Insurgentjg

Iraq! Winter 2004… There is much to be said, discussed and understood about the U.S. invasion, war and occupation of this ancient, oil-rich country.
The Bush government’s pre-war reasons for the invasion, disputed and disbelieved by millions immediately, have all been proven totally false. The latest U.S. government line about bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people would be simply laughable, but since U.S. troops arrest, brutalize and kill Iraqi people everyday it is no joke.
Late last year, Medact, a British Medical Human Rights group, released credible estimates of up to 55,000 Iraqi civilian casualties. The killing goes on daily. Human Rights Watch, also in December of 03, reported that the U.S. and British invasion armies fired approximately 13,000 cluster bombs at Iraqi towns and villages. Over 2 million smaller bombs were released from these cluster munitions. This kind of hi-tech death, war and occupation can never be seen as democracy or freedom, no matter how slickly the Bush government or the corporate media manipulate the facts and images.
While the dying is disproportionately Iraqi, well over 500 U.S. soldiers have died and about 2500 have been wounded in this invasion and occupation so far. It is a certainty that many more U.S. soldiers will die and be injured and crippled. This killing will only cease once the war and occupation ends and all U.S. troops are brought home.
There are almost no serious analyses of this war and occupation coming from the corporate media or bourgeois politicians, even those publicly opposing the war. From among the people though, especially from progressive political and opposition groups and individuals, explanations and analysis of why Bush really invaded Iraq and what they are trying to gain is being heard.
Identifying some of the main themes, first of all there is oil. The second largest known oil reserve in the world is now under George Bush’s control. The other huge reserves of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, etc., are now in easy gun range of a large U.S. occupation army in Iraq. However this develops, there is no doubt that the people and governments of these countries know that the U.S. is now poised to go further. This could be more invasions or political and economic strong-arming.
Control of Iraq and increased hegemony of the Middle East also gives the U.S. government and U.S. corporations a greatly enhanced position in their ongoing competition with the European Union, Japan and Russia. Europe in particular is totally dependent on Mid-East oil. As the advanced capitalist countries coalesce into 3 or 4 blocs, the U.S. wants to control the economic lifeblood—oil—throughout the world.
The only Mid-East country that officially welcomed and praised the U.S. invasion was the Israeli government. Of course the U.S. had troops in and launched some of the war from Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. In Israel the right wing Likud government still fully supports the U.S. occupation and compares it to its own decades-long occupation of Palestinian land. Now we are seeing the U.S. occupation army employing Israeli type tactics against the Iraqi public. Doors are kicked in during the middle of the night; men and boys are taken off to secret U.S. prisons. Families and children of fugitive resistance fighters are often imprisoned. Homes are being blown up. But the Israelis, even after years of occupation, have not been successful with these terror tactics against the Palestinian resistance. In Iraq, we are already witnessing even more deadly attacks against U.S. troops in the past few months.
Early in the government’s road to this war, some critics argued that President Bush’s war fever was fueled by his father’s personal hatred of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We now know that George W. Bush planned to wage war against Iraq from his first days in office, long before 9/11 and any other pretext that was later raised. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil’s recent book lays bare that Bush wanted and meant to invade Iraq from his first days in office.
However much any of the above views were the real reasons for this war, now that it continues, two further realities drive it on. The war profiteers, those merchants who profit from death and destruction, are circling like hogs in a feeding frenzy. Well-connected corporations, especially Halliburton and its subsidiaries, are raking in billions of U.S. tax dollars off this war. Every American war has seen some corruption and profiteering, but this pillage and what appears to be actual theft is obscene.
Immediately after 9/11/01, conservative, right wing and police forces seized on the sorrow and worry of the public to begin implementing a massive “Big Brother” police state machine. This included federal and state legislation, executive orders and the creation of new intrusive police structures and practices. The war against Iraq strengthened and speeded up this process. We now truly live in a war and police state. U.S. society is now more militarized than it has ever been. Intrusive police presence and snooping is a daily reality. This is not temporary. Bush, in his 2004 State of the Union speech, made this clear when he called for even more police state powers, all at the expense of people’s privacy and rights. There is a direct correlation between the U.S. state of war and the growing police state all across this country.
What we are witnessing is the emerging new face of U.S. imperialism. The United States has been an imperialist power for a long time. What we are seeing now is a new drive and dynamic to imperialism. With no Cold War or major socialist bloc to contend with, U.S. imperialism has embarked on a more aggressive and dangerous course. The U.S. has essentially declared itself to be the undisputed empire of the world. The more it invades and occupies overseas, the more it will build its police state domestically. These may be stark terms for some to easily accept, but the reality of all this is happening around us right now. Shying away from understanding it or dealing with it only makes us less safe and less free.
The driving force of imperialism is economics. Its methods are economic and political and recently more and more military. There already is a sizable segment of the U.S. public that is opposed to this war. The question that all Americans need to be asked, is to they want to live in an empire? In this election year it’s imperative and possible to ask these questions and to make opposition to this war very visible and powerful.
The fact that there are major anti-war candidates, Dean and Kucinich most clearly, reflects the ambivalence and worry of millions of Americans. Beginning with the March 20th worldwide anti-war mobilization, the Peace, Anti-War and Anti-Imperialist movements can tap into this worry of so many people. A building series of major rallies, as big and dramatic as possible, throughout this year is very feasible. Seriously opposing this imperialist U.S.A. war state and internal police state has its risks, but it is certainly possible and necessary right now. We can impact the short-term reality of the occupation and war in Iraq. More importantly perhaps, we can expose and resist the Bush government’s plan to erect this 21st century U.S. war and police state Empire. As a well-worn slogan puts it:  FREEDOM IS A CONSTANT STRUGGLE!

This article is based on readings and class discussions by Nada Gul
Reference:
“War in Iraq—Imperialism in the 21st Century”-Jaan Laaman

A child dies every three seconds; 1.3 million people are directly affected; and every year there are 25 million more victims. We are not talking about war or natural disasters here! This terrifying phenomenon is extreme poverty – living on less than a dollar a day – the daily struggle for one in every five people in the world. The world has never been as rich as it is today, yet it is poverty which is growing and not technology. Poverty enables individuals not to develop their full potential and prevents them from realizing their plans.

One fails to understand the fact that when humanity is on the verge of discovering the secrets of life, then how is it that there is complete incapacity to ensure the well-being of people around us. We are living in a ruthless world where everyone is running after the one and only thing which is “money”. We make money but don’t know where to spend it. Hence, the wealth is only being stored in the banks. We lack the awareness about the systems around us. We make ourselves clothes, jewelry, houses, educate ourselves from high level institutions and feed ourselves on food which is fit for a king!!! But to understand the condition of a family living in poverty is beyond our minds. We do not think or maybe we don’t want to think that 1 out of every 3 people living in the sub-Saharan desert remains hungry. That, 8 million children die each year due to poverty related diseases every year. We have shut our minds tightly to the fact that the term “poverty” is part of our society.

Poverty began to be defined as the lack of income, but by the late 90s it was very clear that poverty was not just about lack of resources; it was about increased vulnerability to violence and other kinds of violations of human rights. Poverty is a cause and a product of human rights violations.
Most human right activists feel that poverty creates circumstances which lead to human rights violation. For instance, poor people are usually discriminated against. When an armed conflict breaks out, it is the poor who are affected the most. When it comes to paying bribes, the poor bear the burden disproportionately. These people often live in economies of illegality, spending most of their disposable income on buying protection either from the police or the local gangster, in order to retain their shelter or protect their physical integrity. Generally they find it harder or impossible to participate in the labor market and have little or no access to basic services and resources.
On the other hand, some Human right Activists feel that human rights violations may cause poverty. For instance, in a case where a person is illegally detained, victims of discrimination or persecution, thereby infringing his freedom of movement, and right to a fair trial, his family may be driven into destitution if he is the sole bread-winner for the family. In Kashmir, Pakistan, a father, son and brother who was earning just sustain his family was taken into prison on the suspicion that he was a terrorist by the Indian army. The whole family suffered because of that and till now he has not been freed yet.
It is very depressing to know that poverty is rarely seen or thought through the lens of human rights. Rather, it is often perceived as tragic and sometimes even as the responsibility of those who suffer it. At best those living in poverty — countries and individuals — are portrayed as unfortunate or most of the time as lazy and undeserving.

In Pakistan, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Talking to one of the house maids, it was discovered that the whole family had not had an egg since the last Ramadan. Another one said that due to less income they were not able to afford to send their children to school. Thus the poor in many societies cannot enjoy their rights to education, health and housing simply because they cannot afford them. And poverty affects all human rights.
It is necessary to keep in mind that the poor people also possess the rights to livelihood, food, shelter, health and employment. But they are unlikely to be granted these if their voices are unheard, if they are discriminated against and if the governments and institutions are not accountable for perpetuating violations.

It is seen that poverty is part of the development right which every individual has and which has been confirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and most recently in the Declaration for the Right to Development. The status of poverty has increased the approach towards it. Such an empowering approach is needed given the disparity between those who possess resources and the 1.3 million who live in absolute poverty.

Human development makes the full realization of human rights possible. And without human rights, human development to its full extent is not possible.
Many organizations like the UNESCO, Millennium Declaration and the Millennium development Goals, United Nations Development Programs etc are working together to make poverty history. These various organizations have been working in Africa, India and other parts of the world to fight poverty. The realization of human rights – including the fight against poverty — is a duty, not a mere aspiration.
Few Facts
§ 3 billion people receive 1.2% of the world’s global revenue while one billion people living in rich countries receive 80%.
§ 150 million children suffer from aggravated malnutrition.
§ 100 million children live in the street.
§ 20% of the world’s population consume 90% of the world’s resources
§ 22% of the world’s population do not have access to safe drinking water

Bibliography:
§ http://www.udhr.org/UDHR/default.htm
§ http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/human_rights_quarterly/
§ http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
§ http://www.unhchr.ch/development/right.html
§ http://www.pdhre.org/rights/development.html
§ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/fxbcenter/FXBC_WP7–Sengupta.pdf
§ http://www.pdhre.org/rights/women_and_poverty.html

Reference:
§ UNESCO, Social and Human Sciences Sector Magazine. Page 8, 9, 10 and 11
§ Poverty and human rights by Peter Townsend (preliminary report)
§ UNESCO, Bureau of public Information. Eradicating Povery, page # 1 and 2
§ UNDP, Poverty Reduction and Human Rights

This article is based on readings and class discussions by Zofia Javaid

The devastating attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001 changed the whole picture of the world’s politics. Nine days after the September eleven attacks the American President George W. Bush launched a ‘War on Terror’. This war was authorized on September 18, 2001, by the United States Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists. This war basically begun to erase the very roots of the terrorist groups with global reach, however it extended to include the Iraqi regime as well. The Iraqis have witnessed two wars in the past. One of which was the bloody Gulf War, therefore they know what a war is and its terrible cost. 650,000 Iraqi civilians have been estimated dead in this war.

The war on terror has encouraged torture, rape and other extreme human right abuses that have gone beyond its main objective. Even the most disciplined and restrained soldiers take advantage of their power and the surrounding conditions of war has allowed others to take advantage as well. It is a fact that most forces of war do not have self control. The forces use hunger and deprivation of water as weapons of war against the civilian population. Most of them on purpose use certain tactics to intimidate those they consider their rivals for example the Iraqis are exposed to white phosphorus that can burn the flesh by the U.S soldiers.

 “In Iraq, a fresh outbreak of violence, includes an attack on a family in the native village of former president Saddam Hussein, has left 22 people dead and 14 others injured. Nine people from one family were shot dead in the village of Ouja north of Baghdad, the police said. Gunmen stormed in the early hours of Thursday the home of a building contractor and killed him and his wife and children.” On the other hand in the bewildered situation of war the Iraqis take their revenge from the U.S soldiers to resolve their grievances through revenge killing or other forms of revolt.

 Someone who has lost a loved one in the recent bomb blasts in Pakistan can understand the pain that the Iraqis are going through. The lives of the people who are dependant on that person come to an unexpected end forever. War creates orphans and bereaved family members. War on terror is an unjust operation especially infants who play no role in waging a war invariably suffer. The trauma in so intense that the children can not get out of the shock all their life. Mothers plead the officers to pick the dead bodies lying on the streets so that their children will be spared from the horror of looking at them on their way to school.

 The lives of the Iraqis have been changed forever; they do not have even the basic needs, they depend on the aid to get their food supplies. Even cultivation has become impossible which is terrible for a country which has two major rivers running through it. The water supplies have been damaged. The domestic and health conditions have been extremely deteriorated. The death toll especially in infants is extremely high: 1 in 8 children die by the age 5. Local and international aid flooded into Iraq in 2004, the year following the invasion, but much of the supply was blocked off after the kidnapping of many aid activists in the country. The food the Iraqis did get was often not what they needed, or wanted. The Iraqis do not feel comfortable receiving food aid when they exported food in the past. Iraq has been a field of aid NGOs since the U.S. occupation began and many of those NGOs brought foodstuff that is not what Iraqis were used to but they had to take it due to the need they were facing. Under the occupation, Iraqis are getting much of their food from companies in Australia and other countries who assisted the United States during the invasion and occupation. This food has often been of low quality.

 68 % of the Iraqis are without clean water and 81 percent are without working sewers. The already damaged water and sanitation system can further be damaged if the power stations are hit. This can lead to epidemics such as cholera and hepatitis. According to the United Nations, “the outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions is very likely”. The greatest risk is to the water and sanitation due to war. There is an increase in the development of weapons of mass destruction, therefore the war itself and its preparation is the largest source of pollution on earth. The chemical toxins that are dropped may effect the population for two decades and may have disastrous effects on the future generations. Millions of Iraqis are suffering from catastrophic situations that are further getting worse. The medical professionals are fleeing from Iraq after witnessing the abduction of their colleagues.

 There have been political, financial and operational problems surrounding the provision of aid and the reconstruction of Iraq. In particular there has been a difficulty in striking a balance between the US and the UK fulfilling their responsibilities to provide aid and assist in rebuilding and their control of the process to the detriment of its effectiveness. In October 2003, the US pledged 20 billion dollars for reconstruction in Iraq. This amount is equal to one and a half times the USA’s annual development aid budget. Pledges by other donors were far smaller, but those like the UK, the European Commission or Spain that have pledged an amount equivalent to 20% of their annual development budget for Iraq will have to dig deep. The politicization of relief complicates the provision of aid, and may yet scupper the effective reconstruction of Iraq. Using humanitarian aid as a political or military tool to woo the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Iraqi population risks prolonging suffering, entrenching unilateralism and reducing the willingness of states to contribute towards the rebuilding of Iraq.

 With the horrible conditions prevailing in Iraq it would not be wrong to say that this is not a war on terror rather this is a war of terror.

_______________________________________ 

References

http://www.casi.org.uk/briefing/030416aid.html
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/category/war-on-terror/
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48

This article is based on class readings and discussions by Anum Khan
 

“Media provides a pre-packaged hysteria that has dominated both U.S rhetoric and mainstream media, who, at times, are joining forces to create cynicism about the global war on terror. In short, it is a business, a product. If people are scared, they are going to want to know what is going on, driving both the medium and the message; even if it is, at times, difficult to tell exactly who is wagging the dog.”[i]

It is in the nature of masses, as well as individuals, to escalate between the extremes and while doing that they miss the part that is the truth. The notion of something ‘extraordinary’ sounds so attractive that we almost become victims of our own instincts. How many of us thought, as our first reaction to Benazir’s murder, that our own ‘existence’ is endangered?”Americans Are Coming”, “Civil war Ensues” and “Pakistan People Party Is Over” are few of the reactions that I noticed.

Role of media is to feed on these instincts that already exist in masses. It builds on those instincts, enhances them but it does not create them altogether. Once the stage is set, its easier to add or subtract the desired ingredients. Everybody wants to hear what their hearts are saying. Something unusual happens in a normal day and you get the feeling that it has larger repercussions. You log on to BBC Website and somewhere some sage is telling you about the exact fears that were latent in your heart. You realize your sense of ‘happenings’ of current affairs is enhanced and that u can brag about it among your peers, and then you move on with your routine life. There is a way to bypass these inherent inclinations by adopting more rational approach. Anybody heard of Aristotle’s “Golden Mean”? But let me not get into that.

Perhaps there is only one question, in question here. Why the phrase “War on Terror’?

At first the U.S. used the word “crusade” but it was quickly pointed out that if they hope to enlist their allies in the Islamic world, it would be a serious mistake, for obvious reasons.  The rhetoric therefore shifted to “war.”The proper term would be “crime”-perhaps “crime against humanity,” as Robert Fisk (British journalist and is currently a Middle East correspondent for British news paper, The Independent) has stressed. But that does not sound so appealing now does it? also it requires solid evidence and it opens doors to dangerous questions: to mention only the most obvious one, who were the perpetrators of the crime of international terrorism condemned by the World Court 21 years ago (in 1986 the U.S. was condemned by the World Court for “unlawful use of force” (international terrorism) and then vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states (meaning the U.S.) to adhere to international law)?

For such reasons, it is better to use a vague term, like “war.”  To call it a “war against terrorism,” however, is simply more propaganda, unless the “war” really does target terrorism. Now the ‘War on Terror” is still raw because Western powers can never abide by their own official definitions of the term, as in the U.S. Code* or Army manuals.  To do so would at once reveal that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients.

Perhaps I may quote political scientist Michael Stohl in support of my point: “We must recognize that by convention- and it must be emphasized only by convention-great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism…..”

Therefore it was essential for the United States Government to gather support among the masses to continue her acts of terrorism in a legal fashion and thus the need of media-help. The immediate reaction of the public after 9/11 was shock, horror, anger, fear, a desire for revenge. Media loves such short and catchy terms. Stage was set and yes super-hot topics like it sell so fast! I’m surprised that the obvious contradictions in the phrase did not go through the eyes of so many Western Newspapers, journalists, political pundits etc with a few exceptions of scholars like Noam Chomsky.

It is entirely typical for the major media and the intellectual classes generally, to line up in support of power at a time of crisis and try to mobilize the population for the same cause.

Speaking of Chomsky, he is the first modern political philosopher to identify role of the media as an instrument of state control. He believes that the media always supports the current state policies whether they are right or wrong. Only times of clashes are when the Government is in direct conflict with the ‘men of power’ within the official network i.e. Men of power vs. Men of power. He gives the example of WaterGate scandal where Nixon lost the battle only because he made the choice of making wrong enemies and not because he was corrupt. He points out that there were other bigger issues of corruption at the time that the media could have brought to the fore. All this he explains, in detail, in his book “On Language” published in 1977.

Back to the original question, its answer and the conclusion; the phrase “War on Terror” is ‘good business’, it’s got ‘Government support’ and it feeds on the latent weakness of the masses i.e. fear, and hence it’s got a lot of potential for manipulation. Seen in this context the role of media becomes very clear. Bombardments, repeated publication, Omni-presence of ‘War on Terror’ even if it will answer the most fervent prayers of bin Laden and his network. Bin Laden’s network draws from a reservoir of anger, fear, and desperation, which is why they are praying for a violent U.S. reaction, which will mobilize others to their horrendous cause. Not to mention, means justify the ends. And it’s all good business in the end.  No?

* “[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that sis a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.” (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct 19, volume 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984]).

[i] Excerpt from a thesis on Role of Media, University of the Sindh.  

Bibliography 

This essay is based on the group discussions and readings by Sana Naveed 

Robert Fantina in his article “A colony by any other name” states the New York Times report about the new US demands from Iraq. He says that Bush’s vision of democratic Iraq that “the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law.”

This statement brings forth two alarming concepts that should alarm the United Nations, Halls of Congress and the Arab World. Gaining broader authority to start combat action in Afghanistan and Iraq was easy with the backing of republican controlled congress. Readers must be wandering about the reaction of United Nations. The body has very little impact when America has veto power in the system. There is little which can be done to stop Mr. Bush from imperial destruction of countries in question. Member nations will not give in easily to United State’s new demands but this is achievable through the congress and the military. Invading nations give themselves all the rights to roughshod over the citizens of the invaded nation. The world has witnessed the horrifying scenes of abuse and violations of human rights in past. “Germany invaded Poland, Austria, France and other nations during World War II, it, like the U.S. today, simply gave itself the authority to do so. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it was simply, like the U.S., giving itself the authority to invade a sovereign nation. Even when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, it had simply granted itself the right to do so, although long-standing disputes over borders and oil were the reason for that invasion. The U.S. was less amenable to the idea of such an invasion at that time than it has been more recently.”[1]   These violations not only creates disturbance in the invaded countries but also the neighbouring nations suffer equally. As the distress and violations increase in the invaded countries people flee to the safety of neighbouring nations. Unlike U.S. citizens many of Iraq’s neighbouring countries have experience the unrest and burdened economies when Iraqi nationals fled their country to find safety.The second point which makes us ponder is the fact that U.S. contractors in liberated Iraq are to be provided with protection from Iraqi law. Any logical mind will wonder that why should a foreigners be allowed to violate the local laws.  Cont…

[1] A colony by another name, Robert Fantina, www.counterpunch.com

In the war trodden zones opium is the only choice farmers has to turn to earn their living. Cultivation of opium poppy is the only choice Iraqi farmers are left with as they can no longer earn a living by growing traditional crops.  In Diyala province of Iraq, Afghani poppy farmers have been helping farmers to plant and grow poppy. North east of Iraq has been famous for its fertile land and orchards of  pomegranates. According to a local source in the town of Buhriz, poppy is been grown between the orange trees. So that the plantation is not visible to the authorities.  Iraqi news agency al-Malaf reported that opium is been heavily harvested in the areas around towns of Khalis, Sa’adiya, Dain’ya and south of Baladruz. Opium growth is a rather new phenomenon; farming is being funded by the group of drug smugglers who were supplying opium to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf from Afghanistan. Opium is being heavily grown in the Dyala, North east of Iraq.  Part of the country where al-Qaeda is still holding its position strongly resisting the Iraqi government and US army. This is the region which is also deeply divided between Sunni, Shia and Kurd. All the war and unrest in the country does not allow authorities to focus their attention towards drug dealing and growing. According to a local agricultural engineer Al-Azawi; local farmers do not have any support from the government which makes it even harder for them to compete with the cheap imported fruits and vegetables and in such a scenario growing opium seems to be a viable solution.It also reported by the local agencies that many of the opium farms are being cultivated under the supervision of Al Qa’ida, who confiscated thier land from the rightful owners. Opium farms are heavily guarded so no one can get inside, most farms are located in the Diyala which is still smaller than that in southern Iraqi states of Amara and Majar al- Kabir. Opium form Diyala is transported to Ramadi in Western Iraq. Cont..

The article “Horror at Guantanamo” written by Andy Worthington who is the author of The Guantánamo Files, the first book to tell the stories of all the detainees in America’s illegal prison, is about a Libyan detainee Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi who is infected with AIDS. Mr. al-Ghizzawi already had tuberculosis and hepatitis B which he contracted while imprisoned at Guantanamo.

He wasn’t given any proper medication at the prison and the Chief Medical Doctor at Guantanamo claimed that Mr. al-Ghizzawi  “does not want to be treated for his life threatening illness{es}”, although Mr. al-Ghizzawi denied this claim.

Candace Gorman, lawyer for Mr. al-Ghizzawi approached the Department of Justice attorney to look into the matter who stated “We are not privy to the particulars of what your client may have been told by his doctor, if anything, but Guantanamo provides high-quality medical care to all detainees.”

Mr. al-Ghizzawi health deteriorated at the prison over the years. He was devoid of proper medical care and later was shifted to Camp 6 with severe conditions that is mental and physical isolation and “blunt and barbaric conditions”.

The irony of the situation lies in the fact that Mr. al-Ghizzawi ended up in the prison without being involved in any crime as he was innocent.

A former meteorologist Mr. al-Ghizzawi was living peacefully with his family in Afghanistan. In 2001 as the news that US authorities are paying handsome bounties to the suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban members spread some armed men came to his house and captured him who sold him to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance and he was further sold to the US military.

Mr. al-Ghizzawi was alleged of meeting al-Qaeda members in Pakistan, additional allegations included that he stayed in LIFG house in Jalalabad and was a security leader for Osama bin Laden during a trip to a guest house in Jalalabad.

Though Mr. al-Ghizzawi countered all allegations he was finally proved guilty an “enemy combatant” by the military tribunal whose legitimacy and authenticity is criticized by former officers who served on them.

After reading this article by Andy Worthington we wonder whether Mr. al-Ghizzawi is dead or alive. This is not a single incident there are many in that illegal prison known as Guantanamo suffering at the hands of powerful.

The Human Rights Watch brought forward the case of Omar Khadr, now 21, and a detainee at Guantanamo Bay since he was 15 years old who was appeared before the usual tribunal. This shows the lack of juvenile justice. “Human Rights Watch notes the United States’ failure to incorporate juvenile detention and juvenile justice in military commission proceedings standards, and urges the US to not compound these violations by prosecuting Khadr before a military tribunal that is not equipped to meet these standards as well as other fair trial requirements, and in a manner inconsistent with its legal obligations to assist in rehabilitating former child soldiers within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, if the United States is not prepared to prosecute Khadr in a judicial system that incorporates fundamental standards of juvenile justice and other fair trial rights, it should promptly release Khadr and repatriate him to Canada for appropriate rehabilitation.”

The appeals put forward by the Human Rights organizations are put down every time by US and the number of detainees is still living prolonged solitary confinements and torture.

It’s high time that these methods of countering terrorism should be changed as it will only deteriorate the situation. As Martin Luther King said “Peace is not the absence of war but the presence of justice.”

______________________________________

This article is a rephrased version of the artcle bt Andy Warhington, “Horrors of Guantonamo”, retrieved from www.counterpunch.com. And is based on the group discussion lead by Anum Gill. 

Hoshyar Zebari in a statement said that US military forces will not stay in Iraq as long as some American politicians are demanding. A statement by the republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, caused anger amongst Iraqis. In an interview to The Independent in Baghdad, when asked that if the American army would be in Iraq in 10 years, he said: “Really, I wouldn’t say so.”
A year ago Mr. Zeberi was more confident about that Al-Qaeda has been crushed, if not completely but it is been network been shattered badly.  He says that it is important for Shia-kkurdish government to absorb into its security forces 70,000strong Sunni awakening movement which is fighting Al-Qaeda. He says that it is essential to involve Sunni Awakening movement as it is relatively new and immature political party which makes it more vulnerable to be manipulated by Al-Qaeda, He also added that not all the Sunni political leaders represent the Iraqi Sunni community.
Mr. Zebari started his career as a spokesman and foreign representative of the Kurdish government Party , those were the years of resistance against Saddam Hussein, He is one of the successful ministers in Iraq, Ever since his first appointment in 2004,he initiated goodwill with US and Iran. He has been surviving and dodged several assassination attempts by the insurgents.
Mr. Zebari is optimistic about the future peace in the country, but so far the socio political conditions of a country are not favourable for any peaceful developments. Iraq remains a violent country, recently a suicide bomber killed Brigadier General Salih Mohammad Hassan, who was chief of police of Mosul, largest city in the Northern Iraq. Brigadier Salih was inspecting the ruin s of buildings in which 20 people were killed, just a day before his assassination, in a bomb explosion. 
The Iraqi nation along with its political leaders are looking forward to sign a bilateral treaty with US which will determine that who would rule the nation. This bilateral treaty aims at settling issues such as Iraqi sovereignty, command and control of Iraqi security forces, and the immunity of foreign troops and private security companies. The Iraqi intelligence service, at present controlled and financed by the CIA, will be brought under Iraqi government control.

_____________________________________
1 Patrick Cockburn,  US Troops Will Be In Iraq for 10 More Years,www.counterpunch.com 

Josh Karpoff has analysed the soldier’s point of view about the current war. In his report, he has spoken about the issues related to America’s war in Iraq and people’s protest against it. The antiwar movement meeting opened the issue that the Pentagon has hidden the actual number of soldiers dying in the war. Many activities agreed with this “crazy theory” but this failed to make sense to Karpoff. The assumption was made on the basis that considering the previous wars, in the Americas history. Had a higher number of dead soldiers like in Vietnam, so should this war. Now in this war 75% of the troops are command personnel and changes in the war tactics have lowered the risk of danger as well. Moreover, due to the technological advancement the troops have modern armour, better medical facilities and few actual conventional combats which have resulted in lower death rate. There have been more injuries but lesser deaths. However, Karpoff has not diminished the value of deaths of these soldiers but in fact has stressed upon the significance of losing even a single life to this unworthy cause. Although majority of American’s are against these wars, there is a lack of proper strategies in the antiwar movement crucial for the success of the movement and end of the war. Karpoff maintains that there is critical need to find practical solutions rather than to question the lack of reaction ion the people.

Freedom of speech – is a civil liberty. It is one of the basic rights in democracy. The basic rights are the common threads of a democracy. Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice ones opinion publicly without censorship or punishment.

Terrorism – in the modern sense, is violence, the treat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals. Acts which are intended to create fear (terror) are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).Counter – terrorism or counterterrorism refers to the practices, tactics, techniques, and strategies that government, militaries. Police departments and other groups adopt in order to prevent or mitigate specific terrorist acts.Counterterrorism is not specific to any one field or organisation; rather, it involves entities from all levels from society. For instance, businesses have security plans and sometimes share commercials data with the government.The article by Joanne Miller is in fact an effort to regain the freedom of expression which many of us lost after 9/11. War on terror has directly affected the freedom to express, write, creativity and speech. Anything written about the terrorism is considered to be taken as an action on. “Attempts at the justification or glorification of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts”UUN Security Council 2005 The above statement tells about the incitement. However, even indirect incitement is considered and goes against the counterterrorism laws. Anything that encourages terrorism is a crime. Whether it’s done directly or indirectly.There is no need for the message to directly encourage terrorism, and rather than having to be “likely” to result in criminal action, its enough that the message may “cause a danger” of such action. - Joanne Mariner.The problem arises because of the board language used while making a counterterrorism law. Rules are expansive. The objectivity is lost. And the punishment is given judgmentally. The government “over reacts” to the situation. And exploits the freedom of expression which indeed, is the cover stone and benchmarks of the modern European civilization. Their over reaction on the war of terror has escalated over a number of countries. A person carrying a map of a country may be accused of being a terrorist if he/she dose not have a solid point to prove him innocent. A person visiting an AL Qaeda website, or collecting information about it may be accused guilty. A young woman is now known as “lyrical terrorist” because of her poems that are written on terrorism. Isn’t this all just over rated? Over dramatized? Judgmental? What does ne have to say about Guantanamo bay? Innocent souls were being tortured as they were just considered as terrorist without any proof.

We do not totally blame the government. They have to take actions before the terrorist attacks actually take place. But there are these expansive rules that we blame at. By making such laws, government are doing more harm then good. Freedom of expression has to grain back. Freedom of speech is not something that can be easily controlled or stopped. It is everyone’s prior right to have the liberty to express them.

____________________________________________________

This article is rephrased version of Joanne Mariner’s article, “How anti-terror laws threaten free speech”