Rape as a Tool of War by Jennifer Fenton

by Jennifer Fenton
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Justice and Peace
Oct 9, 2008

The use of rape as a tool of war is not a modern occurrence. Rape during wartime is a well-documented phenomenon that has occurred since writers and philosophers have recognized its existence. Gottschall notes, “historical and anthropological evidence suggests that rape in the context of war is an ancient human practice, and that this practice has stubbornly prevailed across a stunningly diverse concatenation of societies and historical epochs.” This claim, supported by APAP (2002), “In primitive warfare, women were targeted as a means to avoid facing the enemy again by eliminating the source of manpower for future supply,” shows the deliberate means in which a society may suffer through the use of rape as a tool of war. Wartime rape does not indicate solitary examples of rape by individuals but rather a pattern “of rape by soldiers at rates that are much increased over rates of rape that prevail in peacetime.” (Gottschall, 2004). Human Rights Watch claims:

Documenting the Surge: US Soldier’s Films Expose the Realities of the Iraq Occupation

Dandelion Salad

Note: although Jennifer is a featured writer here on Dandelion Salad she wrote this piece for another website as an exclusive, so you’ll have to read the rest of the article there.  Thanks, Lo

by Jennifer Fenton
The WIP Contributors

Home

Sept 15, 2008

“We have an entire generation of people in their twenties and thirties who have never gone through a war…the media and government have gotten so good at the creation of messages, people don’t know the reality.” – Casey J. Porter

Army Sergeant Casey J. Porter has many battles to fight, and unlike the dramatizations of politicians and media commentators, his battles are concrete, real, and hard fought. During his time as an enlisted soldier deployed in Iraq, Casey has undergone an evolutionary process, one that has taken him from warrior to peace activist. His talent and passion for filmmaking have given him the perfect medium for his personal expression. Utilizing his current circumstances and natural talent as a filmmaker to speak out against the war, Casey’s films have turned the heads of people like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and filmmaker Michael Moore.

I was fortunate enough to spend some time with Casey recently. Phoning from Iraq, his soft-spoken voice was not quite what I expected – his intellect, courage, and tenacity are apparent, even from three thousand miles away.

“Most Americans are not affected on a daily basis by this war; it is not personal for them…I can tell you for example, that what is happening in Iraq is always in the daily thoughts of my mother.”

[…]

The WIP Contributors: Documenting the Surge: US Soldier’s Films Expose the Realities of the Iraq Occupation.

see

What War Looks Like – Redux by Casey J. Porter (2007)

Deconstructed – The Reality in Iraq

IVAW Ft. Hood Soldiers Speak Out

A.O. – Area of Operations in Iraq by Casey J Porter

“Strategic Alliance” – US and Iraq

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog post
Justice and Peace
July 5, 2008

In spite of the Bush Administrations attempts to keep up the appearance that the Iraqi Government welcomes the continued presence of US troops indefinitely, members of the Iraqi Parliament have made numerous attempts to assert the independence of Iraq.

Never has this been more obvious than in recent months where Iraqi leaders have made both public and written statements opposing the continued US presence in their country.

Iraqi’s themselves have long been opposed the presence of US troops, largely because they are seen as a destabilizing factor. According to a recent BBC/ABC poll, 69% of Iraqis believe that the security situation in Baghdad will improve or at least stay the same with the withdraw of US troops.

After the discovery of a secret plan to continue the US military presence in Iraq indefinitely, numerous Iraqi lawmakers have attempted with little success to make their wishes known to American lawmakers and the American public. Although the majority of corporate media sources refuse to give voice to the Iraqi’s themselves, the information can be found through alternative sources. For example, “On Tuesday, Democracy Now! spoke to visiting Iraqi lawmakers…in New York. Iraqi parliament member Khalaf Al-Ulayyan criticized the US proposals” stating,

“I believe the parliament will not ratify the treaty in its current form, because it harms Iraqi sovereignty. Based on the details that have been leaked to the media, it seems that the deal will make Iraq not just an occupied country but an actual part of the US.”

And, in a recent letter to the American Congress and Senate, Iraqi lawmakers pointed out that any deal signed solely by the Executive branch, would be both “unconstitutional and illegal” under the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. According to the Iraqi Constitution Article 61 Section Four, the Iraqi government’s legislative power retains exclusive rights to ratify international treaties and agreements.

Representing the majority of the two-hundred and seventy five members of the Iraqi Parliament, the letter goes on to state,

Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment, or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanism that obligate the occupying military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and with leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.

The Iraqi Council of Representatives is looking to ratify agreements that end every form of American intervention in Iraq’s internal affairs and restore Iraq’s independence and sovereignty over its land.

According to The Independent, in response to the resistance met by Iraqi lawmakers, United States negotiators “are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal…The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York…” These funds continue to grow as the price of oil climbs, furthering the pressure on Iraqi Lawmakers to accept the deal. This hold on these funds also inhibits the ability of Iraq’s rebuilding efforts as these funds, which under the UN mandate, are specifically for the reconstruction of Iraq including “the wheat purchase program, the currency exchange program, the electricity and oil infrastructure programs, equipment for Iraqis security forces, and for Iraqi civil service salaries and ministry budget operations.”

As Americans continue to debate the continued military presence in Iraq, what seems to elude them is the absolute hypocrisy of claims made by the Bush Administration both in regards to Iraq’s sovereignty and “The War on Terror.” in which he claims, “The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.” Considering that Bush’s solution to terrorism is the establishment of a “free and self-governing Iraq” one would think this issue would be moot. Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people have shown with little doubt they wish us to leave.

It leaves one to wonder, when will we listen?

see

Revealed: Secret Plan to Keep Iraq Under US Control by Patrick Cockburn

US Issues Threat to Iraq’s $50bn Foreign Reserves in Military Deal

Iraqi MPs speak out about occupation + Iraqi MPs against US bases

Bush-Led ‘Disaster Capitalism’ Exploits Worldwide Misery to Make a Buck

New Bush-push for US-Iraq security pact

Dahr Jamail: Iraq and U.S. Military Expansion

Ask not… by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog post
Justice and Peace
July 1, 2008

…what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. ~John F. Kennedy January 20, 1961

Close to two decades after this speech was made the concept of American self-sacrifice took hold in the form of a speech delivered by then president, Jimmy Carter. On April 18, 1977, Carter had an open and honest discussion with the American people about the ensuing energy crisis that would threaten our national security and well-being as a nation.

He warned us that in this century the energy crisis would likely get “progressively worse” and that, “we must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources.”

Over thirty years ago, this was the message from our President and what have we done as a nation? We have annually increased our oil consumption and dependence on foreign oil. In spite of Carter’s calls and efforts to wean Americans off Middle Eastern oil dependence, European nations began conservation efforts that surpassed those of the Carter Administration…and some countries like Brazil and Sweden have either completely weaned themselves from oil dependence or have offered bold proposals to do so, proposals that are sustainable and do not continue the patterns of environmental degradation of nuclear and “clean coal” technologies.

Regardless of these blaring mistakes, no politician to date has addressed this issue as substantively as Carter has. This is not a partisan issue; under the administration of Clinton, we saw an encouragement to use more fuel through the simple act of raising the speed limit.

In his speech, Carter set out clear and obtainable goals…

–Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

–Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

–Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

–Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months’ supply.

–Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

–Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

–Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

…in reaching these goals, President Carter laid out ten principles guiding energy policy…most notable, are Carter’s fifth and sixth principle where he states,

Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

…and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The time has come for Americans to make small sacrifices in order to conserve; perhaps drive slower to work every day, take public transit or carpool once a week, buy food from local farmers, (in other words read the label of your food, was it produced in Mexico or China? Put it back!), buy your children’s clothing at a second hand store or look for that Made in America label, shop in small local businesses rather than shop online where your product is hand delivered using more fuel, reduce the amount of meat you eat, turn off the lights, take shorter showers, turn your refrigerator down, wash in cold water, buy energy efficient appliances, turn down your thermostat and put on a sweater, cook more using fresh fruits and veggies that do not require lots of unnecessary packaging, and if possible utilize alternative energy sources like solar power to power your home.

Certainly as Carter pointed out some thirty years ago, we as a nation will surely perish if we do not look to alternatives and conservation. Thirty years have been wasted in blood and national treasure and his promise, “Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 — never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s…” has gone unrecognized and held in contempt by many, especially those in the oil industry.

This brings us back to the request from John F. Kennedy, the idea of personal sacrifice for the well-being of our country, and the world, where violence has now become the accepted means to secure energy resources. From Africa to the Middle East, people die and suffer needlessly in order to quench our bloody thirst for oil.

My Meeting with Dr. David Ray Griffin by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog post
Justice and Peace
June 30, 2008

Conspiracy ~ A Planning and acting together secretly, esp. for an unlawful or harmful purpose.

If A = B,

And B = C,

Then A must = C.

True?

Not always.

On the evening of June 27, 2008, I attended an event with Dr. David Ray Griffin. Yes everyone, David Ray Griffin the worlds leading critic of the United States government’s story behind the events of September 11, 2001.

Admittedly, I found myself in a most unexpected situation. When I approached the building where he was to speak, I was certain I would be surrounded by the stereotypical 9/11 ‘truther’ portrayed in the media. In other words, I would find myself in the midst of a large group of fanatical nuts and off in the corner of the building I would see one well dressed FBI agent attempting not to laugh at the antics he was witnessing.

This was not my experience. After a short conversation with Mr. Griffin who teased me a bit about my name, (he asked if anyone had ever called me Jeffiner instead of Jennifer, because that is what he called his daughter after friends at school could not pronounce her name) I found myself amongst a group of educated, articulate adults.

When the event began, Mr. Griffin started by saying that perhaps the most important political question of our time was, ‘Did Muslim Extremists attack the United States on September 11, 2001?’

I can’t disagree. Since the events of September the 11th, the United States has launched two pre-emptive wars (one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq), is preparing to launch another pre-emptive war (Iran), abolished Habeas Corpus, practices torture and Extraordinary Rendition, encroaches on our Civil Liberties, and reversed the 200-year old tradition of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. This has been the United States stance in a supposed effort to protect us from another catastrophic event.

Unfortunately, what has been lost in this discussion is a slow, objective, thoughtful look at that day in American history. Both sides, those that accept the governments accounting as absolutes and those who are determined to prove that the Unites States was behind the event have reached definitive conclusions. I would offer that the actual truth lies somewhere in between.

In Griffin’s discussion and his recent book 9/11 Contradictions An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, Griffin asks us to engage in this thoughtful discussion. I have to admit, I myself, have many questions about that day that have still gone unanswered and the Bush Administration’s reluctance to engage in an open dialog about the issue as well as the manipulation of evidence leading up to the Iraq Occupation does make me suspicious. This, I suppose, is why I attended the event. My personal questions along with the discussion between the makers of Loose Change and the authors of the Popular Mechanics article on Democracy Now! is perhaps the most time I have actually spent on the issue. However, the most profound experience for me, was recently sitting in bed with my husband while he was surfing the internet and I was reading a book.

“Hmmm, that is kinda weird.” he says more to himself than me.

“What?”

“Look at this,” as he shows me a photo picturing a large steel beam that has apparently been cut in a perfect diagonal line, “it is what a steel beam looks like after a controlled demolition.”

Now I am annoyed, my husband who has done construction for over 20 years thinks I am interested in this topic loves to explain all sorts of engineering and architectural things that I really find boring.

“So?”

“This is the World Trade Center.”

Now he has my attention. “Are you sure?”

When I left the event, I donated ten dollars to a group in New York City that is asking for a re-opening of the 9/11 investigation. I have concluded, which is really no conclusion at all, that the 9/11 Commission Report and the Bush Administration have offered too many contradictions and have left too many questions unanswered. In light of the blood that has been shed, the treasury lost, and the diversion from the values we hold dear, don’t we, doesn’t the world deserve to have the questions raised by Mr. Griffin answered?

I think we do. I would encourage you to consider the possibility, even the plausibility that at the very least, Griffin points out contradictions that have seen no resolution, not from our government or our press.

see

http://www.nyc911initiative.org/

Tim Russert, Dick Cheney, and 9/11 by Prof. David Ray Griffin

INN WORLD REPORT: David Ray Griffin

Griffin-David Ray

9/11

A Year Has Passed by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog post
Justice and Peace
June 28, 2008

“There is perhaps no surer road to peace than the one that starts from little islands and oases of genuine kindness, islands, and oases constantly growing in number and being continually joined together until eventually they ring the world.” ~Father Dominique Pire (1958)

It has been almost a year since I embarked on my trip to Israel and the Occupied Territories. My intention when I left was to wade through the propaganda, gain some insight, and pass my own judgments about the situation. The experience in and of itself was surreal. There exists pieces of me that continue to reside there and some that never went.

My intention was to write about what I saw and I have not. I have held the experience inside myself for many reasons. Feelings of being overwhelmed overcome me any time I attempt to explain, especially in writing. Of course, there is also the extreme racism against Arabs in the psyche of many and I often find myself called some of the most abhorrent and misdirected names when I speak out against the violence perpetrated on them. It is a misguided claim, that those whose hearts bleed for the Arabs do not bleed for the Jews. The accusations I have heard or read are directed at human rights organizations, the international community, and individuals like me.

For example, Human Rights Watch released a report condemning Israeli military operations that unnecessarily displaced and killed civilians during the 2006 “war” with Hezbollah fighters. Uproar came from the Jewish community that this organization was anti-Semitic and favored terrorist organizations. A simple search of Human Rights Watch’s website (where numerous reports condemning Hezbollah for targeting Israeli civilians) clears up this erroneous claim.

Please excuse my digression.

Somewhere between the propaganda, the violence, and media reports lies a diverse and changing truth and that truth resides with individual stories and those who tell them. The single consistent message from both Arab and Jew for me was to return and tell those stories. Reflecting back now, there are many I have not told. I was reminded of this when I read my e-mail this morning and read a piece published by Deborah Agre who is there now.

As I read, I could picture in my minds eye the sights and sounds of everything she had written about. I knew the room she was in when she read her e-mail, I knew the bus that had its windows blown out by the sound bomb, and I knew the restaurant she spoke of and the stairs. However, what I am most intimate with are the feelings of helplessness and despair that come with living with a military occupation. It is a feeling that regardless of position of occupier or occupied, race, gender, or religious belief demeans, degrades, and de-humanizes all.

As Americans occupying Iraq, we have much to learn from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It is a lesson draped in simplicity and truth – peace is only obtained through the creation of a stable society. Oppression and violence simply undermine this goal.

While in the city of Hebron, I floated upon an island of peace, an island where Father Pire’s vision was evident. Underneath an Olive Tree, I gathered with an Arab family and two young Jewish men who had served with the Israeli Defense Forces.

With the heat of the day brushed away by a shade cooled wind, we discussed ways to empower the people of the city. And while we talked, I wondered why no one around the world was paying attention.

Convenient Crises by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog post
Justice and Peace
May 24, 2008

Think of it as the true test of the Western humanitarian impulse: The international effort that went into coordinating relief after the 2004 tsunami has to be repeated, but in much harsher, trickier, uglier political circumstances. Yes, we should help the Burmese, even against the will of their irrational leaders. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn’t much time to ruminate about any of this.

~ Anne Applebaum

The situation facing the Burmese and the Chinese in the face of natural disaster is in dire need of attention. Some reports and media outlets are offering figures as high as 125,000 dead and 2.4 million at risk due to starvation and disease. The numbers in Burma alone are staggering. In fact, the amount of suffering civilians has led lawmakers including President George Bush to respond swiftly.

In response to these combined natural disasters, the United States has come forward with close to 20 million dollars in aid and the international community has “responded by offering over 100 million”

It seems as if the United States and indeed the world at large has taken the advice of Applebaum. Swift action in the face of “irrational leaders” will save lives and reduce the suffering of victims.

Sadly, Western media outlets fail to compare this humanitarian crisis to the US created crisis taking place daily in the Middle East, namely in Iraq, where over 4 million have been displaced and are living in squalid conditions. This humanitarian crisis has been named the largest humanitarian and displacement crisis in the world, and goes on largely unnoticed.

In a recently released report published by Refugees International, (Uprooted and Unstable, 2008) “the needs of the displaced are not adequately addressed by the Government of Iraq or the international community.”

Indeed, when compared to the billions of dollars (most recently 165 billion) President George Bush requests from US taxpayers to pay for the continued military presence in Iraq annually, a mere 35 million in humanitarian aid was requested for the fiscal year 2008. The report goes on to note, “This vacuum is quickly being filled by militias and other armed groups, who engage in hearts and minds campaigns and provide assistance as a means of building support for their political and military goals.”

The Iraqi government fragmented and corrupt has done little to assist their own people in providing basic services and aid, according to Refugees International, “It is unable and unwilling to use its important resources to respond appropriately to the humanitarian crisis.” However, in sharp contrast, as reported by Democracy Now! the Iraqi government “has now become one of the largest purchasers of US arms” worldwide.

Yet, in spite of the dire humanitarian situation in Iraq, the continued hypocrisies and politicization of convenient crisis’s, and the obvious blunder of pushing Iraqi civilians towards militias and radical groups, Western media and politicians will continue to distract voters from the real issues underlying continued destabilization of Iraq…the deliberate denial of Iraq’s humanitarian crisis.

One can easily take the words of Applebaum and make them apply to Iraq, “Yes, we should help the Iraqis, even against the will of irrational leaders like George Bush. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn’t much time to ruminate about any of this.

You can do something…here.

MEND: The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
Justice and Peace
Mayl 8, 2008

The oppressive and repressive activities of the oil companies and the Nigerian State [sic] impact women first and foremost. During military occupation of communities, the women suffer psychologically, emotionally, and physically. They are raped and maimed. They suffer as their sons get arrested and killed…and feel it most when their brothers, husbands and lovers are tortured maimed and killed. The military and armed police have brutalized and sacked whole communities, assaulting and beating indiscriminately. The objective is to humiliate, intimidate, and eliminate all those who resist oil exploitation activities. ~ Emem J. Okan

Women’s International Perspective – Uganda by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog
Justice and Peace
April 7, 2008

Women’s International Perspective hosted its first ever speaker panel on Friday April 4, 2008, at the Monterey Institute of International Study. The organization, barely one year old at the time of the event offers a woman’s perspective of violence against women and children around the globe.

Joyce Laker, a human rights worker and women’s advocate in Uganda shared her experiences about violence against women and children. Uganda, known for its child soldiers has been riddled with violence and conflict for decades. Forced to join the armed resistance of the Lord’s Resistance Army, children as young as ten years old are often forced to kill their own parents first, to sometimes drink their blood or cannibalize their bodies, and then enter into a never ending cycle of violence.

As sociologist and scholar Riane Eisler points out, violence against women and children around the world is actually, “normal,” and calls it, “the most ubiquitous human rights violation in the world.” As evidenced by Joyce Laker’s experience in Uganda, Riane Eisler’s point carries great weight.

Joyce Laker shared alarming statistics representing reported sexual violence. Throughout Uganda, anywhere from 26 to 52 percent of the female population has experienced sexual violence. However, as Laker points out, these numbers are likely not accurate as the reporting and investigation of a rape for women is costly and tedious at its best, and further degrading at its worst. Women are forced to pay police to conduct the investigations at the rates of 3.00 for the police to come and take the report, 10.00 to provide transportation for the police to come take the report and 20.00 to provide transportation for the perpetrator to the police station.

These human rights violations and atrocities are rarely, if ever reported in United States mainstream media and do not gain the attention they deserve. As American media outlets and politicians continue to ignore developments in Africa, the Bush Administration has dramatically ramped up the militarization of the continent since 2002, flushing the area with over $130 million dollars in military sales, financing, and training expenditures for what the US considers strategic for the “war on terror.”

However, as the think tank Foreign Policy In Focus rightly queries, the fundamental question for many is whether the US will utilize this increased military presence to support freedom, self determination, growth, prosperity, and accountability on behalf of the majority of nearly one billion people in Africa or if this new initiative will instead serve to oversee surrogate nations whose leadership is accountable first to U.S security and economic interest. (Gerald Le Melle, “Africa Policy Outlook 2008,” (Waahsington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, February 7, 2008).

Under the Bush administration, AFRICOM’s (Africa Command) structure would “place humanitarian work previously done by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development under the directive of the Department of Defense.” (Le Melle 2008) As evidenced by circumstances on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous countries around the globe, US interests rarely coincide with human rights, the sickness of the global society in regards to the rights of women and children around the globe should determine which countries the US does and does not call an ally.

As Le Melle points out in the Africa Policy Outlook conclusion, “Despite being the most stretched out campaign in American history, the 2008 presidential election is marked by the typical absence of any serious discussion of Africa. It is as if Africa has already been ceded to the Department of Defense and therefore out of the view of the American public. In contrast with the accelerating militarization of the U.S Africa relations described above, this silence is deafening.”

see

Babes at Arms by The Other Katherine Harris (child soldiers; recruiting)

Motherhood & Other Topics

AFRICOM – the big secret in the USA by Bryan Hunt (2/21/2007)

The Constitution, John Yoo, and You

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog
Justice and Peace
April 4, 2008

The manner in which we seek justice against those accused of harming us will determine whether the United States will be seen at home and abroad as a nation of laws. We must decide whether we live the values of justice that make us proud to be Americans, or whether we will forsake those values and continue down a path of arbitrary rules and procedures more befitting those who are our enemies. Because we are a great nation, true to our founders’ vision, we must uphold our core values even in the toughest of times. The right to a speedy trial in a court of law before an objective arbiter; the right to due process; the right to rebut the evidence against you; the right not to be tortured or waterboarded, or convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence are what truly define America and our commitment to the rule of law and our founders’ aspirations. — Anthony D. Romero

John Yoo, the former Bush Administration lawyer and legal advisor, along with Alberto Gonzales have become infamous in the American psyche as the legal team who deliberately argued the support of torture as well as various Constitutional violations. Shortly after the events of September 11, Americans were told that this was a new kind of war that would require changes in the way America conducted itself.

For most legal scholars, constitutionalists, and human rights activists the ideas of having to redefine or to defend current definitions of torture, cruel and unusual punishment, and whether or not constitutional law applied during wartime became a kind of surreal nightmare that few understood. According to Mark Danner, once Alberto Gonzales had written that “this new paradigm renders obsolete the Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions,” arguments among government officials broke out. The Department of Defense expressed grave concern stating that such a decision “will reverse over a century of US policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine protections of the law for our troops.”

As evidenced by photographs coming from Abu Ghraib and the “Torture Memos”, it has become apparent to any Americans listening that the torture that took place there as well as Gitmo was deliberate, and certainly conducted with the full permission of higher ups in the military and the White House.

In an interview with Phillepe Sands on Democracy Now! Juan Gonzales reported that, “The Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners and interrogation methods is coming under increased scrutiny this week following the declassification of a 2003 memo. The memo shows the Justice Department told the Pentagon that presidential authority overrode numerous laws banning torture or cruel treatment of prisoners in US custody. The memo endorsed assault, maiming and even administering mind-altering drugs on prisoners. The memo was written on March 14, 2003 by attorney John Yoo. At the time, Yoo was a deputy in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. Today, Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Meanwhile, the British attorney Philippe Sands has just published an article in Vanity Fair exposing new details about how Yoo and other high-ranking administration attorneys helped design and implement the interrogation policies seen at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and secret CIA prisons.

According to Vanity Fair, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales personally visited Guantanamo in 2002, discussed interrogation techniques and witnessed interrogations. Also on the trip was David Addington, then Dick Cheney’s chief counsel, and William Haynes, the general counsel of the Department of Defense.

Remarkably and under reported, disdain for the rule of law does not end on the soil of Iraq and Cuba, according to a recently released memo obtained by the ACLU, through a Freedom of Information Act request, evidence of White House officials contempt for the Constitution becomes more evident. In documents citing the Fourth Amendment (protections against unreasonable search and seizure), titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.” authors point out, “our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,”

Even more alarming however, is that this President and Vice President continue to hold their positions in office. It leaves this law-abiding citizen to stare in shock and awe as to how it is possible that United States citizens continue to allow this to happen.

see

Olbermann: Commander in Chief Test + McCain & the Economy + Worst + Bushed!

The Green Light: Attorney Philippe Sands Follows the Bush Admin Torture Trail

The Green Light

Torture

Four More Years by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog
Justice and Peace
Feb. 9, 2008

The illegality, immorality, and blunderings of the Bush Administration has, for the past seven years, angered a nation, shocked the world, and trumped the rules of law and justice like no other presidency in US history.

One of many illegal actions, the detention of “enemy combatants” including US citizens without legal representation, the denial of Habeas Corpus, the use of evidence obtained through torture and the denial of transparency during Military Tribunals where the defendant is not allowed to see evidence against him and in some cases not made aware of the charges brought against him. These trials have become reminiscent of the Salem Witchcraft Trials of 1692, where one more time a sentence of death can be handed down with little or no means to defend oneself. These practices violate international law and numerous treaties of which we are signatory to. Violation of these treaties denigrates the Constitution itself as it states in Article VI, Clause 2, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

Further violations of the constitution have come in the form of illegal wiretapping, the illegal monitoring of US citizen calls both within and out of the United States (all with no burden of proof for probable cause), and in the collection of personal data by private corporations, which is then used for domestic spying.

Remarkable to this administration is its continued references to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and justice, when these ideals are hardly promoted in US foreign policies. For instance, the claims of stability, freedom, and democracy for the Iraqi people while systematically displacing millions and killing innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands brings new depth to the meaning of the word hypocrisy.

Even more alarming during the next few months the Bush administration will continue to thumb its nose at the rule of law, the balance of power, and the Constitution, while the world watches in an almost helpless stupor. Included in this power grab will likely be another preemptive attack on a nation accused of coveting WMD’s, Iran. Which, if carried out with the intent of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and any facility that may have nuclear knowledge (including universities), will lead to a “collateral damage” figure of 2.8 million deaths. This is of course, if the administration chooses the course of restrain, as these figures are for the bombing of only half of the suspected sites.

If one were to examine the Bush Administration closely, one could easily make the connection that the fundamental problem lies with its continued abuse of The Constitution. In fact, every illegal, immoral, and thoughtless action this administration has perpetrated on its citizens and the world can be traced back to its contempt for this document.

As Americans look forward to 2009, hopes of a collective sigh of relief are everywhere. The Democratic Party and Progressive Politics are swooning Independent and Republican voters with a sweet songs filled with change. Hopes for the restoration of Constitutional Law, elevated status in world opinion, and a time when we can enjoy freedom from corporate control are driving Americans to the polls this year.

Yet in spite of this passion and renewed hope, a close primary race, and calls for a change to the status quo, Americans continue to follow corporate media, never giving themselves enough time to digest what is happening in political arenas. Recently, The Nation reported:

“Illinois Senator Barack Obama has finally signed the American Freedom Pledge, joining his fellow Democratic presidential candidates in encouraging the restoration of basic Constitutional principles after the battering they have taken during the Bush-Cheney era.

All the Democrats, that is, except New York Senator Hillary Clinton.”

One can only wonder, how with the experience of a tramped upon constitutional document, the one Democratic presidential hopeful who will not make a commitment to its restoration is even close to taking the White house. Perhaps, after four more years of the shredding of this document Americans will finally wake up to the powers at be, and realize our country’s two party system is preparing, one more time, to sell us, the world, and our freedom to the highest bidder.

see

A Pre-election Attack on Iran Remains a Possibility By Leon Hadar

Voices from Gaza by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog
Justice and Peace
Jan. 28, 2008

The dream they had dreamt of being free and separate people, with their own right to self –determination in their own national state in southern Africa was the ideal to which I myself had clung until I finally concluded, after a long process of deep introspection, that, if pursued, it would bring disaster to all the peoples of our country, including my own.

~F.W. DeClerk

Ideas of nationalism and racism have long been ingrained in the very essence of humanity. History has shown us the horrors created when one ethnic or religious group claims themselves to be in some way superior or more righteous than another. Across the globe, indigenous people fight for basic necessities, equality, and the right to freedom. As this historical story repeats itself and unfolds, the voices that speak for justice are the strongest, yet they are rarely heard.

This horrific story of oppression and violent resistance is repeating itself now in Gaza where day to day control of Gazan borders belongs to the Israeli government (Human Rights Watch 2008). Control of these borders has left Gazan residents impoverished as the ability to export and import goods and services has been severely limited. These limitations have led to 80% of Gazan residents dependent on aid from the United Nations, 79% of the population living in poverty, and to the collapse of 90% of Gazan businesses, simply furthering hardships for civilians. Human Rights Watch has condemned the Israeli Government citing numerous violations of the Geneva Conventions and calls Israel’s actions collective punishment. In combination with this condemnation, Human Rights Watch has warned militants that the relentless rocket attacks raining down on Israeli civilians are in clear violation of international law. However, in sharp contrast to 10 Israeli injuries, over 40 Palestinian deaths have been reported in the past few days alone.

As these populations live in fear of retribution and continued violence, the situation is deteriorating. One Gaza resident recently wrote, “As anyone living under military occupation at any time I am awaiting my death, any time maybe the helicopter can bomb any place, I don’t know it…” and yet in spite of this fear, he goes on to recognize that living side by side with those he is at war with is the answer, “The best thing is for there [sic] to be one multinational state…and to let the people live in peace, far from all things political [sic]…believe me, Palestinians and Israelis want to live in peace.”  And as the situation in Gaza becomes more unstable, so does civil strife. Hundreds of thousands of Gazans crossed the Egyptian border last week in an attempt to restock essential food and fuel supplies constituting almost half of the entire population of Gaza.

Regardless of the continued violence there are many who speak for reconciliation and peace; however, these voices continue to be marginalized by mainstream media and those who seek to profit from war. In a recent interview with Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman, members of the group Combatants for Peace described in detail their reason for seeking reconciliation through non-violence. As former fighters for both the Israeli military and the militant faction of Fatah, members of this group have come to understand how their continued violence against each other has only resulted in more violence with both sides losing life and freedom. In an open letter written by Yonatan Shapira, he, along with other Israeli soldiers, expressed their refusal to participate in what they considered to be war crimes. The expression of this sentiment has joined forces with the non-violent Palestinian movement creating a viable option for peaceful resolution.

Sadly, these voices, which represent the majority of Israeli’s and Palestinians who wish to live in peace are continually stifled. Yonatan Shapipra states, “I don’t think you have to be a military expert or have a Ph.D. in political science and to be one of these fancy scholars in Washington institutions to know that the results of this scientific experiment that we have in Gaza, for example, locking millions of people-million and a half people without food, electricity, medicine-no one can go out, no one can go in…It’s obvious that you’re going to have people resist. And I grew up, you know, learning the history of my people and how they resisted in Warsaw Ghetto, where they didn’t have any choice…I’m against what Hamas is doing…people are getting killed…all of us in our group are against that. But what can you expect from people when you treat them like that, in such a brutal occupation, such a brutal situation. What do you want them to do?”

Apparently the answer to the question of how the Palestinians living in Gaza should respond to occupation will remain elusive, especially as long as the word terrorist is equated with Palestinian, and violence is seen as the only solution. Sadly, as noted by F.W. DeClerk this can only lead to the destruction of both.

see

How To Help Feed & Support Children of The Gaza Strip & West Bank By Tom Feeley + audio link

Kucinich Urges Restoration of Humanitarian Aid to Gaza

‘Breakout into Israel’ ahead By Abraham Rabinovich

Israeli Oppression in Hebron – A Case History of Separation, Forced Displacement & Terror by Stephen Lendman

The Myths behind Iraq’s Civil War by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog
Justice and Peace
Jan. 16, 2008

The groundbreaking film, Meeting Resistance, seeks to explain the current disconnect in American media and the realities on the ground of what forces are behind the violence in Iraq. Similar arguments used during Vietnam are largely accepted by American audiences as a legitimate reason for the continued occupation of Iraq. The “War on Terror” and the fight against communism in Vietnam both give Americans an enemy to fear and our troops an honorable military operation.

Never before in American history has a documentary film examined “the enemy” while the conflict continues. The information contained in the film has become so valuable in gaining understanding of the violence in Iraq; it has been shown not only to civilian audiences, but to military audiences as well. Of note is the recent showing to “The Red Team” operating in Iraq whose main job is to conduct exercises and war games, providing an adversarial perspective, especially when this perspective includes plausible tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) as well as realistic policy and doctrine… of the enemy. Although the filmmakers themselves are journalists, with no specific political or military agenda, the military has recognized the great value this film offers.

Explanations to several myths making their way through the American media give audiences a new and necessary perspective. The first myth largely accepted is that the majority of the violence in Iraq is due to sectarian violence targeting mostly civilians. Clearly, this is not the case as the Department of Defense quarterly reports show a very different reality. An average of 74% of all violence is attributed to attacks on American forces, 16% target Iraqi police and army personal, and a mere 10% target civilians. These numbers break apart the myth that a US troop presence is needed in order to mediate or stifle a civil war based on old sectarian tensions.

The second myth circulated for American audiences is the idea that sectarian tensions in Iraq existed before the US led invasion (mostly between Sunni and Shi’a). However, when one look at current polls, showing that 100% of Iraqi’s disagree with targeting other Iraqi’s, regardless of faith, the presumption that deep seeded hate among these groups exists is false at best. In fact in 2002 close to half of all marriages in Iraq were comprised of people with mixed faith and ethnicities.

The third myth is that violence is largely attributed to “outside influences,” namely that of foreign fighters from Iran and Syria. Although there is minimal truth to these claims the percentage of attacks on American forces and perceived collaborators are largely perpetrated by Iraqi’s themselves and motivated by Iraqi nationalism and a desire to “protect the homeland.” Of the one Syrian fighter interviewed for the film, it was a desire to fight the enemy in Iraq in order to quell an American attack on Syrian soil that motivated his particular movement. Ironically, it has been this same argument offered up by Vice President Dick Cheney and the political right in this country to justify the continued occupation of Iraq. We will fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here dominates the mentality of all foreign fighters in Iraq, including US troops.

Last, the myth that Iraqi on Iraqi violence is motivated by religious ideology is also shown to be largely false. A more accurate description of the civil strife in Iraq is that it is political in nature and is comprised of Iraqi Nationalists who wish to see Iraq remain united, unoccupied, and self-governing and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council who have advocated a partitioning of Iraq.

As documented in the film and evidenced by the Department of Defense ‘s own reports if US policy makers truly wish to see a decrease in violence, a clear course of action is offered up by this film. The removal of US forces alone would decrease violence by 74%, a substantial decrease in violence by anyone’s standards. Anyone, that is, except those politicians making the decision to keep any US forces in Iraq.

see
Meeting Resistance (video; Iraq)

America’s “Divide and Rule” Strategies in the Middle East by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Interview with Dahr Jamail (audio) + Police & Army Getting Sidelined By Ahmed Ali & Dahr Jamail

George Bush Addresses a Nation by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog
Justice and Peace
Jan. 16, 2008

On Sunday January 13, 2008, President George Bush addressed a nation. True to Bush form, his speech opened with an arrogance few would suppose, “I am honored by the opportunity to stand on Arab soil and speak to the people of this nation and this region.” This opening sentence should give those in attendance the first hint that the intended audience was not for the people of the Arab world, but rather for the American people. Much the same as pre-Iraq rhetoric, the words that slithered from Bush’s mouth were as hollow as they were untrue.

Apparently oblivious, Bush spoke only as the leader of the free world should. He spoke of greatness, freedom, and democracy, “In my country, we speak of these developments as the advance of freedom. Others may call it the advance of justice. Yet whatever term we use, the ideal is the same. In a free and just society, every person is treated with dignity. In a free and just society, leaders are accountable to those they govern. And in a free and just society, individuals can rise as far as their talents and hard work will take them.”

As Bush has stated on many occasions, he does not bother to read polls, nor does he make decisions based on polling results. Perhaps it is this lack of attention to the will of the people he claims to bring democracy to that has led to the worst blunder in American history. A blunder that has increased terrorism and anti-American sentiment around the globe. Recent polling data shows that over 80% in the Arab world believe that US policies are the largest threat they face personally and the largest threat to stability in the region. Indeed, Bush denounces such stability in exchange for freedom, “For decades, the people of this region saw their desire for liberty and justice denied at home and dismissed abroad in the name of stability.” It has been the very will of the people in Iraq Bush himself has denied these freedoms. In June of 2007 the Iraqi Parliament voted to have Americans set a timeline for withdraw, which was largely ignored in American media and completely ignored by Bush himself. Clearly, discussion of people governing themselves is reserved only for those of us fortunate enough to have been born here, not over there.  

One can only wonder what any Arab listening to the president’s speech today thought? The main argument used for US policy in the Middle East is democracy promotion. However, as Oxford Analytica, notes, the invasion of Iraq has undermined the credibility of U.S. democracy promotion programs. After the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the United States and United Kingdom described the invasion as bringing democracy to Iraq, in turn having a domino effect of democratization in the wider Middle East. Bush also ignorantly goes on to tout the United Arab Emirates as an example for the rest of the Middle East to follow, however, he ignores the fact that it was only after the UAE was free from British occupation that it was able to realize its move towards a more democratic state.

Perhaps if US policy in the Middle East were to take the shape of Bush’s words instead of his actions, one might find themselves feeling hopeful, but sadly for the next year, the people of the Middle East can only hold their breath and wait for the next bomb to drop.

The Integrity of Hillary Clinton by Jennifer

Jennifer Wants Justice and Peace

by Jennifer
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

Jennifer’s blog
Justice and Peace
Jan. 10, 2008

Integrity

 

Inּtegּri|ty n. 3. the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity

 

The meaning and definition of the word integrity seems simple and straightforward, but in the world of American Politics, it is perhaps the most misused, abused, and elusive word spoken. However, the majority of Americans believe, that among desirable personality characteristics in those running for and holding political office, it is by far the most desired.

If there is one particular trait missing from the Hillary Clinton campaign, it is indeed, integrity. On both national and international issues, Clinton is simply one more piece to the Bush/Clinton political sandwich that has destroyed the majority of American ideals. Clearly calculating and career driven, Clinton is obviously not the candidate who will restore America’s reputation in the world as the beacon of freedom, humanity, and all that is right but will rather lead this nation down its continued path to Imperialism through Corporatism.

For any American genuinely concerned about these issues to hear support for the Clinton campaign based on Clinton’s sex is truly concerning. In spite of her voting record, continued elusive language in terms of the occupation of Iraq, the shrinking middle class, the value of the dollar, increasing power for corporations, illegal detention and torture of detainees, repeated violations of the Constitution, and her position on energy independence, she continues to enjoy broad support among some in the Progressive Movement. One only need look closely at Clinton’s choice of language to determine that she continues to address these issues in a rather superficial way, lacking the integrity that America so badly needs.

Immediately before the primaries in New Hampshire, American media outlets focused the world’s attention on the fact that Clinton showed some emotion during a question and answer period.

Reminiscent of the absurd question asked during the Democratic debate in Nevada, where a young college student inquired as to whether Hillary preferred pearls or diamonds, a woman in New Hampshire asked, “As a woman, I know it’s hard to get out of the house and to get ready… and my question is very personal: how do you do it? How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?” To this, Clinton answered, “It’s not easy, and I could not do it if I just didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do…I have had so many opportunities from this country – I just don’t want us to fall back. This is very personal for me … it is not just political… I see what’s happening… we have to reverse it.”

Sadly missing from any emotion Clinton has ever shown are tears for fallen soldiers or their families, the destruction of the entire society and nation of Iraq, which has killed thousands, and made millions homeless and impoverished, and the continued assault on American civil liberties.

In fact, it is on these very important issues that Clinton continues to lead the American people towards the Bush doctrine. This is evidenced by her support of Imperialistic Bush policies to date, including the Iraq War, a possible attack on Iran and The Patriot Act. Even those who approve of Clinton’s stance on these issues or those finding themselves forgiving of her apparent Bushesque blunderings, an alarm should sound at the clear contradiction between her words and actions.

In her victory speech, Clinton showed a real lack of integrity when she spoke of all that ails America, “The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies have had seven years of a president who stands up for them. It’s time we had a president who stands up for all of you. I intend to be that president, to be a president who puts you first, your lives, your families, your children, your futures.”

Nowhere, does Clinton acknowledge that the very corporations she criticizes here are funding her campaign. A short list includes; 18.36 million (representing the largest contributions) from the financial sector, 14.3 million from lawyers and lobbyists representing oil, insurance, pharmaceutical, and lending companies, over 8 hundred thousand from the energy industry, and close to 2.2 million from the military industrial complex and construction companies combined, many of whom are currently operating in Iraq.

If the staggering numbers alone are not sounding the alarm bells enough for Americans to realize Clinton plans on using her power to enrich the elite in this country further, perhaps a look at Clinton’s funding in comparison to other presidential hopefuls will. Clinton willingly accepts funds from the defense industry where only John McCain outranks her. In the Oil and Gas industry, Clinton enjoys another cool second place, from lobbyists however; she takes first place leaving all other candidates behind with second in line taking close to half of the funds she has received to date.

Clearly, Clinton’s actions and words do not match, leaving this writer to wonder how any one who wishes the direction of this country to change does not recognize these obvious warning signs. Perhaps the last seven years have left Americans so desperate and dumbfounded; they have decided lies from the mouth of a woman are perhaps easier to swallow, especially if they are followed by a shot of tears.

see

If You Vote For Hillary… by Josh Sidman

Grasping at Straws: Hillary on the Ropes by Josh Sidman

It’s Too Dangerous to Give Hillary Clinton Another Shot (video)

Kucinich v.s Obama & Clinton + The Ballad of Dennis Kucinich (videos)

Hillary Clinton’s Donors