Elsewhere Today 472
Aljazeera:
UN troops wounded in Lebanon blast
TUESDAY, JANUARY 08, 2008
17:31 MECCA TIME, 14:31 GMT
Two UN peacekeeping soldiers have been slightly wounded after a roadside bomb struck their vehicle in south Lebanon.
Milos Strugar, a spokesman for the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, said on Tuesday: "One Unifil vehicle was hit in an explosion on the coastal road at the northern entrance of Sidon."
He said the wounded were taken to hospital in Sidon.
"Unifil has launched an investigation and is working in close co-operation with the Lebanese authorities," Strugar said.
Doctors at the hospital in Sidon identified the soldiers as Irish.
Tuesday's blast marked the third such incident against the UN peacekeepers since the force was boosted to more than 13,000 soldiers after the 2006 war between Israel and Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah.
Cordoned off
Lebanese police cordoned off the area and experts were deployed at the scene to gather evidence.
Although the last Irish unit serving with the UN force was stood down in October, there are still a number of Irish staff officers in Lebanon, a UN official said.
In the deadliest attack, six members of the Spanish contingent were killed on June 24 last year when a booby-trapped car exploded as their patrol vehicle passed by.
Vehicle damaged
On July 16, a vehicle belonging to the Tanzanian contingent was damaged in a bomb blast in southern Lebanon, but there were no casualties.
The latest incident comes amid high tension in Lebanon, which has been without a president since November 24, when Emile Lahoud stepped down with no elected successor.
It also comes amid an ominous threat this week by the leader of an al-Qaeda-inspired militia which fought a 15-week battle with the Lebanese army last year.
Source: Agencies
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/80673147-1C2B-4CB7-9752-E28786294B5E.htm
AllAfrica:
Militants Bomb Agip, Shell's Facilities
By Emma Amaize
Vanguard (Lagos) NEWS
7 January 2008
MILITANTS, Sunday night, in Delta State, blew up the Beniboye flow station pipeline, owned by the Nigerian Agip Oil Company (NAOC) and a water disposal pipeline, belonging to the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) in Burutu Local Government Area of the state for allegedly polluting the oil communities in the area and failing to do clean ups as demanded.
There was no report of any casualty, although details of the two incidents were sketchy at press time. Vanguard learnt that some community leaders had pleaded with the militants against blowing up the oil installations but were rebuffed.
Some of the communities in the area had accused the NAOC of polluting their environment and gave the company an ultimatum to clean up the affected areas. The companies appeared not to have taken any action. Telephone calls to them last night were unsuccessful.
A report was also made to the Ministry of Environment, Asaba on the pollution at Odimodi and other communities by the SPDC's water disposal line through which drilling sludge was allegedly deposited into the Bight of Benin, less than three kilometres from the shore of Isiayebene.
The SPDC has always denied polluting the communities from the crude oil platform but the Ministry of Environment, Asaba in a letter to the General Manager of the company in October 2002, confirmed that six of the 13 valve heads along the waste water disposal line from the Forcados Terminal to the road leading to the Odimodi town were "leaking profusely."
In the letter, signed for the Commissioner by I. O. Ufiofio, the Ministry said: "A careful observation indicated that the waste water initially formed a pool, gather momentum and run-off into the adjoining swamp and vegetation.
The pool of waste water so formed created a nauseating appearance of the immediate surrounding, thus destroying the aesthetic value of the immediate vicinity.
"The vegetation around the pools (waste water) was either dried up, dead or was at various stages of wilting. The destruction of the vegetation progresses along the run-off to where it flows into the swamp.
The damage done to the swamp was more severe as seen aerially, suggesting that the waste water is toxic and that the aquatic environment facilitated its widespread," it said.
Copyright © 2008 Vanguard. All rights reserved.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200801080019.html
AlterNet:
'Yes, We Can' - The Magic Behind Obama's Message
By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet
Posted on January 8, 2008
There is a simple - but profound - reason why Barack Obama appears headed for the Democratic nomination, and it comes down to three simple words: I, we and you.
Have you seen Obama lately? Or heard him speak? Or listened carefully? I was one of the nine million Americans who saw Saturday's debates on ABC-TV. I was with a friend who is a skilled facilitator, and we immediately saw and heard why Obama is different from the rest of the Democratic (and Republican) pack.
Basically, the other candidates are all saying, "I will do this," "I will do that," "I will be there in this way for you," as they recite the fine print of issues to show what they would do as president. Indeed, most of the horserace coverage from this and other debates is on the points scored by the candidates as they joust on this wavelength.
Obama, on the other hand, is not emphasizing the "I" pronoun. He is all about we and you. "We can do this." "We can do that." "If we come together, we can achieve ..." The former grass-roots organizer is making his candidacy inclusive. Obama is asking people to join him, implying that he will listen, hear them and include them in solutions that rely on the best in them and in society, not the worst.
The "I will" versus "We can" stance is not a minor distinction.
On Saturday, Hillary Clinton and Obama even debated this point on ABC.
"Words are not actions," Clinton said, "and as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action. You know, what we've got to do is translate talk into action and feeling into reality."
A few minutes later, Obama responded.
"The truth is actually words do inspire," he said. "Words do help people get involved. Words do help members of Congress get into power so that they can be part of a coalition to deliver healthcare reform, to deliver a bold energy policy. Don't discount that power, because when the American people are determined that something is going to happen, then it happens. And if they are disaffected and cynical and fearful and told that it can't be done, then it doesn't. I'm running for president because I want to tell them, 'Yes, we can.' And that's why I think they're responding in such large numbers."
Obama's campaign can be summed up in the power of three words, "Yes, we can."
The candidates who engage in first-person boasts or the pundits who nit-pick the issues and attenuate the horserace do not appreciate this distinction. Have you noticed how often in recent days pundits have written that Obama is different, special and unique in American politics? But they cannot say why.
"This is new. America has never seen anything like the Barack Obama phenomenon," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert on Jan. 5. "Shake hands with tomorrow. It's here."
Obama's campaign may be a phenomenon, but it is not a mystique. Nor it is not unique.
George Lakoff, who has written many books on political communication, psychology and how both parties frame and win elections, said Obama's use of "we" and "you" - and his gift for making people feel good and that they are being heard - makes all the difference.
"He's saying 'we' and 'you.' It's a huge difference," Lakoff said. "It fits in with various other things."
"Obama has talked about an empathy deficit," he said, first speaking to the inclusive aspect of his campaign. "He understands what it means to connect to people, to listen to them, to understand what their needs and concerns are and that government should be responsive ... Hillary is all about policy. It is top-down. It is a rationalist model. It is 'we who understand and know policy know best.' It is telling people what is best for them."
John Edwards, Lakoff said, has this same approach.
"Edwards says, 'I will fight for you.' He is talking like a lawyer. He is being a lawyer," he said. "But he is falling into the same trap as Hillary."
Lakoff said he personally knows Clinton well enough to say that candidate Clinton is not the real Hillary. She is so afraid of falling into female stereotypes - witness Monday's coverage of a near-teary moment in a New Hampshire diner - Lakoff said, that "she has no idea how to be herself on the stump."
In contrast, Lakoff said Obama is one of the most honest people he has ever met - a comment I have heard from others working on his campaign - and that is a part of his appeal. "It is not a mystique," he said. "It is real. Charisma is real. It is tangible."
Ironically, while the Republican candidates have been falling over themselves to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan, the one candidate who seems to be making Americans feel good about themselves with an assured, easy manner and clear values - as Reagan did - is a Democrat in the race, Obama.
"Remember what Reagan was about," Lakoff said, agreeing with the comparison. "It's why people vote for candidates. Obama gets it."
"In the brain, there are two pathways for emotions," Lakoff said, offering an explanation for Obama's charisma. "There is a negative one for fear and anger. And there is a positive one. What Obama does and Reagan did was activate the positive pathways. George Bush activates the negative ones. Obama is activating the positive ones. He makes people feel physically good just by looking at him. The guy looks upbeat. He looks relaxed. You look at him and you feel upbeat, you feel relaxed. He feels empowered. You feel empowered. That's charisma."
Of course, unlike the Republican's great communicator, Obama's instincts and values are liberal, because to be liberal is to be inclusive and to believe that government had a role in fostering greater goods. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson also are politically liberal, but their manner of speaking is "I will." It is not "Yes, we can."
Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election, with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).
© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/73014/
Asia Times:
US wants Pakistan to bite the bullet
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Jan 9, 2008
KARACHI - After more than six years, Pakistan finds itself in probably the most difficult position it has been in since signing on as a partner in the US-led "war on terror".
The political turmoil created by the recent assassination of former premier Benazir Bhutto and the consolidation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the country just months ahead of another Taliban spring offensive in Afghanistan have made Washington decidedly anxious that Islamabad do something decisive about the situation. But while Pakistan wants to remain on side with the US, and the West, by taking appropriate action against militancy, this carries with it the grave danger of exacerbating the situation, and opening up the country to further terror.
A senior Pakistani security official elaborated for Asia Times Online, "We have actually been thrown into a deep quagmire where we are not left with many options. The CIA's presence in Pakistan has made it impossible for Pakistan to handle the Taliban problem independently and through dialogue. On the other hand, there is no military solution on the horizon against the Taliban and another [Pakistani army] operation against militants would cause more than serious repercussions."
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity as his job does not allow him to speak on the record, continued, "Now we are at a crossroad and we feel threatened that if this problem escalates it may give Western powers and their regional allies a chance to justify an attack on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Therefore, we are walking a tightrope where, on the one hand our strategic ties with the West are at risk if we don't adhere to their demands, but on the other hand our own internal security is at risk.
"Nevertheless," he added, "nations do take steps on a priority basis for their internal security."
Reports from the US at the weekend indicate that the George W Bush administration wants to expand the authority of the CIA and the military to conduct more aggressive covert operations in Pakistan.
While a Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman has officially dismissed the notion as fanciful, this does not rule out the likelihood of heavy CIA involvement on targets identified through intelligence on both sides of the border.
The overriding goal will be to cut the supply lines of the Taliban and al-Qaeda between Pakistan and Afghanistan by squeezing them between coalition forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan forces across the border.
The boundaries of the operation have been set on the basis of two facts. These are al-Qaeda's bases and the Taliban's supply lines from Pakistan into the three southeastern Afghan provinces of Paktia, Paktika and Khost and Helmand in the southwest. Al-Qaeda bases have been located in Bajaur Agency and North Waziristan while the Taliban's supply lines have primarily been traced from South Waziristan.
Pakistan's strategic quarters, though, are extremely concerned over the possible consequences of such a pincer operation, planned at a time when general elections have already been pushed back from this month to next and could be delayed even further.
Compounding the problem is the fact that the Pakistani military is fast losing all of its gains in the Swat Valley in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). In response to rising militancy in the valley, fueled by Mullah Fazlullah, over the past few months the army has cracked down, forcing the militants to retreat into the tribal areas.
Al-Qaeda responded by activating its network through Maulana Faqir Muhammad, the local strongman of Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Faqir, from Bajaur Agency, sent men and arms into the valley, while Punjabi and Uzbek fighters from the South Waziristan and North Waziristan tribal areas joined hands with the militants. As a result, the militants have fought back strongly against the Pakistani army, which could pull back in the coming days.
The Bush administration is raising the military stakes at a time when Pakistan is under fire from Washington for not making adequate efforts in the "war on terror". This disenchantment was captured by Chester Bowles, a "liberal lion" of the Democratic Party, who wrote in the New York Times recently, "American military assistance to Pakistan in the last 15 years will, I believe, be listed by historians as among our most costly blunders."
The Washington Post also recently quoted Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the foreign assistance sub-committee of the Senate, as saying, "What is amazing to me about our policy is that Pakistan is brimming with a smart, educated, moderate center. As long as we are pumping our money into security assistance and putting all our eggs in the basket with [President Pervez] Musharraf, we are making a critical mistake."
There are recurrent calls in Washington that Pakistan's multi-billion dollar military aid package be reviewed or even stopped if its performance is not found satisfactory.
Pakistani intelligence, however, is acutely aware that militants are likely to unleash attacks in the softer underbelly of the nation should the Pakistani army (or the US Army) launch new, vigorous attacks in the tribal areas. Cities such as the port hub of Karachi, the capital Islamabad and Peshawar in NWFP would be prime targets.
The best that Pakistan can do is attempt to walk a middle path, as it has done so often in the past, even though both the militants and Washington are demanding that Islamabad complies 100% with their demands.
The difficulties of this position are well illustrated by an incident on Sunday in which al-Qaeda-backed militants shot dead eight tribal leaders involved in efforts to broker a ceasefire between security forces and Pakistani Taliban commanders in the northwest. The men, who were scheduled to meet each other on Monday, were killed in separate attacks in South Waziristan.
Part of Musharraf's problem is that while he is Washington's ally in Pakistan, he is also the representative of the military oligarchy. Further, his political survival has become heavily dependent on slain Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP). New PPP head, Bhutto's widower Asif Zardari, is in contact with US officials and is in tune with the "war on terror" and supports Musharraf in this respect. But this PPP support could be withdrawn at any time should it be perceived that Musharraf is straying from the US agenda.
Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at saleem_shahzad2002@yahoo.com
Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA09Df02.html
Clarín:
Federico, el grande
Ilusionista incomparable, Federico Fellini es un enigma a develar filme a filme. En su obra, nutrida en el neorrealismo, la marginalidad se mezcla con la magia y con una mística que promete alguna forma de redención para los inocentes del mundo. Dos lanzamientos recuperan ese legado: Fellini, biografía que acaba de editarse en castellano, se zambulle en el potente imaginario del director de La strada, y Tutto Fellini reúne la música de sus películas. Además, una entrevista con Luis Bacalov, el argentino que musicalizó uno de sus filmes.
Por: Jorge Carnevale
No recuerdo la fecha exacta pero debe haber sido a mediados de 1960. Uno, entonces, era un chiquilín, mero aficionado al cine, y casi no había oído hablar de Federico Fellini, como la mayoría del público local, que sólo recordaba la figura chaplinesca, patética y querible de una tal Gelsomina, maltratada por Zampanó en La strada. De pronto, una noche, en la televisión blanco y negro, la voz metálíca y nasal de Blackie anunció que en su programa habría imágenes con carácter de primicia de ese fenómeno que hacía correr ríos de tinta aquí y allá: La dolce vita. Una serie de fotos fijas contrapunteadas por un timbal mostraban a Nadia Gray tirada en el piso de un lujoso apartamento, apenas cubierta por un tapado de piel, rodeada de gente que aplaudía. En seguida, Anita Ekberg bañada por las aguas de la Fontana de Trevi ante un Mastroianni extasiado. Después, imágenes de lo que suponía ser una orgía, con Marcello cabalgando a una señorita robusta, festejado por muchos. Más allá, gente rezando en un espacio abierto frente a cámaras de televisión, nobles y villanos compartiendo tragos en un castillo decadente, una imagen de Cristo de tamaño natural que sobrevuela Roma, colgada de un helicóptero, Magalí Noel disfrazada de conejita en un cabaret para gente mayor, el severo rostro de Alain Cuny mostrando una sabiduría y a la vez una tristeza infinita y la imagen final de una muchachita de rostro angelical mirando a cámara desde una playa, como pidiendo que alguien sepa cómo salir de ese infierno tan temido.
Blackie, siempre bien informada, notificó a la audiencia que La dolce vita acababa de soportar un turbulento preestreno en el Capitolio de Milán, que había derivado en una interpelación al Secretario de Estado por parte de la Cámara de Diputados, muchos de cuyos miembros pedían la prohibición lisa y llana del film. Tres días antes, en la función de gala organizada en el Fiamma de Roma, Fellini había sido abucheado y escupido por un público paquete que posaba de ofendido ante lo que acababa de ver en la pantalla. Tres meses más tarde, el jurado de la edición número XIII del Festival de Cannes, presidido por Georges Simenon, le otorgaba a la cinta , por unanimidad, la preciada Palma de Oro. Aún así, Blackie culminaba su informe sembrando serias dudas sobre la posibilidad de que alguna vez pudiéramos ver el film por estos pagos.
Afortunadamente, se estrenó (con severas restricciones para los menores, claro) y fue un antes y un después para muchos de nosotros. De pronto, el cine, como la literatura y el teatro, podía cambiarnos la vida.
Treinta años más tarde, en la sala Grand Splendid, ahora convertida en megalibrería, ví con otros colegas "La voz de la luna". Todos sabíamos sin saberlo que esa iba a ser la última película de Fellini. Nos gustó menos que otras, pero como se trataba del Gran Federico y tenía ese tono crespuscular, esa convocatoria a la poesía que sólo cabe en el sueño, además de Paolo Villaggio y Roberto Begnini dejando el resto, hicimos la visa gorda y jugamos a perdonarle la vida, a la hora de criticarla. El tiempo demostró que nos equivocábamos: no se trataba de una película menor, porque nada fue menor en Fellini, artista de una época que le quedaba chica.
Un personaje inabarcable
Los aplicados biógrafos de creadores de este tamaño, siempre tienen la batalla perdida antes de comenzar. La bibliografía sobre Fellini es casi infinita, pero el personaje siempre se les escapa. Es más o menos de lo que registran.
Cuando a comienzos de la década del 80, Hollis Alpert le comenta al director que está metido hasta los huesos en su biografía, con afán de registrarlo todo, Fellini, navegando entre el asombro y el fastidio, sin pecar de grosero, le susurra con su vocecita: "Pero ya se ha escrito tanto...", una réplica como para desanimar a cualquiera.
Alpert, sin embargo, no se entrega. Ya tiene el trabajo muy avanzado y le aclara a su protagonista, que ha leído todo lo que se ha escrito sobre él, pero, en general, se trata de un material muy desorganizado. Fellini no responde pero al poco tiempo, le envía un librito titulado Fellini: Intervista sul Cinema, de Giovanni Graziani. Generoso reportaje que incluía mayor información que cualquier otra fuente. ¿Una gentil manera de sacárselo de encima? Nunca se sabe con Fellini, que es amable con casi todos sus interlocutores, pero miente y tergiversa datos descaradamente cuando se trata de su persona y su obra.
Tullio Kezich, un triestino cabeza dura, emprendió parecida tarea en 1987. La que conocemos ahora en español es una reelaboración y puesta al día de aquel trabajo que sigue pretendiendo ser una reconstrucción minuciosa de la vida y obra de Fellini, con quien mantuvo una amistad de cuarenta años, desde que lo conoció en las terrazas del Hotel des Bains, durante el Festival de Venecia, en 1952.
Por aquel entonces, Fellini era flaco, de pelo largo y había llegado a presentar El sheik blanco, pero todo el tiempo le estuvo hablando de su próxima película, la relación brutal entre dos cómicos de la legua. Es decir: La strada. A Kezich, ese cruce entre el neorrealismo y la magia le pareció un tanto aventurada, pero bastaron un par de charlas para que cayese, como tantos, bajo el influjo y la seducción de ese ilusionista incomparable, mago del escamoteo.
Kezich, ha sumado prestigio como crítico en Panorama, La Repúbblica y Il Corriére della Sera. También dramaturgo, guionista y productor, colaboró con Rosellini y los hermanos Taviani, fundó la productora "22 Dicembre" y ,entre otros, es responsable del guión de La leyenda del santo bebedor, de Ermanno Olmi. Biógrafo prolijo, fatiga archivos hasta el exceso, respeta puntualmente la cronología y no se priva de entrevistar a gente tan cercana al realizador como su propio hermano Riccardo Fellini, Nino Rota, Marcello Mastroianni, Anthony Quinn, Francois Périer, Alain Cuny y tantos otros testigos de primer orden, ya todos desaparecidos, más largos encuentros con Giulietta Masina.
A eso, hay que sumarle su mirada atenta sobre los vatos catálogos de Barbara Anne Price y Theodore Price (Federico Fellini: An Annotated Internacional Biography), los trabajos de John C.Stubbs (Federico Fellini.A Guide to References and Resources) y el exhaustivo estudio de Marco Bertozzi Bibliofellini (tres volúmenes en colaboración con Giuseppe Ricci y Simone Casevecchia).
El Fellini de Kezich procura registrarlo todo, desde la anécdota minúscula a la filmogafía, sin omitir Apéndice, Indice Onomástico y Notas del Autor. Da la sensación de que se resiste a dar por terminado el trabajo, como si sospechase, al cabo de tanta entrega, que falta algo. Y tiene razón. Faltan las imágenes en movimiento, el sitio donde caben todas las respuestas o el mayor misterio. Porque Fellini es un enigma a develar en cada film.
Verdades y mentiras
Toda la trayectoria de Fellini aparece sembrada de versiones contrapuestas. El propio Federico se ha ocupado de contribuir a la confusión general. Siempre se dijo que nació en un tren, en un vagón de primera clase durante el trayecto entre Vicerba y Riccione. Kezich, que parece un perro de presa en estas cuestiones, sostiene que no circularon trenes rumbo a Rímini ese 20 de enero de 1920. Tampoco se escapó para fugarse con un circo a los 12 años. Sí, en una de sus correrías consiguió relacionarse con Aldo Fabrizi en una gira, para quien escribiría luego unos cuantos esquicios teatrales. Cualquiera que haya seguido de cerca su carrera cinematográfica, sabe que no es cierto lo de su falta de compromiso político en esa Italia de posguerra donde o se era del Partido Comunista (o al menos compañero de ruta) o sacaba patente de reaccionario. Sus trabajos como guionista de Rossellini en Roma, ciudad abierta y en Paisá (donde hasta dirigió alguna secuencia), lo desmienten de plano. Pasa que, desde sus primeros filmes, Fellini asoma como un director desesperante, difícil de etiquetar. Nutrido en el neorrealismo -escribió para Lattuada y Germi-, su idea de la marginalidad se mezclaba con la magia y una mística que prometía alguna forma de redención para los inocentes de este mundo. Sus dos primeros títulos (Luces de variedades y El Sheik Blanco resultaron rotundos fracasos en la taquilla italiana. Tuvo que pelear el ingreso de Alberto Sordi para Los inútiles porque los productores lo consideraban veneno de boletería. La strada, filmada con un presupuesto mínimo en las peores condiciones, fue desestimada por la crítica italiana y aclamada en París y el resto de Europa hasta alzarse con el Oscar. Naturalmente, por ese entonces, Giulieta Masina era mucho más conocida que el director.
El lugar donde transcurre Los inútiles no es Riminí, sino una mezcla de ciudades que se le parecen. Aunque aparezca su hermano Riccardo, él no es ninguno de los personajes ni se considera un "vitelloni", ya que siempre estuvo en actividad. En su infancia, no fue a un colegio religioso donde lo sometían a castigos severos (como se ve en 8 y medio), pero su hermanito padecía prácticas semejantes y las registró. Otro de los mitos y leyendas es que Mastroianni fue siempre su alter ego, el actor fetiche que reservaba para su emprendimientos más ambiciosos. Sin embargo, se dice que, en primera instancia, había tentado a Paul Newman para hacerse cargo del Marcello Rubini de La dolce vita, y a Laurence Olivier para meterse en la piel del contradictorio y atormentado cineasta Guido Anselmi. A pesar de la predilección del director por incorporar intérpretes anglosajones, el tiempo demostró que Mastroianni fu siempre la mejor (acaso, la única) elección posible.
Otro equívoco a despejar: Visconti y Fellini se odiaban a muerte. Cuentan que cuando el gran Luchino, salió de ver La dolce vita, acomañado por su habitual corte de adoradores, comentó como al pasar "esos son los nobles vistos por mi criado". Cuatro años más tarde, sin embargo, se reconciliaban con un abrazo en pleno Festival de Moscú, cuando 8 y medio arrasó con los premios.
Alejado del neorrealismo inicial, se vincula su obra con el psicoanálisis, el esoterismo, las disciplinas orientales, la magia, una vez más. Inencuadrable, fue un artista de la modernidad que también podía haber habitado el Renacimiento. Dibujante, ilustrador, cronista de su tiempo, autor de libretos satíricos para la radio y el teatro, guionista requerido para llenar los agujeros que dejaban otros, supo mostrar sin pontificar los cambios que se verificaban en esa Italia de posguerra que postergaba su tradición agrícola para treparse al "boom industrial". Fue el primero que detectó en esa televisión guaranga que crecía al gran enemigo del cine.
Todo Fellini palpita en esos 22 títulos que, en verdad son uno solo. En esa gran película que cubre casi 40 años de anhelos, sueños y desvelos, asoman la soledad y el desconcierto de ese muchacho de provincia -llámese Moraldo o Marcello- que arriba a la gran ciudad para que ésta lo acepte y lo integre sin saber que el precio es la soledad y la alienación. Las prostitutas, los clowns, los cómicos trashumantes pertenecen a un tiempo que ha sido borrado sin piedad. Para todos ellos queda la necesidad de volver a creer a cualquier precio o el rostro de esa chica con perfil de ángel que trata de comunicarse inútilmente con Marcello en una playa, frente a un monstruo marino y unas figuras nocturnales que deambulan como fantasmas o como vampiros. El tiempo de Fellini es el tiempo del adiós a lo que pudo ser y no fue.
Kezich rescata la anécdota, ya conocida, del momento en que se conocen el director y Nino Rota. Fue una tarde -dicen- a la salida de los Estudios Lux. El músico espera, enfrente, que llegue el autobús. Fellini le pregunta qué colectivo va a tomar. "El 104", responde Rota. Su interlocutor le aclara que esa línea no circula por esa calle. De inmediato, el 104 dobla la esquina como una aparición, frena y Rota sube. El episodio es tan surreal que valdría la pena agregar que Fellini subió tras él y que entre los pasajeros se contaban una mujer inmensa a quien apodaban La Sarracena, un adolescente delgaducho que nunca más volverá a su pueblo, un Casanova pálido con una muñeca en la falda, una prostituta todo candor llamada Cabiria, el caballero Mastorna dispuesto a emprender un viaje imposible, una muchacha complaciente bautizada Gradisca, Mandrake El Mago con el perfil de Mastroianni, dos monjas, un cura, tres payasos, un flautista y algunas gordas de belleza increíble. Más allá, sobre un mar de plástico y telgopor fabricado en Cinecittá, la fantástica nave de los sueños que va y que va. Alguien susurra: "Todo es falso y todo es cierto".
Fellini Básico
Rimini, 1920 - Roma, 1993. Cineasta
Pasó a la historia como uno de los más grandes cineastas de todos los tiempos. Se inició como guionista a fines de los años 30; sus colaboraciones con Roberto Rossellini en Roma città aperta y en un episodio de L'amore son considerados emblemas de la apertura temática del cine italiano. Su debut oficial como realizador fue Lo sceicco bianco (1951), que contó con el protagónico del gran Alberto Sordi, igual que la siguiente, I vitelloni, que incorporó a Aldo Fabrizi en el rubro estelar. Como Sweet Charity, su filme Le notti di Cabiria (1957) sufrió una adaptación al musical hollywoodense. Con La dolce vita (1960) aparece Marcello Mastroianni en su filmografía. Con él rueda cuatro filmes más: 8 y medio, La città delle donne, Ginger e Fred e Intervista.
Copyright 1996-2008 Clarín.com - All rights reserved
http://www.clarin.com/notas/2008/01/04/01577779.html
Guardian:
Liberty begins at home
British moral authority is hurt by failure to practise what is preached to the world on human rights
Shami Chakrabarti
Tuesday January 8, 2008
Moral authority (not to be confused with religious conviction, age or experience) is going to be the political must-have of 2008. To complicate matters, it is in the eye of the beholder, somewhat relative, and travels in a peculiar way.
For example, the magic words "Scotland Yard" may inspire more confidence in Pakistan than Peckham. No doubt the allegations of multimillion-pound corporate credit-card abuse that have already prompted the resignation of several top officers will seem trivial in that desperately troubled country.
More seriously, our prime minister's busy holiday season, filled it seems with more phone calls to the Commonwealth than mince pies, demonstrates the force for democracy and the rule of law that Britain might still be in the world.
We've all seen Gordon Brown exuding moral authority. When the birth of his premiership was visited by various horsemen of the apocalypse, his calm and unifying response sent him soaring in the polls. The question is how to recapture moral authority lost or tarnished by misplaced child benefit data, donor scandals and anti-terror proposals that can boast only Ian Blair and a well-known topless tabloid for support.
A greater symmetry in the human rights message at home and abroad would provide a helpful contrast with Brown's predecessor. As the new prime minister said last autumn, in direct solidarity with the people of Burma and Zimbabwe: "Human rights are universal and no injustice is for ever." These words sit very uncomfortably with Home Office plans to allow terror suspects to be detained for up to 42 days without charge - a policy that Britain would surely condemn if it were adopted in a younger democracy anywhere.
The judgment would be a lot harder if Liberty hadn't spent years developing alternatives to ever longer periods of detention - the use of intercept evidence, post-charge questioning and even the activation of pre-existing contingency laws at a moment of genuine and temporary emergency. It would be harder if the director of public prosecutions were not adamant that the current limit of 28 days (the longest of any western democracy) is perfectly adequate. For notwithstanding the PM's conciliatory words towards Liberty in recent interviews, the Home Office pre-Christmas paper is a world away from anything we could defend in good conscience or logic. The proposal is not a safety valve for a moment of grave exception subject to parliamentary approval and judicial review. Instead it allows for individuals to be detained for six weeks if the Met commissioner asks nicely. The threshold of operational need is so low that purported legislative and judicial safeguards are meaningless. In the face of so much reasoned argument and wide-ranging opposition, the gap between prime ministerial language and Home Office delivery saps the government's moral authority.
As this prime minister understands, the days of complacency over personal privacy are over. Sure enough the cause of my 74-year-old human rights organisation is not always best served by some recent polemicists trading on the ridiculous overstatement that we now live in a police state. Such ravings may be insulting both to the intelligence of Britain and the oppression of North Korea. However, the greater danger lies in underestimating the legitimate and growing public concern behind the overblown prose.
The bottom line is that privacy does matter; it is inextricably linked with dignity and trust, and helps set the tone for a free and democratic society. Further, respect for privacy matters to everyone, not perhaps as a win or lose the general election issue, but as an indicator of overall trustworthiness and competence.
This should be the year that Brown finally ends his predecessor's great identity-card folly, making clear that existing forms of ID can be made more secure without constructing a grand, greedy and vulnerable central database. Children never charged, let alone convicted, of a criminal offence should immediately come off the national DNA database, whose remit must be rationalised along more defensible lines without delay.
With no change of direction in key areas of human rights policy, both constitutional and social cohesion agendas will be undermined. Just as the infancy of the Human Rights Act was plagued by Tony Blair's "wars" on terror, asylum and troubled youth, any new rights instrument worth its salt will be overworked - forced into the political frontline with no champion to defend it.
Brown was right when he claimed the universal nature of human rights. Nonetheless, this framework of freedom and protection lies at the heart of any "Britishness" worth promoting. If the government fails visibly to break with the shameless authoritarianism of the Blair years, it will allow some on the right to retreat from the shared terrain of universal human rights to the comfort zone of vague, anti-state and xenophobic notions of "citizens' civil liberties".
Moral authority won't come to a government of universal talents but one of universal values. From terror laws to bills of rights, Brown must take the advice he has given to leaders of less stable societies, and reach out to opponents with the consensus of the constructive conversation, not the clunking fist.
· Shami Chakrabarti is director of Liberty
www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2237038,00.html
Guardian: The Churchill wannabes destroy
any hope of a violence-free life in Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto's death is just the latest evidence of the disastrous legacy of western involvement in the country's politics
Pankaj Mishra
Tuesday January 8, 2008
Last week the portrait of Benazir Bhutto as the last great hope for democracy in Pakistan had barely received its finishing touches in the world media when it was muddied by accusations that the former prime minister had sponsored jihadists in Afghanistan and India-held Kashmir.
Neither assertion is without a measure of truth. Yet both obscure the major events that have rendered Pakistan unstable, even ungovernable, for at least two generations: the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979; the American decision to turn Pakistan into the frontline state for a global anti-Soviet jihad; and, more recently, the Bush administration's corralling of Pakistan into the so-called war on terror.
Like many Asian countries, Pakistan stumbled from primeval chaos into postcolonial life, with an army as its strongest institution - which grew even more formidable after enlisting on the US side in the cold war. Six decades later, it is possible to see how in a less exacting climate Pakistan could have moved durably to civilian rule, as happened in Taiwan and Indonesia, two other pro-American dictatorships frozen by the cold war.
Such, however, was the scale and intensity of the CIA's programme to arm the Afghan mujahideen that it couldn't but retard political processes in Pakistan. General Zia-ul-Haq, who faced disgrace domestically and internationally after his execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, abruptly became a prestigious ally in Washington and London. Emboldened by American patronage, Zia brutally suppressed all opposition, which included some of the country's greatest writers and artists.
Pakistan's military strategists had long plotted to install a friendly regime in Afghanistan, which shares a fiercely autonomous and traditionally volatile Pashtun population with Pakistan. The CIA's generosity gave them the perfect opportunity to impose their will in Kabul through proxies like the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who, like many Islamists feeding off US largesse, spent more time building private armies and bullying women than fighting the Soviets. Military officers seeking revenge for their humiliation by India in the war over Bangladesh in 1971 redirected US resources more radically to anti-India insurgencies in Punjab and Kashmir.
Pursuing their separate agenda, western cold war adventurers and their local allies deeply damaged Pakistan's frail society. Three million Afghan, mostly Pashtun, refugees poured into Pakistan, along with cheap guns and drugs. Furthermore, political Islam - until then a marginal force in Pakistani politics - acquired buoyancy, and a radical edge, from the anti-communist jihad in Afghanistan. Pakistan knew a spell of civilian rule after Zia's death in 1988. But elected leaders such as Benazir Bhutto could hardly supervise, let alone restrict, the cherished ventures of the all-powerful military intelligence elite, such as the backing of the Pashtun-dominated Taliban in Afghanistan's destructive civil war, and the training of extremists for jihad in Kashmir.
The US cancelled its aid programme to Pakistan before the last Soviet soldier left Afghanistan in 1989; it went on to impose sanctions on Pakistan for its nuclear programme. Visiting Pakistan in early 2001, I was struck by the anger Pakistanis of all classes expressed toward the US. Far from being a generalised Islamist hatred of American women wearing miniskirts, anti-US sentiment was rooted in particular grievances. Diplomats and ex-generals raged against US selfishness in leaving Pakistan to sort out the post-Soviet mess in Afghanistan; journalists and NGO workers described in anguished tones how the CIA-sponsored jihad strangled Pakistan's democracy, endowing the military intelligence establishment with a sinister extra-constitutional authority.
In late 2001, George Bush's resolve to eliminate al-Qaida and the Taliban with the help of the very same establishment inaugurated another cycle in which Pakistan's long-delayed tryst with civilian rule would be again postponed by US priorities in neighbouring Afghanistan.
It is clearer now that Pervez Musharraf's promises to the US could only be empty, no matter how sincerely he believed in them. Military and intelligence officers who had staked their careers on making reliable Pashtun friends were unlikely to launch more than a few token assaults on the Pak-Afghan borderlands, which even the British Indian Army couldn't subdue.
Nevertheless, the Bush administration has persisted for almost seven years in the hope that the Pakistani military could be bullied or bribed into scoring successes in the global war on terror.
Many generals and spies probably couldn't believe their luck as they received billions of US dollars for yet another phoney war. Paranoid western visions of crazy Islamists getting hold of Pakistani nukes ensured a steady flow of cash, which, as the New York Times recently revealed, the military mostly spent on objectives not remotely resembling those drawn up in Washington.
In any case, the Taliban and their sympathisers can't be "eliminated". The web of strategic tribal and ethnic alliances has represented the strongest Pashtun claims in recent decades as traditional rulers of Afghanistan's ethnic mosaic. Even today, as the writer Rory Stewart has pointed out, "many Pashtun clearly prefer the Taliban to foreign troops". In actuality, the Taliban can only be contained. But even that may remain a fantasy if foreign occupation continues to radicalise Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Musharraf has himself only just escaped assassination. Even though he grudgingly accepted Washington's choice, Bhutto, as a civilian facade for military rule, he can't be unaware that Pakistan's stability depends on successful deal-making in the Pashtun heartland rather than in the White House. This lesson is not entirely lost on western policymakers. EU diplomats expelled from southern Afghanistan a day before Bhutto's assassination were trying to reach out to the Taliban. But such peacemakers face their most influential adversaries among those who think that errant natives respond best to a bit of stick. Writing in the Wall Street Journal last week, the Tory MP Michael Gove warned the west not to betray any "sign of weakness" to the Taliban.
Doubtless the Churchill wannabes that have proliferated since 9/11 would fight on their laptops to the last drop of Afghan and Pakistani blood. Intoxicated by their own cliches, they remain blind to how their warmongering in the cause of democracy in Afghanistan and Pakistan has boosted the most militaristic elements there, ruining even the basic hope of a violence-free life, not to mention the grand ambition of democracy.
The CIA's anti-Soviet jihad not only ensured the dominance of the military intelligence establishment over elected government in Pakistan; it also spawned a new radical force, which now menaces military as well as civilian authority in Pakistan. We may praise or blame Benazir Bhutto for what she did or did not do, but as long as Pakistan remains hostage to failed western policies those aspiring to lead it can achieve little apart from personal power - along with a high risk of martyrdom.
· Pankaj Mishra is the author of Temptations of the West: How to be Modern in India, Pakistan and Beyond kannauj@gmail.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2237022,00.html
Jeune Afrique: Le Tchad a bombardé
des rebelles tchadiens au Soudan
TCHAD - 7 janvier 2008 - par AFP
L'aviation de N'Djamena a bombardé tôt lundi matin une base de la rébellion tchadienne au Soudan, au sud-ouest d'el-Geneina une localité du Darfour proche de la frontière tchadienne, après des menaces en ce sens du président tchadien Idriss Deby Itno.
Ce bombardement a été effectué vers 04H00 (03H00 GMT) par deux hélicoptères MI17 et MI24 ainsi que par un avion léger de type Pilatus, a-t-on précisé de sources militaire et sécuritaire tchadiennes.
Ces sources ont également confirmé un autre bombardement dimanche matin, annoncé par Khartoum, d'une base de rebelles tchadiens dans le même secteur du Darfour, en proie à la guerre civile.
On ignore si ces bombardements concernent une ou plusieurs bases des rebelles disséminées le long de la frontière tchadienne au sud d'el-Geneina, la capitale du Darfour Ouest, à quelque 200 kilomètres à l'est d'Abéché, la principale ville de l'est du Tchad.
L'armée soudanaise a affirmé que l'aviation tchadienne avait bombardé dimanche des positions dans l'ouest du Darfour, faisant trois morts et quatre blessés parmi les civils.
"Trois avions de type Antonov ont bombardé aux premières heures de dimanche des positions au sud-ouest de Geneina, tuant trois citoyens et en blessant quatre", a déclaré le porte-parole des forces armées soudanaises Othman al-Aghbach.
Interrogé par l'AFP depuis Libreville, le porte-parole de l'alliance des principales rébellions tchadiennes formée à la mi-décembre, Abderaman Koulamallah, a affirmé que ces bombardements ne concernaient pas des positions rebelles "puisque nos troupes sont du côté tchadien de la frontière".
Mais le chef de l'une des rébellions qui forment cette alliance, l'Union des forces pour la démocratie et le développement/Fondamentale (UFDD-F), a reconnu que son quartier général avait été touché.
"J'ai été bombardé le 28 décembre et hier (dimanche 6 janvier) par l'aviation tchadienne à l'intérieur du Soudan", a déclaré Abdelwahid Aboud Makaye, joint sur téléphone satellitaire depuis Libreville.
"Notre QG est côté soudanais, nous avons eu quelques blessés", a-t-il ajouté, précisant que les bombardements de lundi ne concernaient en revanche pas les positions de l'UFDD-F.
Samedi, le président tchadien Idriss Deby Itno avait affirmé lors d'un discours à N'Djamena qu'il allait "détruire (les rebelles) dans leur nid à l'intérieur du Soudan" dénonçant un "plan de déstabilisation du Tchad" ourdi selon lui par Khartoum.
"Nos forces vont leur tomber dessus à l'intérieur du Soudan. Nous allons leur faire mordre la poussière à l'intérieur du Soudan", avait-il insisté.
De violents combats ont opposé, du 26 novembre au 4 décembre, l'armée tchadienne aux principales rébellions dans l'est du Tchad, faisant voler en éclats un accord de paix signé le 25 octobre.
Depuis, les rebelles affirment se réorganiser et certains reconnaissent que le gros de leurs troupes se trouve actuellement le long de la frontière qui sépare le Tchad du Soudan, côté soudanais.
N'Djamena voit dans le soutien apporté selon lui par Khartoum aux rebelles une volonté d'empêcher le déploiement dans l'est tchadien d'une force de l'Union européenne (Eufor) et au Darfour d'une importante mission de l'Union africaine (UA) et de l'ONU.
http://www.jeuneafrique.com/jeune_afrique/
article_depeche.asp?art_cle=AFP60448letchnaduos0
Mail & Guardian:
Time to stop play-acting nationhood
Binyavanga Wainaina: ANALYSIS
06 January 2008
My country is in turmoil. We voted on December 27 and the voting process was the most peaceful in our history. The voter turnout was higher than ever. For the past few years, the most disenfranchised - the poor, those far from the metropoles, the youth - have registered to vote.
There has been a sense, across Kenya, that unprecedented things will happen. That old powers will be removed, that one’s vote has power.
But like South Africa in the Nineties, all these aspirations have been carried in an old and leaky political structure. We have all known this, since the Nineties, when we started to agitate for a true multiparty democracy. In 2002 we deliberately voted for a coalition of parties so they could shepherd us through the process of change. We wanted a new constitution, a more decentralised economy, a more accountable government. These aspirations were dashed as the coalition fell apart. Raila Odinga, became the leader of one faction and Mwai Kibaki, the president, became the leader of another. The bad blood began because there was a sense - among most people who were not Gikuyu - that Mwai Kibaki had hijacked the country and broken the promises in the memorandum of understanding that Kenyans had pinned their hopes on.
Things did not get out of hand at the time because Kibaki’s technocrats began to deliver a functional government and the constitution was still being negotiated. The economy was growing.
But, then already, Kibaki would show the tendency to put his head in the sand, as he is doing now. A kitchen Cabinet developed around him with the growth of power blocs more hardline than he was. Only cosmetic changes were made to stem corruption.
Kibaki was clearly uninterested in rocking the national boat. He had a referendum, a rather mean-spirited one, for a constitution - and the majority of the country voted NO. He realised suddenly that he had alienated a large part of the country and that the Kikuyu were mostly isolated behind him.
Odinga and the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) moved in to fill the gap and began to present themselves as the People’s Party. Part of his motives were equally cynical. He too, after all, is like Kibaki, a member of one of the dynastic families who have ruled us since the Sixties.
Fast forward. Six days after the voting began Kibaki has locked himself inside State House with his cronies, too terrified to stand up and say anything meaningful to stem the violence. They, and the Gikuyu, have become the immovable object to Odinga’s irresistible force. The country is divided 50-50, and no one will give.
Although Kibaki was sworn in as president half the country has refused to accept him. Both he and Raila have decided to wait and see who will blink first: Raila has the baying crowds on his side, and Kibaki has the instruments of the state.
Both are banking on the fact that they can stop the violence when the other blinks.
The problem is that if the violence continues into the weekend, they will both have lost control. The police and army may split into their respective sides, especially if there is silence from State House, and if State House continues to be perceived as a Gikuyu Nation defending itself - turning itself into an Israel facing the Orange.
ODM supporters are burning killing and looting Gikuyu and other property across the country. Gikuyus are preparing to retaliate. On Thursday, Nairobi was dead silent.
The political cynicism on both sides has shocked us all and is the strongest fuel in the battles raging in many parts of Kenya.
The state as we know it has run out of steam.
The winner-takes-all Westminster system we have cannot carry our aspirations. As blood is shed in Eldoret, and Mombasa, Kenya’s various ethnicities are now stranded in their own paranoia for lack of a viable national structure and process.
Kenya is 45 years old this year. Like many nations, this is our moment of truth. There is a triumphant way out of this. Both leaders should act like statesmen, sit together and do what is necessary, legally, to have an interim power-sharing arrangement with the sole task of creating a structure that can carry us to a new election - with a new or amended constitution that ensures all minorities and interests are represented.
We are a strong economy on this continent. We have a well-trained army, police force and civil service. We have some of the most competent technocrats in any developing country. We even have a lot of goodwill across ethnic and class lines, and if we act now, things can get better quickly.
All the foreign correspondent hyperbole about “atavistic hatreds” and the like is not true.
We all want peace and all civil leaders should speak loudly to their constituencies. Baying from across the bridge does not do much.
Nations are forged through situations like this. Leaders are made. We have been play-acting nationhood.
Do we want to be a Kenyan nation? Do we really want this? The time has come to decide.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?
articleid=328918&area=/columnist_wainaina/
Mail & Guardian: Charles Taylor trial
hears of murder, rape and mutilation
Stephanie van den Berg | The Hague, The Netherlands
08 January 2008
A reverend who survived a massacre and was held captive by rebels in Sierra Leone testified on Tuesday in the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor about seeing killings, rapes and mutilations.
Taylor is accused of arming, training and controlling the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels in Sierra Leone in exchange for still-unknown amounts of diamonds.
The former Liberian leader has pleaded not guilty to 11 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including terrorising the civilian population, murder, rape and the use of child soldiers.
Alex Tamba Teh (47), a reverend in the diamond-rich Kono district of Sierra Leone, was the first victim of atrocities to take the stand in the trial that resumed this week after a six-month delay.
Tamba Teh told the court that after his town was taken over by RUF rebels he was captured along with other civilians and taken to a rebel leader.
"After they killed the civilians in the group, other adult men, he gave instructions that they should be decapitated," he said.
A so-called Small Boys Unit of child soldiers carried out the orders.
"They were small, small boys below the age of 15, some could not even lift their guns, they were dragging them," Tamba Teh said.
After the massacre a harrowing incident followed where some of the child soldiers killed another boy by chopping off his limbs.
"He was crying, screaming, asking: 'What have I done?' They put his right arm on a log and with a machete, amputated it at the wrist," Tamba Teh described.
After cutting off his other hand and both feet, the child soldiers took the boy, who was still screaming, and threw him into a toilet pit, he added.
After being spared from the killings by the rebels because he was a clergyman, Tamba Teh was taken to another rebel base where he was held with other civilian men and women.
The captives were forced to find food for the rebels and at night the women were raped, he told the court.
After the harrowing story of surviving this massacre, Tamba Teh recounted meeting infamous RUF leader Sam Bockarie, also known as Mosquito, in 1998.
Mosquito wanted to appoint him as a pastor to the RUF troops but the witness said he refused, asking instead to be made a field marshall.
"My boss [Charles] Gankay Taylor is not yet a five-star general, how can I make you a field marshall?" the witness quoted Bockarie as saying.
According to the prosecution, Taylor controlled rebel forces in neighbouring Sierra Leone who went on a blood diamond-funded rampage of killing, mutilation and rape during the 1991 to 2001 civil war.
About 120 000 people were killed in the conflict, with rebels mutilating thousands more, cutting off arms, legs, ears or noses.
Prosecutors said Taylor, who was the president of Liberia during most of the time covered in the charges, supported the rebels in order to get his hands on the abundant natural resources of Sierra Leone, such as diamonds and timber.
Taylor's trial before the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone was moved from Freetown to The Hague because there were fears his presence there could destabilise the region.
Taylor's defence team stressed on Tuesday that the witnesses' testimony was not necessary because they do not say these crimes did not happen, they just argue Taylor was not responsible for them.
"Why do these victims have to travel thousands of miles and have to tell their terrible stories 10 years after it happened," Taylor's lawyer, Courtenay Griffiths, said.
"We do not contest these crimes happened, they have already been examined before the Sierra Leone tribunal. Are we going to repeat this ad nauseam," he asked.
AFP
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=329157&area=/
breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
Mail & Guardian:
Taylor trial resumes with tales of brutality
Alexandra Hudson | The Hague, The Netherlands
07 January 2008
A blood-diamond expert and an account from a Sierra Leonean miner who said laughing rebels hacked off his hands and burned his family opened the war-crimes trial against Liberia's Charles Taylor on Monday.
The former Liberian president, once one of Africa's most feared warlords, faces charges of rape, murder, mutilation and recruitment of child soldiers at the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, set up to try those behind the 1991 to 2002 war.
Taylor is accused of trying to gain control of the mineral wealth of neighbouring Sierra Leone, particularly its diamond mines, and of seeking to destabilise its government by supplying the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels.
Prosecutors showed scenes from a documentary, including a severed hand and the story of the diamond miner, who said RUF rebels cut off his hands and torched his house, killing his wife and children inside.
Their first witness, Ian Smillie, a Canadian expert on the trade in blood diamonds smuggled out of Africa to buy arms, said the RUF used brutality to frighten people away from diamond fields that earned them up to $125-million a year.
Smillie said diamonds were the primary source of RUF funding and most left Sierra Leone through Liberia. He added they could not have done so without the knowledge of Liberian officials, and the Liberian government supported the RUF at all levels.
He said the special light of diamonds from Sierra Leone meant they were worth about $200 per carat, compared with about $25 to $30 per carat for those from Liberia.
Smillie met Taylor in 2000 while investigating diamond smuggling as part of a United Nations probe. Taylor told him it was "highly probable" RUF diamonds were passing through the country but he had no specific knowledge of it, Smillie said.
Impunity
Taylor (59), the first former African head of state to face an international court, has pleaded not guilty to all charges. He looked relaxed in court, wearing gold-rimmed spectacles, a dark suit and a gold watch and ring.
More than quarter of a million people were killed in intertwined wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Prosecutors want the trial to set a precedent worldwide and end decades of impunity for African strongmen.
A generation of civilian amputees - their hands or legs chopped off by rebels - are a painful reminder of the cruelty of the conflict, in which drugged rebels and militia members, often just children, killed, raped and maimed.
Prosecutors intend to call 144 witnesses. After Smillie, they plan to question a victim of the violence in Sierra Leone and then an insider once close to Taylor's regime.
Taylor's defence lawyers do not contest that atrocities took place in Sierra Leone but dispute Taylor's involvement. They have questioned whether bringing victims to The Hague to testify would serve any purpose other than emotional impact.
"It will be an ever-present tactic by the prosecution because they have such a shabby case," Taylor's lawyer, Courtenay Griffiths, said.
In the past, ousted African dictators have often fled overseas to live out their days unpunished. Taylor found exile in Nigeria after being overthrown in 2003, but was later handed to the court under international pressure.
"This is a huge moment as a former head of state is tried," said Elise Keppler of campaign group Human Rights Watch.
The trial is being held in The Hague because of fears it could spur instability if held in Sierra Leone.
Prosecutors expect a judgement by the end of 2009, though an appeal would be likely to stretch into 2010.
Taylor boycotted the opening of his trial last June in a bid to win more funds for his defence, delaying the process. The former strongman is receiving legal aid despite suspicions he has amassed a considerable personal fortune.
Reuters
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=329096&area=/
breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/
New Statesman:
Nothing new under the Kenyan sun
Kenya's battles with tribalism and corruption are not a recent phenomenon, says ex-UK High Commissioner, Roger Tomkys
Roger Tomkys
Published 08 January 2008
Fifteen years ago, when I left Nairobi in the run-up to Kenya's first multi-party elections, held against all President Moi's instincts under donor pressure, I sent advice to London that was leaked - not by me - and published.
I wrote that British interests in Kenya had been put at risk under Moi by the increasing corruption, economic inefficiencies and degeneration of the political system. They need not be threatened by change of government, but the democratic process had to be well managed if civil conflict was to be avoided.
Now, for British interests read the future of the people of Kenya. Multi-party, winner takes all democracy in a tribally diverse African society must risk polarising the electorate on tribal lines, as the winners expect to get the economic spoils for their own supporters and constituencies. Kenya survived that risk after 1992 though the benefits in terms of more accountable, less corrupt government have been limited under Kibaki as under Moi. Perhaps I overrated the dangers, but those western governments who then backed one party or another in the hope of some ideal outcome that would transform the system, were playing with fire.
The international context of the 1992 election was that throughout the 1980, Moi had been a favoured leader for Washington and London; Kenya was stable and our priorities were the Cold War and Commonwealth splits over Apartheid, on both of which Moi had been a steadfast friend. In return, British aid was too uncritically given in his support.
When the Berlin Wall came down and the Apartheid regime fell, he was no longer needed and became simply a discredited African old-style "big man". At the same time, the donor community, led by the IMF, discovered that fast track economic liberalisation , the "Washington Consensus", was a panacea for all Africa's poverty.
Moi, unlike the more flexible and engaging Museveni in Uganda, was pressed to swallow both political and economic bitter medicine without delay. Medicine was indeed needed but progressive dosage would have been safer and perhaps more effective.
Michela Wrong reported that Kenya, long seen as an oasis of stability in East Africa, "is on the edge of meltdown". The danger Kenya faces now is not new; its realisation would be a disaster for the whole troubled region.
Wrong's meltdown was possible then as now; all must hope that now as then Kenya will stop short of the brink.
This does not mean that Britain or the donor community bear prime responsibility for Kenya's problems today. Whatever may have been the colonial history of, say, Rwanda, Britain did not create tribal divisions in Kenya.
While we tolerated for too long, for international reasons, the abuse of power under Moi, Britain's role in Kenya since independence has been broadly beneficial, especially in the handling of land transfers in the early years.
But the British Government cannot now take the lead over Kenya's future. That time has long gone and it would be disastrous for us to take sides in the internal political struggle. African and Commonwealth figures including Archbishop Tutu have more credibility and merit our support.
If meltdown is avoided and stability restored, British, European and western policies should be to give generous economic aid under close monitoring of its effective use across the country as a whole, not just in the interests and heartland of the political victors.
The British Government should set this course for its partners. We should not be over prescriptive about the shape of any political compromise that may result. Somehow, government has to be both accountable to all the people of Kenya, not just to its own supporters.
We cannot solve this conundrum with prescriptions from a Westminster manual, only hope that in the last resort, the imminent threat of civil war will return Kenya to the precarious but pragmatic stability of the 45 years since independence.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200801080005
Página/12:
Bogotá dio un portazo a la misión de rescate
EL GOBIERNO DE URIBE RECHAZA FUTURAS DELEGACIONES COMO LAS QUE AUTORIZO
Tras la suspendida operación humanitaria, Colombia se endureció más. El canciller Fernando Araújo desechó una intervención de países argumentando que la reciente gestión para liberar a los rehenes de la guerrilla “fue mala”. Argentina, Brasil y Ecuador respondieron con asombro y pesar.
Martes, 08 de Enero de 2008
Después de la frustrada liberación de rehenes, el gobierno colombiano anunció ayer que rechaza las misiones humanitarias internacionales. Luego de que la semana pasada Bogotá revelara que el niño supuestamente secuestrado por las FARC estaba en manos del gobierno, funcionarios colombianos despotricaron ayer contra la insurgencia, pero también contra la última comisión humanitaria organizada por Caracas e integrada por delegados de siete países, entre ellos el ex presidente argentino Néstor Kirchner. Las críticas contra la delegación internacional, que fue autorizada en su momento por Colombia, fueron recibidas entre el silencio, la sorpresa y el rechazo. Por su parte, familiares de los rehenes ratificaron su fe en las gestiones humanitarias.
En una señal de endurecimiento, el gobierno del presidente colombiano Alvaro Uribe hizo ayer una nueva demostración de fuerza. La novedad no fue que el ministro del Interior, Carlos Holguín Sardi, exigiera la libertad de los secuestrados en manos de la guerrilla, sino que pusiera fin a la esperanza de muchos familiares y países promotores del intercambio humanitario. “Exigimos a las FARC que liberen a todos los secuestrados, porque ya no hay confianza para negociar con ese grupo”, señaló. “Por eso ya no más acuerdos, no más misiones humanitarias para que las FARC jueguen con todos, con la comunidad internacional”, añadió.
Las declaraciones se produjeron a una semana de que las FARC suspendieran la entrega de tres rehenes alegando peligrosas operaciones militares del ejército y luego de que Bogotá revelara, el 31 de diciembre, que Emmanuel, el hijo de la secuestrada Clara Rojas, no podía ser liberado por la insurgencia porque lo tenía el gobierno.
En este escenario –que algunos medios locales interpretaron como un fortalecimiento de Uribe y un desmadre de la guerrilla–, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Fernando Araújo, ratificó que el gobierno aún espera la entrega de los rehenes, pero también desechó la intervención internacional. “Estamos mirando la posibilidad de que las FARC cumplan su palabra de hacer la entrega de Clara Rojas y Consuelo González, en cuyo caso nosotros facilitamos la entrega, pero sin aceptar la presencia de comisiones internacionales humanitarias”, dijo.
Sin sutilezas, el canciller apuntó los cañones directamente contra la delegación presidencial organizada por Chávez la semana pasada, de la que participaron Argentina, Brasil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Francia y Suiza. “Esta comisión, que vino en un acto de transparencia y de apertura del gobierno colombiano, llegó con un discurso muy cargado en contra del gobierno y muy favorable a las FARC, poniendo siempre en duda los informes que daba el gobierno y registrando siempre como reales las mentiras de las FARC”, señaló.
En reemplazo de los mediadores internacionales, el ministro anticipó que ante una futura liberación unilateral de rehenes por parte de las FARC, se acudiría al Comité Internacional de la Cruz Roja (CICR). Para el canciller las delegaciones internacionales llegadas a Colombia no conocían la situación colombiana ni a las FARC, lo que los llevó a atacar al gobierno y a defender a la guerrilla, dijo. “El resultado de esta gestión fue malo”, agregó.
Horas después del anuncio oficial de Bogotá, llegó la reacción de los países que asistieron a la operación convocada por Caracas en Colombia. Mientras Argentina mostró sorpresa (ver aparte), un asesor de Marco Aurelio Garcia, el asistente en asuntos internacionales del presidente brasileño Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, dijo a Página/12 que Aurelio no haría declaraciones, aunque recordó el agradecimiento que Uribe le expresó la semana pasada y el saludo que le envió a Lula. En cambio, Gustavo Larrea, el enviado por parte de Ecuador, rechazó la última decisión de Colombia. “El mundo entero pide un espacio humanitario”, dijo.
En tanto, los familiares de los secuestrados se mostraron ayer esperanzados en el canje humanitario que impulsa Venezuela. “Me alegro muchísimo de que Emmanuel esté en libertad. En cuanto a la liberación de González y Rojas, confiamos en la labor humanitaria de Chávez y los países latinoamericanos”, dijo a Página/12 Claudia Hara, esposa de Alan Hara, capturado hace más de seis años cuando era gobernador del departamento colombiano de Meta. “Hay que buscar una salida humanitaria al problema”, agregó. Por su parte, Gustavo Moncallo, padre de un militar secuestrado por la insurgencia, criticó a Uribe en una conferencia de prensa en Venezuela. “Uribe llama a matar guerrilleros, mientras otros llamamos al intercambio humanitario”, afirmó. “Como no hay guerra en Colombia, el gobierno acude a EE.UU. para armar un ejército contra un supuesto terrorismo”, añadió.
Informe: Juan Manuel Barca.
© 2000-2008 www.pagina12.com.ar|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-97199-2008-01-08.html
Página/12:
¿Qué hacía usted a los 36 grados?
Por Enrique Medina
Martes, 08 de Enero de 2008
Apenas hay un hombre nadando, los demás sólo están metidos en el agua; charlan obviedades y de tanto en tanto flexionan las rodillas para hundirse y sacar la cabeza chorreando. Algunos chicos se atreven a jugar bajo el sol; corren alrededor de la piscina y se zambullen de cabeza o se tiran de un salto recogiendo las piernas. Bajo una sombrilla desde la que campanean a sus respectivas familias, Toledo y Galván beben cerveza fría y transpiran correctamente, pero sin la mínima elegancia. Groseras, sin ninguna duda, las gotas de sudor se deslizan desde la cabeza hasta la panza. El locutor de la radio avisa que la temperatura ha llegado a los 36 grados, pero escandaliza y sanatea con la mentirosa sensación térmica. Metiéndose la mano en la malla, Toledo eructa y dice:
–Perdón... Che, se me pegan los huevos... ¿A vos, no?...
Dejando de leer el proyecto que le ha dado Toledo para que se lo evalúe, Galván, observando el proceder de su amigo, le responde:
–¿No te es más fácil quitarte el pantaloncito y sacudir las bolas frente al ventilador?...
–... Mirá vos, no se me había ocurrido...
Y amaga levantarse para cumplir lo dicho, pero no es más que una broma, así que agrega:
–Ves, por eso quiero que le eches una leída, porque sos más inteligente que yo...
–Al menos no me rasco las bolas delante de la gente...
–Dale, ¿a quién le importa?... La verdad es que ya deberían existir las piletas francas, ¿no te parece?... Habría que avisarle a la Moria para que se ponga en campaña...
Galván no responde porque el diálogo es irrelevante, sigue leyendo. Toledo sirve los dos vasos y la botella se vacía. Le hace señas al mozo para que traiga otra, y bebe. En el lapso en que el mozo trae el pedido y Toledo pasa revista a todas las mujeres del club, sin perdonar edad para arriba o para abajo, Galván termina su lectura y devuelve la carpeta. Hay un silencio que para Toledo es imbancable:
–¿Y?... ¿No te gustó?...
Galván adopta una postura de pensador tolerante que no encuentra la palabra:
–... No es que no me gustó... ¿Cómo decirte...?
–¡Diciéndolo!, dale che... ¡Es un proyecto fenómeno, no me jodas! Lo que pasa es que sos un sentimental... El proyecto es re-realista, es re-repráctico, todo el mundo sale ganando, incluso salen ganando los pichichos abandonados...
–¿Qué salen ganando?...
–¿Cómo qué?... Salen ganando que no sufren más, pobrecitos. La eutanasia tiene sus beneficios. Primero se reglamenta el largo de las correas, sólo 50 centímetros para que el animalito vaya pegado al amo y no jodan a los humanos, y anulamos, se prohíbe la correa extensora por ignorancia de la gente que no sabe que es para usarla en las plazas. El asunto es imponer la disciplina necesaria, ni más ni menos. Y se termina con los arrastraperros dictadores de veredas. Tendrán que llevar a la jauría dentro de un vehículo para que la gente pueda caminar decentemente por las calles. Todo pichicho suelto será secuestrado por personal al efecto y enviado al depósito para su posterior análisis, y de inmediato al frigorífico. Solucionamos el problema de la falta de carne y evitamos la sorpresa de pisar mierda de perro y el temor de que se nos venga encima el malón perruno cuando estamos paseando. A todo pichicho que se lo encuentre sin bozal y adornando la vereda, ¡ipso facto se lo secuestra y punto! Y vas a ver cómo todos cumplen la ley y nadie saca a pasear el pichicho fuera de horario. ¡Hasta un tapón en el culo deberían llevar! A mí, ponerles horario me parece ¡fun-da-men-tal! De 12 de la noche a 6 de la matina me parece un horario posta. ¿No te parece?... No, no te parece... Ya veo, sos un sentimental impráctico, vos no visualizás el futuro. ¿No te das cuenta de que cada vez hay más perros que humanos?, viejo. Es una avanzada oriental mi proyecto. La cultura china se viene con todo. Pregunto: ¿si se puede comer vaca, caballo, chancho, oveja, por qué no perro?... ¿O tienen coronita?... ¿O no son todos animales? El proyecto es bueno, creéme. ¿O es mejor proclamar un feriado en homenaje al salamín, eh?
Con parsimonia, como si estuviera contracturado, Galván sirve los vasos y, de improviso, se estremece:
–¡La puta, me apreté un huevo!
© 2000-2008 www.pagina12.com.ar|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contratapa/13-97180-2008-01-08.html
The Independent:
Sri Lanka minister killed by roadside bomb blast
Reuters
Published: 08 January 2008
A Sri Lankan minister was killed by a roadside bomb planted by suspected Tamil Tiger rebels north of the capital today, a senior hospital official said, the second MP killed in a week as a protracted civil war escalates.
Nation Building Minister DM Dassanayake, whose vehicle was hit by the blast this morning in the town of Ja-Ela, 12 miles north of Colombo on the road to the island's only international airport, died on the operating table.
"He died a short while ago," said Lalini Gurusinghe, deputy director of the government teaching hospital in the nearby town of Ragama, where the minister and 10 others wounded in the blast were taken. One of his security detail also later died.
Local television broadcast footage of the ministers' Toyota Land Cruiser, its windows shattered, sides peppered with shrapnel sprayed by the Claymore fragmentation mine and blood smeared on a rear passenger door and in a pool on the ground.
A doctor was pictured sitting astride the minister on a trolley, pumping his chest as he was rushed to the operating theatre.
The bombing is the latest in series of attacks on government officials and the military in recent months, and comes just days after the government said it was formally scrapping a tattered ceasefire which degenerated into renewed civil war in early 2006.
The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who want to carve out an independent state in north and east Sri Lanka, were not immediately available for comment, but routinely deny involvement in such attacks.
"This is definitely by the LTTE," said a military spokesman, declining to be named in line with policy.
Fighting continued elsewhere today, with fighter jets launching an air raid on a suspected rebel command post in the northwestern district of Mannar, while the military said troops killed 13 rebels in a series of clashes in the north and northeast.
The blast came minutes before Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake announced parliament had again extended emergency rule first imposed in late 2005 after the assassination of the island's foreign minister.
It also came a week after a prominent minority Tamil parliamentarian was shot dead in a Hindu temple in the capital.
The military says it has killed nearly 100 Tiger rebels since advising mediator Norway last week it was pulling out of the ceasefire pact, a move that has shocked the international community and is seen ruining any hope of resurrecting peace talks to end a 25-year civil war any time soon.
Just minutes before the blast, which took place midway between the capital and the airport, Deputy Tourism Minister Faizal Mustapha impressed on reporters that Sri Lanka was a safe tourist destination.
The government has vowed to wipe out the Tigers militarily, setting the stage for what many fear will be a bloody battle for the north as a death toll of around 70,000 people since the war erupted in 1983 climbs daily.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3318738.ece
The Nation:
A Season of Change
by JONATHAN SCHELL
[posted online on January 7, 2008]
Change, change, change, change, change! With astounding unanimity, throughout the politic sphere-in the campaigns, in the media coverage, in pollsters' surveys-the word "change" is bubbling on people's lips. You'd think that a word, not a person, had won each of the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Barack Obama, who announced in his speech after his victory in Iowa, "Our time for change has come," was, of course, the prince of change. But suddenly "change" seemed to be the key to all political futures, as every candidate, Democrat or Republican, scrambled, by uttering the magic word as many times as possible, to affix it to themselves. In his speech after the Iowa results, John Edwards announced that the winner was not exactly Barack Obama but... "change." He stated, "What won was change over the status quo." Thus, he had not been defeated by Obama; he and Obama been part of a joint victory over the status quo. Hillary Clinton agreed that the word rather than any specific person had been the winner: After thanking the other candidates, she said, "Together, we have presented the case for change." Later, in New Hampshire, she asserted that her very gender spelled change. She said, "I think I am an agent of change. I embody change. I think having the first woman President is a huge change..."
The contagion immediately spread to the Republican Party, where Mitt Romney, that plaything of every passing political breeze, seemed almost to be engaged in a word game whose rule was to purge the English language insofar as possible of every word but this one. For instance in the Republican debate in New Hampshire, he babbled, "I can say, 'Not only can I talk change with you, I've lived it.' In the private sector for twenty-five years, I brought change to company after company. In the Olympics, it was in trouble. I brought change. In Massachusetts, I brought change. I have done it. I have changed things."
But Clinton bested him. In the Democratic debate, she said, "I want to make change, but I've already made change. I will continue to make change. I'm not just running on a promise of change. I'm running on thirty-five years of change." (Thus Clinton managed to use the word five times in a thirty-two-word passage, for a winning percentage of 15.6 percent, whereas it had taken Romney fifty words to get in five uses, for a mere 10 percent rate.)
Also, there now appeared here an animal called the "change voter" (who apparently had shouldered aside such previous favorites as the "security Mom" and the "values voter"). ABC news found that 51 percent of these people preferred Obama.
Even George Bush got into the act, through his spokesman Tony Fratto, who rather cryptically said, "It's good to see change in this job."
To state the obvious, this word, taken by itself, is an almost perfect vacuum. Its ubiquity marks a surprisingly metaphysical turn in American politics, as if Hegelians or the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers had taken charge of our political discussion. In actuality, of course, it is not philosophers but political consultants, market researchers, TV ad writers and pollsters who have created the new abstract vocabulary, distilling all the particulars of American aspirations into a few blurry, glowing phrases-or in this case, just one word.
National healthcare would be a change, but so would a smallpox epidemic. Hurricane Katrina was a change, and so was the Iraq war. George Bush-a change from whom is presumably wanted-has indeed been the biggest "agent of change" in a generation. And what can the "change" that Mitt Romney has brought "to private enterprise" have to do with the change that Hillary Clinton represents just by being a woman? When combined with Obama's reported desire to create a "post-partisan politics" (in which there is not a red or a blue America but a "United States of America"), the void only expands. Obama wants to get American troops (or most of them) out of Iraq; John McCain says he might keep them there for a hundred years. In a "post-partisan" world, which would it be?
Yet it would be superficial to judge the whole significance of a political moment by the inadequacy of an evasive word chosen to designate it. When Obama gave his speech after his win in Iowa, there was almost an audible click of history's gears meshing and its engines turning over and beginning to hum. At the very least, the moment crystallized a wide-scale national disgust with what has gone before. The era of two dynasties-of the Bushes and Clintons-seemed to be coming to a close.
Where before it seemed that thick, impenetrable gloomy clouds were rolling across the landscape, a bright and shimmering but so far empty screen has been hung. Soon, something will be projected there. Then we'll know what this season of change-or at least of the word "change"-meant.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/schell
Utne Reader:
Towers of Babble
by Paul Constant, from the Stranger
The eight men huddled around a table at a Seattle coffee shop could easily be confused with a comic-book fan society or a Dungeons & Dragons kaffeeklatsch. They’re mostly white, in their 20s and 30s, many with creative facial hair. They’re dressed casually. The majority of them are computer programmers. Nearly half of them work at Microsoft, although they coyly refer to it as “a major computer-software firm based out of Redmond,” presumably for fear of workplace repercussions.
“I’d like to call this meeting to a quorum,” a guy named Robin says, presumably hamming it up because a reporter is present. This is a meeting of We Are Change Seattle, one of the many local branches of a loosely affiliated network of 9/11 Truth organizations. The group gets together in coffee shops and bars every week or two.
Robin spent much of his life in New England working as an air-traffic controller and manager of standup comedians, and he recently moved to Seattle to be closer to his daughter and granddaughter. He’s the oldest of the group but in many ways the most passionate, followed closely by a charismatic man named Giancarlo. Giancarlo’s father brought him to the United States 20 years ago from “a communist country”; he evades questions about which one. He’s forceful, handsome, and young, the kind of person who says “with all due respect” with a smile and then proceeds to tell you exactly what’s wrong with you. His magnetic personality could probably earn him an elected office if he smoothed out his angry edges.
“What’s really a slap in the face,” Giancarlo says, “is that they dumbed down the explanation to such third-grader principles, that the terrorists did this because they hate our freedoms. I hate the fact that I believed that for five years.” Giancarlo’s rant about freedom gives way to a conversation about the failure of the anti–Iraq war movement, which the group agrees has consisted of hippies singing folk songs, ridiculous puppets, and self-righteous preaching to the choir.
“This is why the 9/11 Truth movement is brilliant,” Robin says, “because we’re on the web and we have DVDs and we’re out handing things out”—specifically, he says, in places they aren’t wanted. “We’re doing what I’d like to call civil informationing.”
It’s true that educating people who are hostile to your cause, rather than smugly marching in lockstep with like-minded activists, is the way to operate a movement. Giancarlo is said to be the best at debating naysayers and sweet-talking reluctant people into taking copies of We Are Change Seattle’s information. Kristian Konrad, probably the closest thing that We Are Change Seattle has to a leader, says that when members hand out literature outside Mariners baseball games, they attract comments like “Get fucked, traitor” and “Oh, look, it’s the freaks.”
I was invited to this meeting after an e-mail exchange with Konrad in which I compared the level of hatred for Truthers to the way most people treat Lyndon LaRouche followers and Jehovah’s Witnesses. This touched a nerve with Konrad, who replied by saying, “Unlike LaRouchers, we have regular jobs and don’t adhere to one man’s ideas.” He added, “I’m just a regular guy, trying to get the word out that buildings don’t fall apart at free-fall speed due to fire.”
Weeks after the meeting in the coffee shop, Konrad is at Seattle Hempfest handing out DVDs to strangers. He has 400 of them, which he paid for himself at an estimated cost of “27 cents apiece, not including time,” he says. He was up all night burning them. A sign that reads “Google 9/11 Truth” is sticking out of his backpack, but otherwise he could easily fit into the Hempfest demographic. A preteen boy who must have been 5, at most, in 2001, says, “Dude, it was six years ago. Get over it!” One man shouts, “Fuck you!” A soft-spoken man in his 50s takes a DVD and then hands it back and walks on.
I catch up to him. He tells me, “I’m not interested. I feel like conspiracies in this day and age would be extremely difficult to perpetuate. Now, with the Internet, governments are running scared. The writing is on the wall and they can’t control the people. They’re in trouble and they know it.”
When I tell Konrad about the man’s response, he laughs. “Good for him, man,” he says. “I want some of what he’s smoking.”
Three months ago, at a birthday party, I met a dour young man wearing a “9/11 was an inside job” T-shirt. I’d already been noticing a lot of “inside job” stickers and graffiti around town, and now, faced with a real-life Truther, I found that I couldn’t stop staring at him: He was at a celebration of a friend’s life and he was wearing a shirt announcing that nearly 3,000 American citizens were killed by our own government. It’s easy to dismiss a guy like this as a lone wolf, but he’s actually not alone: A 2006 Scripps Survey Research Center poll found that 36 percent of all Americans believe that the government is responsible for 9/11—either by direct action or by willfully ignoring clear evidence that it was going to happen.
There is no end to the variety of Truthers’ claims, but most of them believe that the United States government perpetrated 9/11 in an elaborate conspiracy to bring about the decomposition of civil liberties and the fortification of the American empire in the Middle East. They think this because, since 9/11, we’ve witnessed the decomposition of civil liberties and the fortification of the American empire in the Middle East.
Most Truthers claim that their starting point in the movement was watching the third World Trade Center tower fall. At 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, WTC 7, a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper located 300 feet north of Tower 1, collapsed. This collapse, as seen in news footage, looks a lot like an implosion, as if it had happened through controlled demolition. This is the drum that most Truthers bang on when they’re trying to get people to pay attention, and it’s a pretty sexy bullet point: No planes struck WTC 7, so why would it collapse?
But, for that matter, why would the Twin Towers collapse? The 9/11 Commission Report claims that the towers fell at nearly free-fall speed because of something later dubbed the “pancake theory,” which means that each floor fell on top of the floor below it. Truthers claim that the puffs of smoke that jetted from the side of the buildings during the collapse were signs of controlled explosions within the buildings. And, further, that the jet fuel–stoked fire inside the towers could not have burned hot enough to weaken the metal structure of the building.
It’s inaccurate to refer to Truthers as conspiracy theorists because, as they’re quick to point out, many of them don’t have a theory. They only have questions. Some of them believe that the government is guilty of knowing about the attacks and simply allowing them to happen, others believe that the planes were remote-controlled and no passengers died in the attacks, and still others believe that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile and no plane was involved at all. Many Truthers believe that Flight 93 couldn’t have crashed in Pennsylvania since the crash site is only 6 feet wide by 20 feet long. A radical few even claim that no planes struck the Twin Towers. The debate within the movement is intense and not always polite; some Truthers believe that denying that hundreds of air passengers died on September 11 is disrespectful and stupid.
There are almost as many notions about what happened on September 11 as there are members of 9/11 Truth organizations. To add to the confusion, the movement is home to not a few eccentrics. After the coffee shop meeting with We Are Change Seattle, I got the first in a series of e-mails from a woman named Rebecca. Rebecca was angry that she wasn’t allowed to take part in the group interview, a decision that Konrad justified as a way to present a “more united front” to the media.
Rebecca and three other original members of 9/11 Truth Seattle—the umbrella entity that makes communication between various Truth groups in Seattle possible—had decided to abandon We Are Change Seattle anyway after a disagreement. Most recently, Rebecca has decided to stop being part of any 9/11 Truth organization. In her words: “I have instead decided to give priority to my creative work with political satire and performance poetry.”
This tiny schism is emblematic of larger rifts within the Truth movement. Its first few years have seen a number of organizations come and go in a flurry of arguments and personality clashes. For instance, last year, after a prolonged argument about whether the towers were felled by miniature nuclear weapons, some members of a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth voted to disband and reform as the new, improved Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Many Truthers rejected a man named Webster Tarpley as a major public face of the movement because of his previous work for the LaRouche Connection, a news service funded by the LaRouche organization. “Many of us felt like he took some credibility from the movement,” a Truther who wanted to be anonymous told me. Tarpley is rumored to be considering a run for president on a 9/11 Truth ticket, which could draw some of the Truth votes from both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, who seem to be running neck-and-neck in popularity with the primarily Libertarian-leaning members of 9/11 Truth groups.
In the midst of all this it’s easy to forget that, by virtually any measurement of intellect, Truthers are highly intelligent people. The very fact that they’ve branded themselves the “Truth” movement shows a canny grasp of public relations on a level with the Bush administration’s lusty embrace of the word freedom. Who could possibly be against truth? Truth is part of the credo of superheroes, along with justice and the American way. It’s the same kind of organic organizational genius that people who are against abortion drew on when they came up with prolife. Adopting a powerful, emblematic word like truth or life or freedom gives you an important edge at the start of an argument. It’s more than a statement of purpose; it’s brilliant marketing, and it reveals an organization wise enough to use the same tools as the institutions they’ve sworn to fight. Truthers get dismissed as idiots on liberal and conservative message boards around the country, but it’s hard to think of another movement that has covered as much ground as quickly, and has defined itself as well, as 9/11 Truth has.
I left that first coffee shop meeting with a huge stack of books and DVDs. The bible for most of the movement is David Ray Griffin’s confusingly titled Debunking 9/11 Debunking, written in response to the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics that refuted commonly floated 9/11 Truth theories. It’s a necessarily dry book—great swaths of pages are devoted to whether jet fuel fire would burn black or white—and Griffin, a retired professor of theology and philosophy of religion, is not by any stretch of the imagination an inspirational writer, but his methodical approach gives the book gravity.
The first Internet-distributed movie that turned people on to the Truth movement was Loose Change. Despite being an amateur production, Change is paced and edited like a mainstream documentary. It’s a shame it’s so bad. Director/narrator Dylan Avery’s voice is nasally reminiscent of Ira Glass’, which partly explains why Change seems like an episode of This American Life on acid. Avery makes crazy suggestions and then stops and says, in a folksy stage exclamation, “Wait a minute! What did I just say?” The last third of the film posits that Flight 93 never crashed in Pennsylvania. By this point it’s clear that Change is the work of someone who’s spent too long examining the evidence and needs to step out for fresh air.
The Truth movement’s newest, most popular film is a documentary called Zeitgeist. Not as professional as Change, Zeitgeist still has weird power: Based solely on anecdotal evidence, it’s probably drawing more people into the Truth movement than anything else.
The first 40 minutes explain in detail why Christianity is a sham and Jesus Christ is not the messiah. It’s fairly well argued and revolves around commonly known facts: Many early religions had messianic stories involving virgin births, crucifixions, celebrations on December 25, and so on. The second part is devoted to 9/11 Truth, and it’s probably the most clearly stated case I’ve seen, covering the “facts” concisely. The third part of Zeitgeist lost me entirely—it’s a screed about how everything has always been a part of a master plan to create a New World Order, and the film’s emotional climax involves a documentary filmmaker befriending a loose-lipped Rockefeller family member who blurts out the events of 9/11 . . . nearly one year before they happened!
It’s fascinating, this structure. First the film destroys the idea of God, and then, through the lens of 9/11, it introduces a sort of new Bizarro God. Instead of an omnipotent, omniscient being who loves you and has inspired a variety of organized religions, there is an omnipotent, omniscient organization of ruthless beings who hate you and want to take your rights away, if not throw you in a work camp forever. Zeitgeist is the film most Truthers mention online when they’re new to the movement, and it believes in a magical fairyland dominated by evil villains. It’s fiction, couched in a few facts.
There are even nuttier resources, like Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies by Jim Marrs, who’s made a career of writing about the JFK assassination and extraterrestrial encounters. David Icke, who famously believes the world is being controlled by lizard-men (in a plot startlingly similar to the cult NBC miniseries V), has contributed his very particular genius to the genre with Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster. Just type a couple of words into Google and the whole thing spins into crazy within seconds.
You can get sidetracked tearing apart every bit of evidence with a Truther. Was the whole thing done with remote-controlled planes bearing bomb pods on their underbellies? If so, where are the real people who were ostensibly the passengers of those flights? How did they—whoever they are—pull it—whatever it is—off?
I ask Konrad how many people it must have taken to wire the towers to explode.
“If they had long enough, probably you could have gotten it done with crews of 20 or 40 people,” he says.
So how did the government convince those people to execute its evil plan, and why have none of them come forward?
“It’s just my theory,” he says. “But the people who wired the towers to explode are already dead. They probably got three in the back of the head, just like Pat Tillman.”
But what about the people who did the people who did the towers? And the people who told the people to do the people who did the towers? You can imagine a line of men in suits shooting each other in the back of the head extending all the way from New York to Washington, D.C., and ending in the Oval Office, but somewhere along the way, someone’s going to squeal. Truthers tend to implicate the media in the attack, but, as anyone who’s ever gotten drunk with a journalist could tell you, a conspiracy that involves the media would be short-lived.
The secrecy of our government is a major reason why the Truth movement has gained such successful footing in such a relatively short time, and President Bush’s and Vice President Cheney’s refusal to cooperate with the 9/11 Commission can easily be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Plus, Bush and Cheney probably are guilty of a lot of horrible things, some of which we’ll never know about. But wouldn’t a government conspiracy to go after Iraq just have tied the towers directly to Iraq? If the Truth movement’s only job is to uncover discrepancies, it’s dooming itself to forever pulling facts apart. It’s kind of a Zeno’s arrow of illogic: Truthers will never come to a reasonable conclusion because there’s never going to be an absence of doubt. It’s time for them to put up or shut up, in other words—it’s been six years since 9/11 and they’ve yet to produce anything coherent.
Most Truthers will tell you that what they’re looking for is a new, independent—possibly international—commission to investigate the events of September 11. When I ask Konrad in an e-mail if he thinks that such a commission could accurately identify what happened, his answer is less than fulfilling: “I do think there is still enough evidence to indict some of the perpetrators. . . . There is a lot of evidence, and it needs to be objectively sorted out. . . . We may never know who exactly ordered the attacks, or who did the footwork, but it is necessary to investigate. This whole war on terror, and the wars in the Middle East, are based on it.”
Do I think that the government gave us the whole truth about 9/11? Of course not. The CIA trained Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets, the Bush and bin Laden families have been tied together in business dealings forever, and the administration has released barely any usable information about the attacks. But I also think that the Truth movement people are looking backward, which won’t help them succeed in their mission.
Many people are quick to dismiss the Truth movement the second a Truther starts talking. This is a mistake. In many ways, Truthers represent a step forward, in part because of the high value they place on reason—nothing to sneeze at in a religious age. Outside of the always-to-be-expected lunatic fringe, the majority of the Truthers I’ve met have used clearheaded and civil discussion as their primary method of coercion, and it’s worked remarkably well. The problem is that many of the believers—like the ones who love Zeitgeist—have started to fall for spiritual hooey and Masonic bunkum. There’s a cult of coincidence just waiting to be born in the Truth movement that could prove to be every bit as awful and wrongheaded as any religion, but if the intelligent rationalists that I’ve met can keep their wits about them, be reasonable, and stick to facts, they could become a very important force.
The awful truth, of course, is that we’re all living in a huge conspiracy, and things are so ridiculous that we barely even think about it anymore. We entered into the Iraq war under false pretenses. Our government routinely spies on its citizens both inside and outside its borders, and runs secret courts with special rules. We torture and kill civilians in other countries because we can.
I was surprised when I met some of Seattle’s Truth groups because I was confronted by smart, sincere people with lots of information about the sad state of civil liberties and corporate control in the United States, people eager to inform other people about what’s happening to our rights and using money out of their own pockets to do it. People fighting, in other words, the single biggest sin in America: laziness. The kind of pervasive laziness that can be found everywhere today—in our leaders, in our media, in ourselves.
They could do a lot better by dropping the arguments about the melting point of steel and whether or not planes actually did hit buildings. What they already have in their hands is priceless: In just a couple of years they’ve created, from nothing, a truly democratic, highly visible grassroots framework for a new kind of peace and civil rights organization that could use that concept of “civil informationing” to bring about change. It would require the movement to endorse some candidates, and make some compromises, but there comes a time in every adult’s life when you’ve got to get to work because it’s time to stop pointing at the heavens and shouting “Why?”
Reprinted from the Stranger(Sept. 6, 2007), Seattle’s weekly alternative arts and culture newspaper. Subscriptions: $59.99/yr. (52 issues) from 1535 11th Ave., 3rd Floor, Seattle, WA 98122; www.thestranger.com.
http://www.utne.com/2008-01-01/Politics/Towers-of-Babble.aspx
ZNet | Anti War:
The Fog of War Crimes
Who’s to blame when ‘just following orders’ means murder?
by Frida Berrigan; ITT; January 08, 2008
A Marine squad was on a dusty road in Iraq, far from home. Suddenly, a deadly roadside bomb explodes the early morning calm and kills a lance corporal and wounds two other Marines. The mission: tend to the wounded and find those who were responsible … Or make someone pay? Three sleeping families awaken to the sound of grenades and guns.
By the end of the “operation,” 24 people were dead, including three women and six children. Bullets, fired at close range, tore through bodies and lodged deep in walls. A one-legged elderly man was shot nine times in the chest and abdomen. A man who watched the violence from his roof across the road told The Washington Post that he heard his neighbor speak to the Marines in English, begging for the lives of his wife and children, saying, “I am friend. I am good.” All the family was killed except one: 13-year-old Safa. Covered in her mother’s blood, she reportedly fainted and appeared dead.
In a road nearby lay the bodies of five men-four college students and their driver.
On Nov. 20, 2005, a Marine spokesman reported: “A U.S. Marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and Marines returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another.”
The only truth in that statement was that there was a roadside bomb and that a Marine-Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, known as T.J. to the other men in his squad-was killed instantly. The rest was a lie. It took months for the truth to come out, and the search for justice is taking even longer. The 24 Iraqi bodies have since been buried in a cemetery in Haditha, a farming town beside the Euphrates River. But no one-from the commander on down-has been sentenced to prison, and the effort to hold Marines responsible for this crime has focused on a few men who are low on the chain of command.
Geoffrey Corn, a retired lieutenant colonel and a professor at Southern Texas College of Law, says the laws of war work because “for every case of atrocities that we read about, there are thousands of Marines and soldiers who act with restraint.”
The Laws of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions were designed as the basis for military conduct in times of war. Three central principles govern armed conflict: military necessity, distinction (soldiers must engage only valid military targets) and proportionality (the loss of civilian lives and property damage must not outweigh the military advantage sought). Among other things, the Geneva Conventions identify grave breaches of international law as the “willful killing; torture or inhuman treatment; willful causing of great suffering; and extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully or wantonly.” An examination of the military’s actions in the aftermath of Haditha reveals a clear unwillingness to apply these principles.
Whose neck is on the line?
“You stop war crimes by coming down on the ranking officer,” says Ian Cuth-bertson, a military historian and senior fellow at the World Policy Institute.
“All armies in all wars at all times have committed war crimes,” he continues. “The question is: Does command authority condone or stop them? You can’t just give an 18-year-old an automatic weapon and tell him, ‘Don’t shoot prisoners in the head.’ You need an officer to rein him in. The officer needs to feel as though his own neck is on the line.”
In the case of Haditha, Marines have not put officers’ necks on the line. Maj. Gen. Richard Huck, who was in charge of Marines in Haditha in 2005, along with his chief of staff Col. Richard Sokoloski and Col. Stephen Davis, who headed the regimental combat team, all received letters of censure from the secretary of the U.S. Navy. The censure did not strip the men of their rank or salary, but they will be barred from future promotions, which could force them out of the Marines. According to Gary Solis, a military law expert and former Marine, censure is the Marine Corps’ most serious administrative sanction.
But, as Cuthbertson points out, the generals are not being censured for letting Haditha happen. They are being punished for not investigating. This is a big difference.
Cuthbertson cites the Allied response to the Malmedy massacre in Belgium as one example of taking war crimes seriously up the chain of command. In 1944, German soldiers killed more than 70 unarmed U.S. prisoners of war. In war crimes trials after Germany was defeated, justice was swift and extended far beyond those who actually pulled triggers. “The commander of the regiment wasn’t there. He was found guilty and sentenced to death,” says Cuthbertson. “The general of the Army wasn’t there. He was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.”
Unraveling the massacre
In January 2006-a month after the Haditha massacre-an Iraqi journalism student gave Time magazine a video of the bloody aftermath. Taher Thabet shot footage in the homes and at the morgue, recording the carnage in shaky frames. Time passed the footage on to the chief military spokesman in Baghdad, forcing the Marines to launch an investigation. Until the evidence was in their hands (and widely available on the Internet), they appeared ready to accept as truth the flimsy, contradictory account of events cobbled together by the squad leader and his men.
Two months later, the investigation determined that Marines-not insurgents-killed the civilians, and Naval Criminal Investigative Services further concluded that the civilians were deliberately targeted. CNN reported on the investigations on March 16, and Time published a long article on March 27. President Bush, however, did not address the Haditha issue until June 1, when he called the allegations “very troubling for me and equally troubling for our military.”
But it took until December 2006 for eight Marines to be charged: four enlisted men with unpremeditated murder, and four officers with dereliction for covering up or failing to report the killings. These indictments helped the Marines create the impression that those responsible for Haditha were rigorously prosecuted. Yet the four charged with murder were not the only four who pulled triggers that day. And the four officers charged in the cover up were not the only four who lied.
In handing down the eight indictments, the Marines also granted immunity to at least seven others who either participated in the killings or tried to hide what the squad had done. The military ultimately offered immunity deals to two of those charged with murder in exchange for their damning testimony. Charges against two of the officers were also dismissed after their “Article 32 hearings,” a sort of a half trial, half grand-jury proceeding unique to military criminal proceedings.
At this point, criminal responsibility for 24 murders in at least four separate locations is being placed on two Marines: Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum. Of their squad of 13, they are the only two who face general court martial for the killings.
Tatum, from Edmund, Okla., is charged with involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and reckless endangerment. His trial date has not been set, but if found guilty of all three, Tatum could face a maximum 19 years in confinement, a dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of pay. During his July 24, 2007 military investigation hearing, the 25-year-old Marine choked back tears, saying, “I am not comfortable with the fact that I might have shot a child. I don’t know if my rounds impacted anyone. … That is a burden I will have to bear.”
For his part, Wuterich, the Marine squad leader, was originally indicted with more than a dozen counts of unpremeditated murder, as well as soliciting another to commit an offense and making false official statements, which carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. After his Article 32 hearing in August 2007, Investigating Officer Lt. Paul Ware recommended dismissing 10 murder charges and reducing seven others to negligent homicide. There has not been a determination on that recommendation, and a court martial date has not yet been set. Wuterich told CBS’s “60 Minutes”: “Everyone visualizes me as a monster-a baby killer, cold-blooded, that sort of thing.” On the TV screen, he was handsome, polished and impossibly young looking.
Of the other four charged with the lesser offense of failing to report the incident, or obstructing the investigation-only two remain under indictment. One of them, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, is the most senior U.S. servicemen to face a court martial for action in combat since Vietnam. He is not being charged for allowing the crimes to happen, but for violating a lawful order and willful dereliction of duty for failing to report and investigate the deaths.
In cold blood?
The cases will hinge not on what happened or why, but how: Was it a rage-induced rampage or a by-the-book operation? The answer to that question depends on which side of the gun you’re on.
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who chairs the Subcommittee on Defense in the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters in May 2006 that the investigations would reveal that “our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”
But soldiers are not supposed to kill in cold blood. “War is not a license,” wrote Telford Taylor, a lead-prosecutor at Nuremberg, in Vietnam, an American Tragedy. “It does not countenance the infliction of suffering for its own sake or for revenge.”
Thabet, the Iraqi journalism student who filmed the aftermath at Haditha, saw rage, telling Time: “They not only killed people, they smashed furniture, tore down wall hangings and when they took prisoners, they treated them very roughly. This was not a precise military operation.”
Not so, says Wuterich. “We reacted to how we were supposed to react to our training and I did that to the best of my ability,” he told “60 Minutes.” “The rest of the Marines that were there, they did their job properly as well. We cleared these houses the way they were supposed to be cleared.” Lt. William Kallop ordered Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich to “clear” one of the homes. He was granted immunity from future prosecution in exchange for his testimony.
Another Marine, Lance Cpl. Humberto Manuel Mendoza, who was not indicted, told investigators that he shot at least two people: “I was following my training that all individuals in a hostile house are to be shot.” Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, whose murder charges were dropped in exchange for his testimony against Wuterich, testified that after riddling dead bodies with automatic fire, he urinated on the head of one corpse. “I know it was a bad thing what I done, but I done it because I was angry T.J. was dead.”
‘I was just following orders’
Justifying crimes with assertions that “we reacted to how we were supposed to react to our training” is not new. It echoes Befehl ist Befehl-I was just following orders-words Nazi leaders accused of war crimes used to justify their actions. The Nuremberg Tribunals following World War II found many of them guilty, sentencing them to death or life in prison.
The tribunals placed the conscience of the individual above the will of military superiors. “In the military, there is a culture of compliance, fear, blind obedience, silence,” says Camilo Mejía, 32, who joined the Army when he was 19 and went to prison rather than return to Iraq. Mejía served in the Florida National Guard and went to Iraq as staff sergeant in 2003. “Behavior is suggested and implied. The expectation is that if everyone else is doing it, you should do it.”
At a detention facility in Al Assad, Mejía’s unit was responsible for keeping prisoners awake for long periods of time in preparation for interrogation. In an interview, he described their job as “sleep deprivation with loud sounds, mock executions, treating them as sub-humans.” His unit performed this long enough to “see that this was a systematic problem from the very top,” says Mejía. “They had set the tone and the work. We just followed suit. No one sat us down and said, ‘We want you to commit war crimes.’ But they communicated what we were supposed to do, and that was war crimes.”
In June 2004, Mejía told CBS’s “60 Minutes II” about the 12 or 13 Iraqis he and his men killed in Ramadi, mostly civilians caught in the crossfire. “Whether you want to admit it or not to yourself, this is a human being,” Mejía. “And I saw this man go down and I saw him being dragged through a pool of his own blood and that shocked me.”
In war, Mejía says, “committing war crimes is what you are expected to do.”
Hamdaniya
The month after the Haditha massacre became news, the Marines found themselves shamed by another atrocity. On April 26, 2006, Marines based in Hamdaniya dragged Hashim Ibrahim Awad, a 52-year-old man and father of 11 children, from his home in the middle of the night, bound his hands and feet and shot him to death. The Marines’ plan was to snatch a suspected insurgent said to be behind a rash of roadside bombings and who had been repeatedly captured but released. When the Marines could not find him, they kidnapped and killed the man’s neighbor instead. Later, they stole an AK-47 and staged the scene so that it appeared that Awad was caught while deploying a roadside bomb.
Seven Marines and a Navy corpsman-who became known as the Camp Pendleton Eight-were charged in the case. During the Article 32 hearings, defense attorneys said the Marines’ superiors told them they were too soft. They had witnessed their superiors beating Iraqi suspects and felt pressured to be more aggressive in an environment where roadside bombs and attacks were constant and assailants melted in and out of the civilian population. Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington testified that the men were “sick of” their rules of engagement and decided “to write our own rules to keep ourselves alive.”
Trent Thomas, a corporal from East St. Louis charged in the case, appeared on “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees.” When asked if he was ordered to kill Awad: “I really can’t say,” Thomas responded, but later allowed, “I think your leadership plays a huge factor in what you do. That’s all I can say.”
Thomas was demoted to private and received a bad conduct discharge.
Only two of the Camp Pendleton Eight remain in prison. Pennington is expected to serve eight years on a 14-year sentence after a plea agreement, and Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins was sentenced to 15 years. But Gen. James Mattis-the same convening authority who made determinations in the Haditha killings-is reportedly considering reducing both sentences.
Abu Ghraib
The world learned about Abu Ghraib from the photos. Piles of naked bodies. A man leashed like a dog. A hooded figure standing on a box with wires hanging from him. A menacing dog inches from a cringing man’s face.
Assertions that the torture was the result of sadistic, bored or under-supervised soldiers have been widely discredited. “There is no way that a handful of low-ranking soldiers could have invented techniques all by themselves that, curiously enough, were used at Guantánamo and at other places in Iraq and Afghanistan,” says Stjepan Mestrovic, a sociologist at Texas A&M University.
After months of cover-up, the blame was laid at the feet of several low-ranked soldiers, pictured grinning and giving the thumbs-up. Pvt. Lynndie England and Spc. Charles Graner were tried, convicted and sentenced to three and 10 years, respectively. Seven others have been sentenced for abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Only 54 military personnel-a fraction of the more than 600 U.S. personnel implicated in detainee abuse cases throughout Iraq and elsewhere in the war on terror-have been convicted by court martial. And only 40 have been sentenced to prison time, many for less than a year, according to a 2006 analysis by the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project. No U.S. military officer has been held accountable for criminal acts committed by subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility.
International law limps into the breach
Military prosecutors have won convictions against soldiers and Marines in more than 200 cases of violent crimes, including murder, rape and assault against Iraqi civilians, according to a July 27, 2007 New York Times analysis. In some cases, these convictions may come with severe sentences. Federal prosecutors are said to be seeking the death penalty for former Pvt. Stephen Green, who is accused of raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, as well as slaying her parents and younger sister. He will be tried as a civilian because he was discharged before the crimes came to light. This horrific crime is the subject of Brian de Palma’s new movie Redacted.
But seeking the death penalty for Green, sentencing Hutchins to 15 years or court-martialing Wuterich for multiple unpremeditated murders is not the same as seeking justice for war crimes. These three should be held responsible, but the scales of justice are tipped toward scapegoating the convenient foils. They have committed awful and criminal acts, but their guilt cannot be easily separated from those who are the architects of the war.
In November 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a nonprofit legal and educational organization, filed a criminal complaint, asking a German federal prosecutor to open “a criminal prosecution that will look into the responsibility of high-ranking U.S. officials for authorizing war crimes in the context of the so-called war on terror,” according to a CCR statement. On behalf of 12 Iraqi citizens whom the U.S. military detained and tortured at Abu Ghraib, the complaint names former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking U.S. officials. The German court dismissed the case in April 2007, ruling that a U.S. court should hear the charges. But CCR-along with other groups-have filed similar charges in Sweden, Argentina and France.
“This is a case of universal jurisdiction,” says Belinda Cooper, editor of War Crimes: The Legacy of Nuremberg and a professor of human rights and international law at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs, “It’s brought under the theory that any country can take jurisdiction of particularly heinous crimes, especially if the country that would normally prosecute them is unlikely to do so.” She continues: “But can you imagine Bush being tried in the U.S. or Putin in Russia for, say, torture of detainees during their administrations? The new international criminal court is not going to touch a Putin or a Bush.”
While these projects inch forward, soldiers are taking matters into their own hands. In March 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will convene new Winter Soldier hearings, modeled on the February 1971 meetings in a Detroit Howard Johnson’s. In the shadow of the My Lai massacre revelations, the hearings provided a platform to more than 125 Vietnam veterans to describe the atrocities they participated in and witnessed. This effort could once again give the United States a chance to listen to soldiers and Marines as they break the silence, hold themselves and each other accountable and demand the same from the architects of the war.
Frida Berrigan is a Senior Program Associate with the New America Foundation’s Arms and Security Initiative.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=14679
posted by attilav at 21:28
2 Comments:
[url=http://www.uggbootssalele.co.uk/]ugg boots uk[/url] mpgno [url=http://www.abercrombieukka.co.uk/]abercrombie and fitch[/url] kqgkc [url=http://www.abercrombieukka.co.uk/]abercrombie[/url] bufqc [url=http://www.ppoloralphlaurenuk.co.uk/]http://www.ppoloralphlaurenuk.co.uk/[/url] theny
8:56 PM
to the locale to control a enquiry according to insiders revealed from the remains of purpose ice [url=http://www.ddtshanghaiescort.com/shanghai-escort.html]shanghai escort[/url] pine box missing no themselves escorted
6:05 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home