to accept. There was no consent by either the Palestinians or the Arab [states].” Such a strategy would be severely complicated by Gaza, if it were still controlled by Hamas at the time ? but no more so than the negotiations which the US is currently trying to promote.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to reject the Palestinian proposal. Addressing a forum on the Middle East in Jerusalem, he said, “There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority…any unilateral path will only unravel the framework of agreements between us and will only bring unilateral steps from Israel’s side.”

Independence: Getting past the roadblock

Q. Would a unilateral declaration of independence carry risks?

A. Even if it were underpinned by a UN endorsement of a Palestinian state based on the areas occupied in 1967, it would certainly be a lurch into uncharted diplomatic waters. But some Western diplomats believe it would remove any lingering doubts about the meaning of UN Resolution 242, on which Palestinian and international demands for an end to the occupation begun in 1967 are based.

Q. What might be the advantage for the Palestinians?

A. Israel technically regards the West Bank as a disputed territory the final status of which is a matter for negotiation. Palestinians hope that a process of obtaining UN Security Council support for independence, followed by major individual countries recognising the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza as a state, would greatly and immediately put Israel under pressure to withdraw its forces and civilian settlers from the occupied territories in the West Bank. At the most extreme interpretation, Israel would then be regarded as occupying a foreign country. The UN could also grant the new Palestine immediate and full membership, with voting and proposing rights, in major international bodies.

Q. What is Israel’s main problem with the proposal?

A. Israel argues that such a unilateral declaration would not only violate its right to reach an agreement on borders with the Palestinians, but also directly cuts across the 1995 Oslo-derived agreement that neither side should take unilateral steps affecting the status of the territories.

All articles on Global Research Website

URL : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20091108&articleId=15972

Crisis of the American Healh Care System

John Kozy

U.S. State Department: Israel is not a tolerant society
- by Akiva Eldar - 2009-11-08

Republic of Fools: The Evil Empire
- by Pail Craig Roberts - 2009-11-08

Rising Military Expenditure: The Coming U.S. Budget Attack
- by Shamus Cooke - 2009-11-08

Spying on Americans: Obama Endorses Bush Era Warrantless Wiretapping
- by Tom Burghardt - 2009-11-07

Upsurge of Global Leveraged Speculation: The Financial Crisis is not Over
- by Bob Chapman - 2009-11-06

Brother of Afghan Leader Said to Be Paid by C.I.A.
- by Dexter Filkins, Mark Mazzetti, James Risen - 2009-11-06

Energy Policy and the Environmental Movement
- by Dr. Morton S. Skorodin - 2009-11-06

It’s Time to Rally for Financial Reform
- by Danny Schechter - 2009-11-06

America The Betrayed
Walt Whitman: “Poet of the People”
- by Richard C Cook - 2009-11-06

Official US Air Force Document Reveals the True Intentions Behind the US-Colombia Military Agreement
- by Eva Golinger - 2009-11-06

Bush and Blair accused of War Crimes:
Kuala Lumpur Tribunal: Criminalize War
- by Shad Saleem Faruqi - 2009-11-06

CIA Renditions: Judgment in Milan
Criminal charges against 26 American officials
- by Scott Horton - 2009-11-06

WHO Continues To Deceive: Assumes That Ukraine Plague Is H1N1 Swine Flu
- 2009-11-06

UN Report Misleading on Afghanistan’s Drug Problem
- by Prof Julien Mercille - 2009-11-06

Two Pakistanis killed in US drone attack
- 2009-11-06

Mass Shooting Indicates Breakdown of Military
- by Dahr Jamail - 2009-11-06

“Make War a Crime”: Bring these war criminals to trial
The Kuala Lumpur initiative to criminalize war
- by Arman Ahmad - 2009-11-06

Asian Natural Disasters — Harbinger Of Events To Come
- by Brian McAfee - 2009-11-05

Claude Lévi-Strauss obituary
- by Maurice Bloch - 2009-11-05

How many countries do you have to be at war with to be disqualified from receiving the Nobel Peace Prize?
- by William Blum - 2009-11-05

House Resolution Designates Venezuela a ” State Sponsor of Terrorism”
- by Stephen Lendman - 2009-11-05

What Middle East Policy to Expect from the New German Government?
When promising ideas threaten to be buried in transatlantic waters
- by Ali Fathollah-Nejad - 2009-11-05

Human Development Crisis in the Arab World
Arab governments must rethink their priorities and course of action.
- by Ramzy Baroud - 2009-11-04

India, China, Russia and Several EU Central Banks Buying Gold
- by Washington’s Blog - 2009-11-04

Colombia Paramilitary, US Links Exposed
- by Estela McCollin - 2009-11-04

The Role of Gold in the World Monetary System
What Is India and China Doing That Malaysia Has Neglected To Do?
- by Matthias Chang - 2009-11-04

VIDEO: The Nature and Significance of NATO-US-Israeli War Crimes
- by George Galloway - 2009-11-04

When the Dollar Rallies, the Market will Crash
- by Mike Whitney - 2009-11-04

VIDEO: Swine Flu Government Data Scam
Government using fraud to generate flu hysteria
- 2009-11-03

Tortured in far-off Countries: Obama Resuming G. W. Bush’s “Extraordinary Renditions”
- by Sherwood Ross - 2009-11-03

The Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of the Continent
Dr. Helen Caldicott Interviews Andrew Nikiforuk
- 2009-11-03

Cut Wall Street Out! Own Your Own Bank
How States Can Finance Their Own Recovery
- by Ellen Brown - 2009-11-03

‘Torture flight’ plane spotted in Birmingham
- by Robert Booth - 2009-11-03

America’s Democracy in Crisis: Is “Executive Privilege” Undemocratic
- by Prof John Kozy - 2009-11-03

Economic Crisis Hits States and Municipalities
- by Rick Wolff - 2009-11-03

Honduras: A Victory for “Smart Power”
- by Eva Golinger - 2009-11-03

Overseas Contingency Operation: America’s “Jihad” on Muslims, abroad and at home
Three Ohio Men Convicted of Being Muslims at the Wrong Time in America
- by Stephen Lendman - 2009-11-03

Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III
Part 2
- by Andrew Gavin Marshall - 2009-11-03

A Step towards a War-free World: Criminalise War
Why we must reject war
- by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad - 2009-11-03

Former U.S. president Bush calls on India to support U.S. in Afghan war
- 2009-11-02

Venezuela Arrests Eight Colombian Paramilitaries
- 2009-11-02

US Spy Agencies Spent Nearly $50 bn in 2009
- 2009-11-02

VIDEO: US-Colombia Pact seen by Venezuela as Intimidation, Provocation and threat”
- by Eva Golinger - 2009-11-02

Her Majesty’s Big Brother: Britain’s Protesters Rebranded “Domestic Extremists”
- by Tom Burghardt - 2009-11-02

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Keynote Address -

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

Opening Ceremony -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luhSPoQd1DA&feature=related

Cynthia McKinney -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t42aZyjGLxA

George Galloway -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXpp6V4Oho8

Ostracise war architects, says Tun Mahathir

Sin Chew Jit Poh
?
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 28 — Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today urged the international community to ostracise those who create war as a way to punish them.
“These people who have created war and killed so many people should be regarded as criminals, the people should not associate with them and should avoid them. Countries should take the same step,” he told reporters after delivering a keynote address at the “Criminalise War Conference and War Crimes Tribunal 2009″ here.
He said as an example, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who visited Sabah on August, should not be allowed to come to Malaysia because he could also be regarded a war criminal.
“We know he was in Sabah for holiday but he was actually invited to give a talk on justice, what does he know about justice? It is disgraceful that we should allow such a person to come to Malaysia and to talk about justice, it is ridiculous,” he said.
Dr Mahathir had called Blair a war criminal for his role in supporting the United States in the invasion of Iraq.
The outspoken Dr Mahathir, who is also chairman of the Perdana Global Peace Organisation, said people including the leaders who launched wars should to be held accountable for the deaths and destruction resulting from their decision.
“It does not matter whether the aggressors win or not, they must be regarded as guilty and their leaders must be tried and punished, punished severely. Only this would deter the aggressive from resorting to war,” he said
When asked on why he focused on the U.S as the main target, Dr Mahathir said the country was the major player in launching the war in Iraq.
“In Iraq, the Americans are the principal players, they are the ones who are arresting people and detaining them for years and years, torturing them,” he said.
Dr Mahathir said the media can play a big role in making people realise that war was a crime and to tell the truth about war and killings.
“But the international media will not do so because for them, war is interesting. The war is nice because you can have a lots of picture, even can become a brave reporter to go into the war zone.
“War is much more interesting to the media, but I hope good sense will prevail in the media especially the eastern media not the western media,” he said.
Earlier in his speech, Mahathir said the quest for the most powerful weapon should really be over as war should no longer be an option in the settlement of disputes between nations.
“Unfortunately, these great nuclear powers are still developing, testing and producing more nuclear weapons. They talk of safe nuclear bombs, of small nuclear bombs and tactical nuclear bombs.
“Already they are using depleted uranium in their bombs and missiles which are causing diseases like cancer to spread among hundreds of thousands who had survived their attacks,” he said.
MySinchew 2009.10.28

Sun Daily
Commission and tribunal to hear Iraq war crimes
Meena L. Ramadas
KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 27. 2009): A commission and tribunal will convene on Friday and Saturday to hear the testimonies of two Guantanamo Bay detainees in an effort to bring Iraq war perpetrators to justice.

They will hear the experiences of a Sudanese reporter and a Briton who were detained without trial in Guantanamo Bay.
The commission and tribunal will be held at Putra World Trade Centre.
War Criminal Conference and Exhibition keynote speaker and former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today the commission will also deliberate on the affidavits of other Iraq war victims that have been submitted to the commission.
“International institutions and the courts established by the United Nations charter have done nothing in dealing with war crimes,” he told reporters.
“Even the powerful nations like the United States and the United Kingdom have done nothing.”
Mahathir said the commission will seek a detailed account of the experiences and will adjourn to consider the evidence.
Once it reaches a consensus that there are cases to be heard by the tribunal, the plaintiffs will elucidate their experiences again to the tribunal.
The tribunal will decide on the same day whether certain individuals should be charged with the crimes.
“Having decided that, we have to give two months for the people to be informed and after the minimum two-month period, the tribunal will decide when the trial will be held,” Mahathir said.
He said Malaysian lawyers will represent the prosecution in the tribunal.
The members of the commission and tribunal are international and local personalities but he did not name them.
Asked the laws that will be used to prosecute those found to commit war crimes, he said the tribunal will utilise international laws such as those practised by the United Nations.
“We are going to use the same law to point out to them that if you will not use the law against these criminals, then we are going to do it,” he said.
Although the tribunal cannot arrest and imprison the indifviduals as they would be tried in absentia, Mahathir said there are other ways to enforce the sentence.
“We can campaign against these people to not be accepted in any society or country,” he said.
“Beyond this, we want to encourage democratic countries to try and ensure that candidates for the legislative council will be those that are anti-war supporters.”
The commission and the tribunal are an extension of the War Criminal Conference and Exhibition, organised by the Perdana Global Peace organisation and Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.
The conference and exhibition, which are being held from tomorrow to Saturday at Dewan Merdeka, Putra World Trade Centre, hope to create awareness among the public that war is a crime.
Entry to the exhibition is free.

Dr M champions anti-war movement
Malay Mail
Darshini Kandasamy
Friday, October 23rd, 2009 08:07:00

War is a crime and it is not fair to take away the life and security of innocent people in another country in the interest of security in your own country.” Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad
WHY is it that the murder of one man is considered a criminal act whereas the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people commited in wars, is not considered so?
That was the question posed by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad yesterday during a press conference to highlight the upcoming War Criminal Conference and Exhibition at Putra World Trade Centre from Oct 28 ? 31.
The conference, joint ly organised by Perdana Global Peace Organisation (PGPO) and Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW), aims to expose the atrocities and injustices of war - in hopes that people will realise that war is not a solution, but a crime.
This is a matter close to the heart of the former Prime Minister, who has lived through the Japanese Occupation and seen the ugliness of war for himself. He recalled being horrified by the case of a British soldier who was bayoneted to death by Japanese soldiers and kicked into the Kedah river.
Citing the abolishment of slavery as an example, Dr Mahathir, keynote speaker at the conference, expressed belief that war can be eradicated one day even if it takes years to accomplish.
“Just because I cannot see the result does not mean I must stop trying. I would like to make people realise war is about killing and wounding a lot of people. With every one person killed, probably four others are critically wounded, losing limbs and ending up crippled for the rest of their lives.”
He said it was not fair to take away the the life and security of innocent people in another country in the interest of security in your own country.
“We hope this message will be carried throughout this country and internationally. We have built up a network around the world in our efforts to make war a crime.”
Until such a time, Dr Mahathir said: “We are not civilised. If we think killing people is the way to solve problems, then we are not civilised.”
In condemning the war on Iraq, Dr Mahathir stressed that he was not trying to attack the Western powers ? but Western powers seem to be breaking the peace in the interest of their own security.
He stressed that people who deliberately go to war should be regarded as criminals and be taken to court.
More often than not, he said, if such people were taken to court - it would be in a court set up by the ?winners’ to punish the ?losers. He pointed out this was not just - as the victor may not be the righteous but often the country with more power, technology and money.
Dr Mahathir also said war was an excuse for certain countries to sustain its weapons development industry in a “military industrial complex” which has become a monster.
The conference has an impressive lineup of speakers and will feature testimonies from several Iraqi torture
victims so that their stories can be heard. It will also feature an exhibition to show the brutality and inhumanity of war.
“It may take years but we need to make a start.” Dr Mahathir said this was where the media, NGOs and the
internet could spread the message and create awareness.
When asked what he sees as an alternative to war Dr Mahathir cited former US president Richard Nixon’s ?Ping Pong diplomacy’ ? where matters are resolved through negotiations.
He said money saved from stopping weapons production could be channelled to better use ? such as HIV
research or the eradication of poverty.

Gitmo was hell on earth
Bernama
Friday, October 30th, 2009 06:08:00
IN 2001, a Sudanese journalist was about to cross the border into Afghanistan when he was arrested by the United States military in Pakistan and detained as an “enemy combatant” in Guantanamo Bay.
Sami Al Hajj was the only journalist ever held at the notorious prison for seven years and was never charged.
Currently, the 40-year-old heads the newly-formed public liberties and human rights department of the Al-Jazeera television network.
At the Criminalise War Conference and War Crimes Tribunal 2009, he shared the trauma and torture he underwent, stripped naked and fed with a tube while locked up in Guantanamo.
“I was arrested without any mercy, the US army suspected me to be a journalist who wanted to interview
Osama bin Laden. They did not bother to hear the truth,” said Sami, adding that detainees from all over the world, including Bosnia and Indonesia, were brought to Guantanamo.
The detainees were not allowed to contact their families, neither were they told why they were held.
“The worst part is, we did not know the time for Ramadan fasting, prayer or festive celebration, including Hari Raya,” said Sami, who was a cameramen-turned-journalist.
He said the US army also had no respect for other religions, adding that its personnel stepped on the Quran and threw the holy book into the toilet bowl.
“If the detainees were sick or injured, they were not sent for any medical treatment but were left behind until the injury became serious and some of them got their legs cut from the ankle,” said Sami.
He said the media had to play their role and deliver fair stories, especially on Guantanamo and the war to let the public know the real situation.
Sami served as cameraman for Al-Jazeera since 2000, before he was promoted to journalist.
“Through this conference, I hope Malaysia can set a platform to find a solution to combat war, and educate
the public and the media. I do hope Tun Dr Mahathir (Mohamad) can help to voice out at the international
level to stop war,” he said.
The four-day conference was launched yesterday by former prime minister Dr Mahathir, who is also the Perdana Global Peace Organisation chairman

BERNAMA:
KL War Crimes Commission Hears Guantanamo AtrocitiesKUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 (Bernama) — A British Muslim detained for three years at the controversial Guantanamo Bay prison manned by the United States, revealed that the youngest detainee he knew of was a nine-year-old boy who was also tortured like the rest.

Ruhal Ahmed’s story was among more accounts of atrocities committed against the detainees at Guantanamo, told before an open commission hearing which began today on the sidelines of an international conference to criminalise war.

The testimonies before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Hearings will be submitted to a tribunal in conjunction with the Criminalise War Conference and War Crimes Tribunal 2009 spearheaded by former Malaysian prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Dr Mahathir, an outspoken war critic, had said that the tribunal’s decision would be forwarded to the United Nations for further action.

Malaysian lawyer Zainur Zakaria headed the six-member panel today that heard the heart-wrenching experiences of seven who spoke of almost daily physical and emotional torture by the US army over alleged ties to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban movement.

Ruhal, now 27, was detained in 2001 after he and three Pakistani Britons, Asif Iqbal, Shafiq Rasul and a friend, Monir, travelled to Pakistan for a wedding.

In a surge of idealism, they decided to see the situation in Afghanistan which was being bombed by the American forces in retaliation for the Sept 11 attacks.

“Once there, with the loss of Monir in the war chaos, we were captured by the Northern Alliance fighters, and were later handed over to the American forces who transported us to the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay,” he said.

“I was interrogated hundreds of times by the FBI, CIA and even MI-5, beaten, and subjected to continuous torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution,” he recalled.

Hands and feet chained into a foetal position on the floor, they were accused of making a video of Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The three now known in the media as the “Tipton Three”, were released in 2004 without being charged after they were forced to sign a paper to admit their involvement in making the video.

Another British Muslim, Moazzam Begg, 41, said moved by the plight of the Afghan people under the conservative Taliban regime, he went to Kabul with his wife and three young children in mid-2001 to start a school for basic education and provide water pumps.

They fled to Islamabad in Pakistan when the allied forces attacked Afghanistan in October that year, and he was arrested in January 2002 by Pakistani police and the CIA, and held in a windowless cellar at the Bagram air base for nearly a year.

“The United States government considered me an enemy combatant, and claimed that I had trained at al-Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I was not charged with any crime nor allowed to consult any legal counsel during that time,” said Moazzam who was one of nine British Muslims held there.

In January 2005, he was released with three others, also without any charges produced against them.

Rape and abuse of women and children by US troops were almost a daily affair over at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, said Iraqi-born Jameela Abbas Hameedi.

Jameelah, 54, was arrested in the Iraqi capital in January 2004 with her entire family, allegedly for supporting and funding forces against the US invasion.

“The US army even beat me with tubes and a plastic chair until it broke. A plastic shard entered my leg and caused a bad infection. I had to undergo surgery but without any anaesthetic given,” said Jameelah who was also stripped to her underwear in the “black room” of the prison and bashed against a wall.

Her only daughter and nephew were beaten and tortured naked for six months until Jameelah admitted that she supported the resistance.

She also witnessed other abuses like sleep deprivation, forced stress positions, forced nudity, the use of dogs to scare and bite prisoners, death threats and sexual abuse.

Jameelah and her family were freed in July 2004 without any charges brought against them.

– BERNAMA