Another activist with Hawai’i ties injured, still detained by Israel

Ken O’Keefe is an ex-marine who was very active in environmental and Hawaiian sovereignty issues when he lived in Hawai’i.  He delivered blistering testimony against the Army’s bombing and desecration of Makua.  What was so powerful about his testimony is that  he attacked the premise of the training.  As a vet, he had the authority to condemn the mission, much the same way that decorated veteran Smedley Butler called it: “I was a gangster for capitalism”.

>><<

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100604/NEWS01/6040345/Israel+detains+activist+O+Keefe

Posted on: Friday, June 4, 2010

Israel detains activist O’Keefe

Son of Hawaii resident involved in airport scuffle while being deported

By Eloise Aguiar

Advertiser Staff Writer

A man with connections to O’ahu’s North Shore who was among volunteers on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla is still in Israel after a scuffle at the airport during the deportation of the activists to Istanbul, according to his mother.

Pat Johnson, who operates the Hale’iwa shop Deep Ecology, said her son, Ken O’Keefe, was badly beaten in Wednesday’s fray, suffering a gash on the forehead and possibly cracked ribs.

Johnson said she learned about the incident from O’Keefe’s partner, who lives with him in London.

“The general atmosphere was quite chaotic and a scuffle broke out over an injured man who was being manhandled by Israeli officials,” Johnson said. “A number of people got involved, including Ken.”

The Associated Press reported that about a dozen female activists scuffled with security officers at the airport but were quickly subdued by authorities. Israeli officials said no charges would be filed and the women were to be deported as planned.

Israeli commandos took over a six-ship flotilla that was taking humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip on Monday, killing nine and detaining an estimated 500 people. Israel maintains the commandos opened fire as a last resort after they were attacked.

The flotilla was attempting to break the three-year-old Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. Israel says the blockade is necessary because it prevents missile attacks against Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

O’Keefe and Ann Wright, a retired Army colonel who lives in Hawai’i, were among the detainees. Some 466 people were deported to Istanbul on Wednesday.

Johnson said her son was able to call his partner and tell her that he had refused medical attention and gone on a hunger strike because he was denied access to a lawyer after the airport fray.

Johnson said she is concerned for her son but understands his commitment to support this effort.

O’Keefe, 40, is compassionate and has a passion for the things he does, she said.

While starting the dive shop business with his mother in 1998, his concerns were for the ecology and the sea turtle. He would sponsor reef cleanups and go out to rescue turtles tangled in fishlines and floating debris, she said.

According to his website, O’Keefe was a Marine who served in the 1991 Gulf War but in 2003 he started Human Shield, an effort to stop bombings in Baghdad when the United States was about to invade Iraq. The effort was somewhat successful but on a much smaller scale than he had anticipated.

In fall 2008 he was a captain and first mate with the Free Gaza Movement that sailed two boats into Gaza.

In February 2009 he founded Aloha Palestine in hopes of providing ship service between Cyprus and Gaza.

“He has a great deal of passion … for people and animals that can’t really stand up for themselves,” Johnson said, adding that she’s not sure what will happen now. “I know he’ll stand with his principles above everything. There’s no doubt.”

Henry Noa, who has known O’Keefe for about seven years, said he wasn’t surprised that O’Keefe would be on the ship to Gaza.

His commitment is unwavering and what he does, he does with full involvement, Noa said.

“He believes in justice,”he said. “I believe that his commitment to the Palestinian movement is something that he’s accepted and will continue until there’s some resolve to it. He believes that the Palestinian people are humans and the treatment they’ve been undergoing is below inhumane.”

Reach Eloise Aguiar at eaguiar@honoluluadvertiser.com.

U.S. troops from Hawai’i to conduct joint training with Indonesian military, despite ongoing human rights abuses

In the article below, the Honolulu Advertiser reports that Hawai’i-based troops will conduct joint exercises with the Indonesian military.   The U.S. cut off military ties and military aid to Indonesia because of the horrible human rights abuses by the Indonesian military in East Timor.    When Indonesian military forces, special forces and militias conducted a scorched earth campaign in East Timor following the vote for independence in 1999, Commander In Chief of the Pacific Command Admiral Dennis Blair turned a blind eye to Indonesia’s atrocities.  (He was appointed to be the Director of National Intelligence by Obama, but was recently forced to resign.) In the aftermath of 9/11/01, Senator Inouye restored funding for training Indonesian military officers if the training took place at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu.   Today, the Hawai’i National Guard has a special partnership with the Indonesian military, and Indonesian troops regularly conduct joint training exercises with U.S. troops.   But as Kristin Sundell writes in the East Timor Action Network blog, the U.S. has yet to restore funding for Indonesia’s deadly Kopassus special forces.  However, the Obama administration is seeking to resume military training for Kopassus.

>><<

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100603/NEWS08/6030320/Some+Hawai+i+troops+will+join+exercises+in+Indonesia

Posted on: Thursday, June 3, 2010

Some Hawaii troops will join exercises in Indonesia

Advertiser Staff

More than 100 soldiers and airmen from Hawai’i will participate in the exercise Garuda Shield 10 in Indonesia, officials said. American and Indonesian forces will train together June 10-25 in Bandung.

“Indonesia is a critical player in the security and peacekeeping operations in the Asia-Pacific Theater,” said Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of the U.S. Army in the Pacific, which has its headquarters at Fort Shafter.

Mixon said the upcoming exercise “underscores the importance of Indonesia in our fight against international aggression and conflict. The strong military and cultural ties between our two counties dramatically improve whenever we participate in Garuda Shield.”

Staff officers from U.S. Pacific Command, based at Camp Smith; the Hawai’i National Guard; Pacific Air Forces; and U.S. Army Pacific will partner with Indonesian forces “to test peace support and stability operations capabilities,” the Army said.

Army officials said other troops will conduct a field training exercise on United Nations standardized techniques, and engineers will provide humanitarian and civic assistance in Indonesia’s rural communities.

Personnel from 24 other countries, including Japan, Russia and China, have been invited to participate in and to observe the exercise.

+++

http://etanaction.blogspot.com/2010/05/us-must-not-resume-training-indonesias.html

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

U.S. Must Not Resume Training Indonesia’s Killers

May 5, 2010

Kristin Sundell

There is something unnerving about hearing orders for your execution. Even more unnerving is the news that amid reports of continuing killings and abuses, President Barack Obama wants to resume US training for the Indonesian military unit that threatened my life and enjoys impunity in the killings of countless Indonesians and East Timorese.

On Aug. 31, 1999, I was serving as a UN-accredited election monitor in East Timor, which had just voted to end decades of Indonesian military occupation. Referendum day had gone relatively smoothly, in spite of the Indonesian military’s efforts to derail the ballot through terror and intimidation. In the wake of the vote, the armed forces and their Timorese militia proxies moved to implement their fallback plan — drive out international observers and raze East Timor to the ground.

That morning, a Timorese friend rushed to our house and played an intercepted radio conversation among Kopassus, the Special Forces unit of the Indonesian Army, and local militias:

Kopassus: “It is better we wait for the result of the announcement [of the ballot] … Whether we win or lose, that’s when we’ll react.”

Also Kopassus: “Those white people [referendum observers] … should be put in the river.”

Militia commander (passing the order): “If they want to leave, pull them out [of their car], kill them and put them in the river.”

Kopassus: “They need to be stopped.”

Militiamen: “It will be done.” “I’ll wipe them out, all of them.” “I’ll eat them up.”

We escaped, hitching a ride with United Nations staff as they evacuated. In the following days, East Timor was nearly destroyed, with 75 percent of its infrastructure demolished and more than a thousand civilians killed.

The Kopassus forces were long recipients of extensive US assistance, as were the rest of the armed forces during the reign of President Suharto.

The US Congress finally acted to curb training for the Indonesian Army in 1992, after it was filmed massacring more than 400 East Timorese as they peacefully demonstrated against the occupation. But training for Kopassus quietly continued at US taxpayer expense and without congressional notification.

Eight years later, Kopassus forces directed the Indonesian military’s campaign to subvert East Timor’s independence vote and to destroy the territory. In response, US president Bill Clinton severed military ties with Indonesia in September 1999.

The administration of former President George W Bush resumed many forms of military assistance in the name of counterterrorism, restoring full military ties in 2005. But training for Kopassus remained off limits because of a 1997 law that barred US training for foreign military units with a history of human-rights violations unless the government in question is taking effective measures to bring those responsible to justice.

Now Obama wants to resume training for Kopassus, despite the presence of many soldiers within its ranks who are guilty of severe human-rights violations. After orchestrating the violence in East Timor, the killing of West Papuan traditional leader Theys Eluay and the kidnapping and disappearances of student democracy activists in 1997 and 1998 without adequately holding those responsible to account, Kopassus should clearly be ineligible for US training. When the Bush administration proposed restarting training of Kopassus in 2008, the State Department’s legal counsel ruled that the 1997 law prohibited re-engagement.

And the crimes of Kopassus continue. A recent report by journalist Allan Nairn alleges that Kopassus members helped coordinate an assassination program, authorized by “higher-ups in Jakarta,” targeting members of a political party in Aceh Province. At least eight activists were killed in an attempt to pressure the party not to discuss independence for the province.

The Obama administration says it only wants to train soldiers who were not members of Kopassus at the time of earlier abuses, but this makes no sense in light of the recent killings in Aceh. Restrictions on military assistance provide important leverage for accountability and reform. That’s why Indonesian rights groups support the ban on assistance alongside international organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Obama’s family ties and experience living in Indonesia as a boy give him a special connection to Indonesia and its people. Rather than push US training for the military unit that threatened my life, he should support human rights and justice in the nation.

Kristin Sundell served as a UN-accredited observer of East Timor’s vote for independence as part of the International Federation for East Timor Observer Project. She currently lives in Bandung.

Hawaii Woman Held By Israelis

http://www.kitv.com/news/23762985/detail.html

Hawaii Woman Held By Israelis

Activist Was On Aid Mission Attacked By Commandos

Dick Allgire KITV 4 News Reporter

POSTED: 3:54 pm HST June 1, 2010

HONOLULU — Retired Army Col. Ann Wright, a Honolulu resident, is reportedly being held by the Israeli government after commandos stormed a flotilla of ships taking aid to Palestinians in Gaza, killing 9 and wounding dozens of others.

Wright is a former state department official who resigned in protest over the Iraq war. She was on one of the ships attempting to take supplies to Palestinians cut off by the Israelis in Gaza.

Wright has been highly critical of Israel.

“They’ve been able to get away with any criminal act and violation of international law, and America protects them,” Wright said in an interview conducted aboard one of the ships just before the attack.

A YouTube video shows a person who appears to be Wright being escorted off one of the boats that had been diverted to Israel.

“It appears from the video that she was walking OK, but people who were deported have reported beatings after they were arrested. They’ve been reporting harsh interrogation techniques, so of course you worry about her,” said Carolyn Hadfield, a friend of Wright.

Protestors gathered at the Federal Building in downtown Honolulu on Tuesday to show support for Wright and criticism of the Israel.

“We’re all worried about getting our people back home, and a little alarmed that the U.S. government seems unconcerned. If you look at all the other nations involved, they’re very angry and demanding Israel return their people. The U.S. is protecting Israel in the United Nations,” said Michael Rivero at the demonstration.

The Israel government said those who are being detained will be released and deported within 48 hours. Friends of Wright hope she comes home safe

“She was a Colonel in the military. She had a very sober understanding of the stakes and knew what was happening to Palestinian people,” Hadfield said.

SAVAGERY AT SEA: The Flotilla Massacre

Senator Inouye has been a staunch and uncritical supporter of Israel, including military aid to Israel.   Governor Lingle and newly elected Congress member Charles Djou are also a vocal supporters of Israel. Will they condemn Israel’s attack on the Freedom Flotilla?  Will they seek “clarification”?

>><<

SAVAGERY AT SEA: The Flotilla Massacre

By Phyllis Bennis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phyllis-bennis/from-istanbul-outrage-ove_b_596158.html

ISTANBUL –

Israel has decided that it is better to be perceived as savage than as weak. In its initial attack on the boats carrying human rights activists and humanitarian aid to the besieged Gaza Strip, Israel’s commandos killed somewhere between nine and nineteen human rights activists and injured perhaps as many as eighty or more. All those aboard the ships, which were attacked pirate-style in international seas far beyond the legal limits of Israel’s own territorial waters, were seized, then arrested and/or deported.

Hours later, during one of the first protests that rose in outrage against the assault on the boats, Israeli troops used tear gas with such force against protesters at the Qalandia crossing between Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, that at least one international supporter, a 21-year-old American woman, was reported undergoing surgery to remove her destroyed eye. In Turkey, home to most of the dead and injured among the international activists, 10,000 people here in Istanbul marched from the Israeli consulate to the city’s main square, while thousands more took to the streets in Ankara, expressing outrage and demanding international accountability and immediate action to end the blockade of Gaza.

Maybe someone in the Israeli intelligence services or in the military really believed that the high profile threats that the Gaza Freedom Flotilla would “not be allowed” to reach Gaza shores would somehow convince the 700+ human rights defenders to simply give up. That they would agree to turn their 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid over to the Israeli military in the hope that the IDF, which has enforced an illegal and crippling siege against the 1.5 million Gazans for more than 3 years, would abide by their claim that they would send the aid on to Gaza… a Gaza that Israel continues to assert is not facing the humanitarian catastrophe that has been documented by the United Nations, by Amnesty International, by every Israeli and Palestinian and international human rights organization working in the region.

But anyone who knew anything about the Gaza boats knew that wasn’t going to happen. No one disputed that Israel has the military power to assault and overpower the boats, to force them away from Gaza’s shores and to arrest the hundreds of activists on board. Decades of uncritical U.S. support – including consistent use of the Security Council veto to protect Israel from being held accountable for its crimes in the United Nations, and most recently the Bush-initiated and Obama-implemented commitment of $30 billion in military aid to Israel – has insured that military power, nuclear and conventional, remains unchallengeable in the region and beyond. U.S. complicity in the massacre is beyond question.

No government, anywhere in the world, supported the Israeli assault. Weak responses came from some important U.S. allies, including Britain and Germany, but even the most anemic reactions, those that parroted old U.S./Israeli propaganda of the Israeli commandos’ “right of self-defense” (as if special forces attacking a civilian ship in the dark of night in the middle of the Mediterranean in international waters somehow have the same rights as the civilian passengers on their target ship) bemoaned the casualties and called for some kind of international investigation.

Questions do remain, however, regarding how other countries are responding. Turkey took the lead, with its government calling the attack a “massacre” and Prime Minister Erdogan referring to it as “state terrorism.” Ankara imposed a series of appropriately severe measures, including withdrawing Turkey’s ambassador from Tel Aviv, cancelling planned Turkish-Israeli military exercises, and indicating that the attack (most of whose victims were Turks) may lead to “irreparable” damage to the once-close Turkey-Israel relationship. Arab states, responding to outrage in the street, were predictably harsh. Perhaps more significantly in terms of a real diplomatic shift that may be afoot in the wake of the attack, the European Union and a number of European governments issued harsh condemnations.

The United Nations Security Council failed to condemn the Israeli attack, pressured by U.S. opposition. A powerful Council resolution would have not only condemned the attack but created a powerful international investigation, leading directly to an International Criminal Court referral to hold Israeli political and military officials accountable. There were efforts towards such a goal; Turkey’s ambassador called for condemning the attack “in the strongest terms” and called for an “independent international investigation.” Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called the attack “banditry and piracy” on the high seas, and said that the dead activists were victims of “murder conducted by a state.” But the language was qualitatively weakened under U.S. pressure, and no resolution was passed at all. Instead, the Council issued a presidential statement, an act that does not carry the force of law. The statement simply condemns “those acts” resulting in deaths, without identifying Israeli responsibility. And crucially, it failed to hold Israel accountable by creating an immediate international, UN-controlled investigation, instead calling politely for an investigation “conforming to international standards” without even stating who should conduct such an investigation.

While several Council members stated their belief that the statement did refer to a UN-run investigation, and urged Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon to initiate the process, it remains far from clear that the vague language commits the UN to anything at all. The Council decision was another indication that so far, the Obama administration remains committed to protecting Israel from being held accountable for its war crimes and other violations. That defense of Israel remains far stronger than any commitment to international law, human rights and the principle of accountability.

The U.S. on its own, facing the possibility of global anger at its refusal to hold Israel accountable for the massacre of the boats and for its continual refusal (through use or threat of a veto) even to stand aside and allow the rest of the world to impose consequences, still refused to condemn the attack. In the first 24 hours, the Obama administration limited itself to expressions of concern and regret for the loss of life, and a polite request to Israel for “clarifications” regarding the event. Clarifications? Really?

Israel itself, having publicly anticipated a PR disaster following its planned assault, turned the blame on the victims. During weeks of open threats, Tel Aviv had announced that journalists would be allowed onto their naval attack ships to counteract the expected bad press resulting from film of the assault that would be produced by the numerous journalists – from al-Jazeera producers to a host of bloggers – already on board the ships of the humanitarian flotilla. After the attack, Israel’s domestic and international spin-shops went into high gear, focusing on the commandos alleged “right of self-defense” – as if heavily armed special forces jumping from hovering helicopters to seize a civilian ship in international waters, reportedly firing as they hit the deck, have any right of “self-defense.”

Israel is now claiming a new international law, invented just for this purpose: the preventive “right” to capture any naval vessel in international waters if the ship was about to violate a blockade – in this case, the illegal, Geneva Convention-violating unilaterally imposed (though U.S.-backed) Israeli siege of 1.5 million Gazan civilians. That one just about matches George Bush’s claim of a preventive “right” to attack Iraq in 2003 because Baghdad might someday create weapons the U.S. might not like and might use them to threaten some country the U.S. does like…even if they didn’t really have any WMDs at all and the U.S. knew it all along.

The human toll has been very high in these last days, for the international civil society activists and movements who continue to fight for human rights and international law for Palestinians. The human cost may grow higher still, as we still don’t know the extent of the injured and the numbers (let alone the names) of the dead. The costs are high. They remain high as well, on a daily basis, for the millions of Palestinians, living besieged in the open-air prison that is the Gaza Strip, living under military occupation throughout the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, living as stateless refugees and longtime exiles in the Middle East and around the world.

But it may be that the horrors of the Flotilla Massacre will lead to some serious changes. Already the diplomatic realities are shifting. Israel’s war against Gaza last year lead to a wide-spread transformation of public discourse across the world, but most powerfully in the U.S. The massacre of international human rights activists at sea is likely to have similar or even more powerful results at the level of public discourse, but perhaps as well at the level of international diplomacy and shifts in power. Israeli fear of delegitimation is real – it is rapidly losing what the Richard Falk, the UN’s Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory calls the “war of legitimacy.”

The Obama administration so far is protecting Israel from accountability. But the backlash from the massacre meant, among other things, that Netanyahu had to cancel his White House meeting this week – the tete-a-tete with Obama designed to celebrate the renewal of strong ties after putting the settlement-related bickering behind them. The UN Security Council didn’t pass a strong resolution, but the anger expressed by virtually every member state, including U.S. allies, was unusually harsh. Governments – especially of the 32 countries whose nationals were among the activists now dead or injured or held incommunicado in Israeli detention camps – face powerful pressure from outraged citizens, and the cost of defending Israel is rising. Every NATO country, except for the U.S., is acknowledging in some form that a civilian ship of NATO partner Turkey has been wantonly attacked; the pressure to redefine NATO’s till-now cozy relationship with Israel will rise. Turkey, NATO’s only Muslim-majority country, is breaking its ties with Tel Aviv, and that break may be permanent.

International pressure currently led by civil society, through the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, will continue, but increasingly governments will show new willingness to hold Israel accountable. Civil society has pressured national judicial systems to use the principles of universal jurisdiction to bring accused Israeli war criminals to justice. Palestinian and global civil society have taken the lead with BDS because governments and the United Nations failed to provide protection for the Palestinian people. Civil society activists, from around the world and from inside Palestine, have paid in blood for that commitment. Perhaps the Flotilla Massacre will change that equation.

For now, we mourn for our friends and colleagues, we continue to demand information on the victims and demand that the surviving activists and their ships with all their humanitarian cargo be immediately released so they can join the rest of the Flotilla already underway and continue to Gaza.

And as we mourn, our full demands must be for the immediate lifting of the criminal blockade of Gaza – the end of the blockade, not simply allowing a few additional items in under Israeli control. And then we must demand full international accountability, including criminal liability, for the Israeli officials, both political leaders and military commanders, who are responsible for the Flotilla Massacre. The United Nations, the International Criminal Court, and every national government should be prepared to investigate and to arrest those responsible.

_________________________________

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam. She serves on the steering committee of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.

Deadly Israeli Raid on Aid Flotilla Draws Condemnation

Israel has committed a brutal military attack on the Freedom Flotilla that was bringing humanitarian aid to the blockaded people of Gaza.   Hawai’i resident Ann Wright, a retired Army Colonel, former diplomat and tireless peace and justice activist, was on one of the ships in the flotilla.   We are not certain of her whereabouts, but have been told that she is alive and apparently unharmed physically.  The whole world should condemn Israel for this atrocity.   The U.S. must cut off military aid to Israel.   Demand that the Hawai’i  congressional delegation support sanctions against Israel for this crime.  Senator Inouye has been a staunch supporter of military aid to Israel, but even he cannot ignore the criminal conduct of the Israeli government.

>><<

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053113252437484.html

Deadly Israeli raid on aid fleet

Al Jazeera’s Ayman Mohyeldin reports from Jerusalem on the storming of the flotilla and its aftermath

Israeli commandos have attacked a flotilla of aid-carrying ships off the coast of the Gaza Strip, killing at least nine people on board.

Dozens of others were injured when troops raided the convoy of six ships, dubbed the Freedom Flotilla, early on Monday.

Israel said activists on board attacked its commandos as they boarded the ships, while the flotilla’s organisers said the Israeli forces opened fire first, as soon as they stormed the convoy.

Organisers of the Freedom Flotilla say it was carrying 700 activists and 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid with the aim of breaking the Israeli siege of Gaza.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, gave his “full backing” to the military forces after the raid.

The raid by Israel troops “was to prevent the infiltration of thousands of rockets, missiles and other arms that could hit our cities, communities or people”, he said.

“I give my complete backing to the army, the soldiers and commanders who acted to defend the state and to protect their lives.” He also said Israel regretted the loss of life in the raid.

Protests worldwide

Israeli media reported that many of the dead were Turkish nationals.

Hamas, the Palestinian group which governs the Gaza Strip, said the assault was a “massacre” and called on the international community to intervene.

The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, urged Arabs and Muslims to show their anger by staging protests outside Israeli embassies across the globe.

The call came even as demonstrations denouncing the Israeli raid were being held in many cities around the world, including the capitals of Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

Thousands of Turkish protesters tried to storm the Israeli consulate in Istanbul soon after the news of the operation broke.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, officially declared a three-day state of mourning.

The United Nations Security Council met on Monday afternoon for an emergency session to discuss the matter.

Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, the chief foreign policy official of the UN, called on Israel to end its “counterproductive” and “unacceptable” blockade of Gaza.

Live ammunition

Al Jazeera’s Jamal Elshayyal, on board the flotilla’s lead ship, the Mavi Marmara, said in his last report before communications were cut off, that Israeli troops used live ammunition during the assault.

The Israeli military, 10 of whose soldiers were reportedly wounded in the operation, said troops opened fire after “demonstrators on board attacked the IDF naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs”.

Our correspondent said that a white surrender flag was raised from the ship and there was no live fire coming from the passengers.

Al Jazeera’s Sherine Tadros, reporting from the Israeli port of Ashdod, where the aid ships were taken after the assault, said the Israeli army was not giving any details of who had been killed, injured or detained.

“As soon as [the ships] land here, the goods [will be] taken [and] put into a terminal, and the passengers [made to] undergo extensive security checks,” she said.

“[They will be] given the choice either to go home straight away, in which case they will be taken to Tel Aviv airport. Or if they resist deportation, they will be taken to a nearby detention centre where, we understand, they will [remain] for at least 72 hours.”

More than 80 activists had been detained by mid-evening, Sabine Hadad, the spokeswoman for Israel’s immigration police, told AFP.

“So far, 83 have been detained, of whom 25 have agreed to be deported. The rest are going to jail,” she said.

Hadad said the Israeli authorities were expecting “hundreds more” arrests through the night.

Israeli defence

Defending Monday’s military raid, Mark Regev, the Israeli government spokesperson, said the Israeli commandos came under fire from people on board the flotilla whom he branded as “violent extremists”.

“Israel was totally within its rights under international law to intercept the ship and to take it to the port of Ashdod,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Unfortunately they were met by the activists on the boats with deadly violence, knives, metal clubs, even live fire on our service people. They initiated the violence.”

He said the people on board the flotilla were not peaceful activists.

“They are part of the IHH, which is a radical Turkish Islamist organisation which has been investigated by Western governments and by the Turkish government itself in the past for their links with terrorist organisations.”

But Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, said the flotilla was carefully inspected before departure that there was no one on board “other than civilian volunteers.

“I want to say to the world, to the heads of state and the governments, that these boats that left from Turkey and other countries were checked in a strict way under the framework of the rules of international navigation and were only loaded with humanitarian aid,” he said.

Israeli ‘cover-up’

Murat Mercan, the head of Turkey’s foreign relations committee, said claiming that activists on board had links to terrorist organisations was Israel’s way of covering up its mistake.

“Any allegation that the members of this ship is attached to al-Qaeda is a big lie because there are Israeli civilians, Israeli authorities, Israeli parliamentarians on board the ship,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Does he [Regev] think that those are also attached to al-Qaeda?”

The flotilla was attacked in international waters, 65km off the Palestinian coastal enclave.

Avital Leibovich, an Israeli military spokeswoman, confirmed that the attack took place in international waters, saying: “This happened in waters outside of Israeli territory, but we have the right to defend ourselves.”

Mark Taylor, an international legal expert, told Al Jazeera that every state, including Israel, has the right to self-defence.

“In situations in which the state feels that it needs to take an act in international waters to defend itself, it will do that,” he said.

“But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s legal under international law.

“In this case, we’re looking at a humanitarian aid convoy, with prominent people and activists, clearly not a military target in any way whatsoever.”

‘Dire need of aid’

Israel said the flotilla boats were embarking on “an act of provocation” against the Israeli military rather than providing aid, and issued warrants to prohibit their entrance to Gaza.

But Adnan Abu-Hasana, a spokesman for UNRWA, said the Gazans are in dire need of aid after Israel’s war on the territory in December 2008-January 2009 destroyed buildings and infrastructure.

“We need hundreds of thousands of tonnes [of aid] to rebuild Gaza,” he told Al Jazeera.

“We need more of building materials … We need spare parts for machines in the agricultural and industrial sectors, for the fishermen, all these sectors are nearly collapsed.

“Eighty per cent of the Gazans are dependent on humanitarian aid coming from UN organisations such as UNRWA.”

+++

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html?pagewanted=all

Deadly Israeli Raid on Aid Flotilla Draws Condemnation

By ISABEL KERSHNER

Published: May 31, 2010

JERUSALEM — The deadly Israeli raid on a flotilla of aid ships bound for Gaza on Monday prompted widespread condemnation and set off a diplomatic crisis for the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Several European nations and Turkey summoned Israeli envoys for an explanation of the actions. At the request of Turkey, The United Nations Security Council met in emergency session on Monday over the attack, which occurred in international waters north of Gaza and killed at least nine people.

Mr. Netanyahu canceled his plans to meet with President Obama in Washington on Tuesday, an Israeli government official confirmed. Mr. Netanyahu, who is visiting Canada, planned to return home Monday to deal with fallout from the raid, the official said.

The White House, which had been at odds with the Israeli prime minister over settlements in East Jerusalem, released a statement saying that President Obama had spoken with Mr. Netanyahu and understood his need to return immediately to Israel. In addition to regrets about the loss of life, “the president also expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning’s tragic events as soon as possible,” the statement said.

The criticism offered a propaganda coup to Israel’s foes, particularly Hamas, the militant group that holds sway in Gaza, and damaged Israel’s ties to Turkey, one of its most important Muslim partners and the unofficial sponsor of the convoy. As thousands of protesters took to the streets of Istanbul, Turkey canceled joint military exercises with Israel and recalled its ambassador, while Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the raid “state terrorism.”

Mr. Netanyahu defended the Israeli military’s actions, saying the commandos were set upon by passengers on the ship and fired only in self-defense. The military released a video of the early moments of the raid to support that claim.

The Israeli Defense Forces said the naval personnel boarding the largest of the six ships in the aid convoy met with “live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs.” The naval forces then “employed riot dispersal means, including live fire,” the military said in a statement.

Greta Berlin, a leader of the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement, speaking by telephone from Cyprus, rejected the military’s version.

“That is a lie,” she said, adding that it was inconceivable that the civilian passengers on board would have been “waiting up to fire on the Israeli military, with all its might.”

“We never thought there would be any violence,” she said.

At least four Israeli soldiers were wounded in the operation, some from gunfire, according to the military. Television footage from the flotilla before communications were cut showed what appeared to be commandos sliding down ropes from helicopters onto one of the vessels in the flotilla, while Israeli high-speed naval vessels surrounded the convoy.

A military statement said two activists were later found with pistols they had taken from Israeli commandos. The activists, the military said, had apparently opened fire “as evident by the empty pistol magazines.”

The warships first intercepted the convoy of cargo and passenger boats shortly before midnight on Sunday, according to activists on one vessel. Israel had vowed not to let the flotilla reach the shores of Gaza.

Named the Freedom Flotilla and led by the Free Gaza Movement and a Turkish organization, Insani Yardim Vakfi, the convoy was the most ambitious attempt yet to break Israel’s three-year blockade of Gaza.

About 600 passengers were said to be aboard the vessels, including the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire of Northern Ireland.

“What we have seen this morning is a war crime,” said Saeb Erakat, the chief Palestinian negotiator for the government in the West Bank. “These were civilian ships carrying civilians and civilian goods — medicine, wheelchairs, food, construction materials.”

“What Israel does in Gaza is appalling,” he added. “No informed and decent human can say otherwise.”

At a news conference on Monday in Jerusalem, Israeli deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, said the flotilla’s intent was “not to transfer humanitarian things to Gaza” but to break the Israeli blockade.

“This blockade is legal,” he said, “and aimed at preventing the infiltration of terror and terrorists into Gaza.”

Ms. Berlin, of the Free Gaza Movement, said, “They attacked us this morning in international waters. According to the coordinates, we were 70 miles off the Israeli coast.”

Within hours, diplomatic repercussions began to spread from the Mediterranean to Europe, where Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs, called for a full inquiry into the incident and the immediate lifting of the Israeli blockade.

A joint statement from Robert Serry and Filippo Grandi, two senior United Nations officials involved in the Middle East peace process and humanitarian aid to Gaza, condemned the raid, which they said was “apparently in international waters.”

“We wish to make clear that such tragedies are entirely avoidable if Israel heeds the repeated calls of the international community to end its counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza,” the officials said.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France called Israel’s use of force “disproportionate,” while William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said he deplored the loss of life. Tony Blair, the representative of the so-called quartet of powers seeking a Middle East settlement, said in a statement that he expressed “deep regret and shock at the tragic loss of life.”

“We need a different and better way of helping the people of Gaza and avoiding the hardship and tragedy that is inherent in the current situation,” the statement said. The quartet includes the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. In London, hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters blocked Whitehall, the broad avenue running past the prime minister’s residence and office at 10 Downing Street.

Turkey strongly condemned the Israeli military action.

“Regardless of any reasoning, such actions against civilians engaged in only peaceful activities are unacceptable,” said a statement on the Foreign Ministry’s Web site on Monday. “Israel will be required to face the consequences of this act that involves violation of the international law.”

Murat Mercan, the head of the Turkish Grand National Asembly’s foreign affairs commission, said on television, “Israel launched this operation in international waters and to a ship flagged white, which is unacceptable under any clause of the international law.”

He added, “We are going to see in the following days whether Israel has done it as a display of decisiveness or to commit political suicide.”

Thousands of protesters gathered in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, chanting anti-Israeli slogans and repeating Islamic verses while government officials called for calm and urged demonstrators to avoid retaliation against Israeli nationals. Protesters met in front of the Israeli Consulate earlier and marched toward the square carrying a banner that read, “Zionist Embassy should close down,” and chanting slogans including “Damn Israel” and “Long live global intifada.”

Crowds also gathered outside the Ankara residence of Gabi Levi, the Israeli ambassador, who was summoned to the Foreign Ministry. Protests broke out in Iraq as well.

Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General, said he was “shocked” by the attack. “I condemn this violence,” Mr. Ban told news conference in Kampala, Uganda. “It is vital that there is a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation.”

News reports said the authorities in Egypt and Jordan, two Arab neighbors which have peace treaties with Israel, had summoned Israeli envoys to protest the action.

The outcry from Muslim leaders was strong and immediate. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, called the incident “a massacre,” according to the official Wafa news agency. Mr. Abbas is to meet with President Obama in Washington next week.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, called for “the strongest reaction possible” from the Security Council, saying it cannot let Israel get away “for the thousandth time” with ignoring international law. “It cannot act like it is a country above international law,” Mr. Mansour told reporters.

Saad Hariri, the Lebanese prime minister, denounced the raid as “a dangerous and crazy step that will exacerbate tensions in the region,” while the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said it was “inhuman.”

Channel 10, a private television station in Israel, quoted the Israeli trade minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, as saying 14 to 16 people had been killed. He said on Israeli Army Radio that commandos boarded the ships by sliding down on ropes from a hovering helicopter and were then struck by passengers with “batons and tools.”

“The moment someone tries to snatch your weapon, to steal your weapons, that’s where you begin to lose control,” Mr. Ben-Eliezer said, according to Reuters.

Jamal el-Shayyal, a reporter from the television broadcaster Al Jazeera, was on board the Mavi Marmara, the largest of the six ships, during the assault. He said in a video report that dozens of civilians had been injured in the fighting.

The I.D.F. said the ships from the convoy would be taken to the Israeli port of Ashdod, north of Gaza, where “naval forces will perform security checks in order to identify the people on board the ships and their equipment.”

On Sunday, three Israeli Navy missile boats had left the Haifa naval base in northern Israel a few minutes after 9 p.m. local time, planning to intercept the flotilla. After asking the captains of the boats to identify themselves, the navy told them they were approaching a blockaded area and asked them either to proceed to Ashdod or return to their countries of origin.

The activists responded that they would continue toward their destination, Gaza.

Speaking by satellite phone from the Challenger 1 boat, which has foreign legislators and other high-profile figures on board, a Free Gaza Movement leader, Huwaida Arraf, said: “We communicated to them clearly that we are unarmed civilians. We asked them not to use violence.”

Earlier Sunday, Ms. Arraf said the boats would keep trying to move forward “until they either disable our boats or jump on board.”

Reporting contributed by Sebnem Arsu in Istanbul, Alan Cowell in London, Steven Erlanger in Paris and Neil MacFarquhar .

“Priorities and Concerns of Civil Society Relating to the Decolonization of Guam as a UN Non Self-Governing Territory”

http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2010/05/perspectives-on-decolonisation-of-guam.html

STATEMENT OF GUAHAN COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE and THE CHAMORRO STUDIES ASSOCIATION

By HOPE A. CRISTOBAL

THE UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLONISATION

Pacific Regional Seminar

Noumea, New Caledonia

18 – 20 May 2010

“Priorities and Concerns of Civil Society Relating to the Decolonization of Guam as a UN Non Self-Governing Territory”

CHAMORU SELF-DETERMINATION PA’GO

I. INTRODUCTION

Hafa Adai! (Greetings) Your Excellency Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Special Committee on Decolonization.

Dangkolu na si Yu’os ma’ase (sincere thank you) for your invitation to participate at this revolving seminar to assess the progress of decolonization and to discuss priorities regarding the Question of Guam on the final year of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism in the 21st century.

Also, I bring warm Hafa Adei greetings from our indigenous Chamorro people to our fellow Kanaky people of New Caledonia. We thank you for graciously hosting this United Nations Pacific Seminar. We extend a heartfelt “Dangkolu na si Yu’os ma’ase” (sincere thank you) for the opportunity to join Your Excellency, the Special Committee and my esteemed fellow delegates today.

As you may know, the Chamorro people of the Mariana Islands have cultural and linguistic ties to the Kanaky people of New Caledonia through our common Austronesian heritage that spans Oceania. As peace loving peoples of the great Pacific, we hope one day to be able to share in a history of freedom from colonial dominance espoused by this Special Committee and the rest of the UN body.

I am Hope Alvarez Cristobal, a Chamorro former Senator of Guam. I am here as a representative of Guåhan Coalition for Peace and Justice, a Guam based coalition made up of grassroots organizations advocating for the political, cultural, social, environmental and human rights of the people of Guam. We formed in September 2006 as a result of the announcement of the United States-Japan Realignment Initiatives signed in May 2006 in our awareness and desire (consistent with our traditionally matrilineal social order) to organize and give voice to concerns of women and female children in a highly militarized environment.

Our focus on peace and justice is central in light of the ongoing issue of the denial of our Chamorro people’s inalienable human right of self-determination and decolonization of Guam as a modern-day colony of the United States. Particular emphasis is made on keeping Guam, our island home, safe and sustainable for our children and generations to come. The Guåhan Coalition for Peace and Justice is comprised of the following member organizations: Chamorro Studies Association; National Association of Social Workers, Guam Chapter; Conscious Living; Guam’s Alternative Lifestyle Association; and Nasion Chamoru.

II. THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND

Guam’s unincorporated (permanent colony) status designation under the 1950 Organic Act of Guam legitimized US military land takings with rights of eminent domain of the only 147,000 acres of land—with only 116.5 miles of natural shoreline available to it for all purposes. Of this 147,000 acres, the military currently possesses 40,000 acres constituting 27.21% of the island’s landmass with the US National Park Service possessing 695 acres for 0.47% and the US Fish & Wildlife Service currently possessing 385 acres for 0.26% of the island. The local government possesses 37,673.36 acres for 25.6% of that total and with private lands consisting of only 68,246 acres for 46.43% of Guam’s land mass. [Ref. legislative Resolution 258-30 (COR)].

With a history of US land takings and the possibility of more land condemnation through the current US militarization plans, the 29th Guam Legislature passed public law 29-113 which clarifies that the disposition of public lands is exclusively the purview of the Guam Legislature and not the US military. This law stipulates that duly enacted legislation by the Guam Legislature is needed to authorize “the acquisition by condemnation or otherwise of private property” by means of Congressional appropriation to acquire property for public use.

The current 30th Guam Legislature also passed another law which tasks the local government’s Guam First Commission to determine which land the Federal Government may intend to lease or sublease, exchange for other land, or purchase, and to report their findings to the Guam Legislature and the Governor of Guam. This law also requires the Legislature’s approval of any federal acquisition of Government of Guam property, whether by lease, sub-lease, exchange or sale.

Guam’s colonial status continues to pave the way for US application of federal laws over our air space and sea lanes; our 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone; all our resources, control of exit and entry of our borders, control of our land, the environment and whatever can be defined as “a possession of but not a part of the United States.” It is clear that the Guam Legislature is now struggling as it finds itself with little power to protect local government assets under the laws of the administering power. For a small colonial people, the alienation of property by laws of the colonial power is one of the fundamental tenets of colonialism. In Guam, so much of the alienation has occurred through military seizure—but other forms of alienation have the same effect.

III. SECOND INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR THE ERADICATION OF COLONIALISM

Mr. Chairman, people of the 16 remaining NSGTs still under the yoke of colonialism have been denied the benefits of decolonization as provided by the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [UN Resolution 1514 (XV)] and that despite the Special Committee’s diligent work emphasized in the proclamation of the two International Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism the world’s political map have not had any major transformation. We can honestly say that in the case of Guam, rather than the eradication of colonialism, the US administering Power has deepened its colonial roots.

What we find unacceptable, Mr. Chairman, is that the administering power’s WWII adversary, Guam’s brutal occupier of WWII, Japan, is now complicit in Guam’s modern day colonization and militarization through its joint Bi-lateral Agreement with the U.S. With respect to Guam, the Special Committee’s work was not only stymied; rather, it has been made to fail in its mission to make colonialism a fact of the past—in not having developed a programme of work for the decolonization of the NSGT of Guam in view of the US’s active, massive militarization plans. Included is the failure in dispatching a UN visiting mission at the time Guam was actively negotiating its political status over two decades ago; and today, with US plans for our militarization.

For 21st century Guam, it is déjà vu old-style colonialism again. This time it is not 17th C. Spain but the US administering Power utilizing its military forces in a kind of “reduccion” process of “subduing, converting and gathering the natives through the establishment of missions and stationing of soldiers to protect those missions.” (Ref. Rob Wilson, 21st Annual Conference, “Crosscurrents: New Directions in Pacific and Asian Studies,” University of Hawaii, Manoa, March 10, 2010.) The exploitation of our colonial status as a people, U.S. militarization, assimilationist immigration policies, the rising tide of cultural genocide, environmental degradation and contamination, the dispossession of our lands, etc., are direct violations of our rights as NSG people under:

a. The UN Charter, in particular, Articles 1, 55 and 73e which addresses the rights of peoples in non self-governing territories who have not yet attained a full measure of self-government, and commands states administering them to “recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants are paramount.” Furthermore, that administering powers, accept as a “sacred trust” the obligation to develop self-government in the territories, taking due account of the political aspirations of the people.

b. UN Resolutions 1514 that states, the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the UN and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation.

c. UN Resolution 1541 affirming three ways NSGTs could attain a full measure of self-government that must be the result of the freely expressed wishes of the peoples of NSGTs.

d. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—the latest UN international human rights instrument to explicitly expand the universe of the holders of the right of self-determination with its Article 3 that specifically recognizes, using the classic formulation of the right of self-determination enshrined in the 1966 Human Rights Covenants, that indigenous peoples hold the right.

e. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (known collectively as the 1966 Human Rights Covenants) that enshrine self-determination as a right.

f. And, other relevant UN documents on decolonization.

Clearly, the US continues to behave contrary to its concrete UN obligations as the administering Power over Guam. There is no mistaking that US dominance and subordination of Guam is a consequence of US military power dynamics over the Asia-Pacific region. And, without the United Nations assertion of its moral authority and oversight of its non self-governing territory of Guam, our home island and our people will continue to be treated as inferior having no sovereignty or agency in relation to US foreign policy and security interests. Gone unchallenged, the possibility of a free, decolonized and self-governing Guam will be sealed and buried under by our own administering Power.

At his opening statement of the House Armed Services Committee hearing on March 25, 2010, Congressman Ike Skelton spoke about the rebasing of U.S. Marines from Japan to Guam as “one of the largest movements of military assets in decades”—estimated to cost over ten billion dollars. He further stated that the changes being planned as part of that move will not only affect U.S. bilateral relationship with Japan; they will shape U.S. strategic posture throughout the critical Asia-Pacific region for 50 years or more. Congressman Skelton stated that the US “must be proactively engaged in the Asia-Pacific region on multiple fronts,” and that U.S. actions may well influence the choices and actions of others.”

For Guam, our exclusion from the decision made about the massive militarization of our island home through US military expansion and restructuring of its bases and military operations is unconscionable. Moreover, we have had no choice and no options offered vis-à-vis our colonial status or US actions having political implications on our colonial status. Guam is a colony and remains a colony until the Chamorro people is allowed to exercise our human right of self-determination and is allowed to decolonize.

IV. OUR HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. military’s militarization plans bodes great harm for the people and our island home environment. These plans include the construction of facilities and structure to support the full spectrum of warfare training for some 8,600 marines (and their dependants) being relocated from Okinawa to Guam; the construction of a deep-draft wharf in Guam’s only harbor to provide for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, destroying over 287,000 sqm (71 acres) of healthy and endangered coral reef; the construction of an Army Missile Defense Task Force modeled on the Marshall Islands-based Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, for the practice by US military personnel of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles; the forcible land-grabbing of an additional 2,200 acres of indigenous Chamorro land; the desecration of Pagat, one of Guam’s oldest ancient villages dating back to 2,000 B.C.; the dangerous over-tapping of Guam’s water system to include the drilling of 22 additional wells; and the denial of the most fundamental human right of the Chamorro people of Guam to self-determination.

The militarization plan calls for an alarming 80,000 new residents within the next five years. These new residents include the 8,600 Marines and 1,000 Army troops with 9,000 of their dependents and large numbers of construction workers that will add to our current 180,000 residents. This is obviously not about demographics alone as we see US hegemony flourish and cultural genocide work for the administering power. As non-US citizens after WWII, we were over 95% of the population. As United States citizens 50 years later, our population is reduced to 42% (2000 Census). Five years ago, we comprised some 35% of our home population. But with the new US plan, the Chamorro population can be expected to drop to around 24%! This is perhaps the most plausible reason why all information impacting our people’s lives were kept secret until the official release of the draft environmental impact study last November 20, 2009.

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (OEIS) was intended to, “assess the potential environmental effects associated with the proposed military activities” (DEIS, Executive Summary, Abstract) for the relocation of US marines to Guam, enhancement of infrastructure and logistic capabilities, improvement of pier/waterfront infrastructure for transient US Navy nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN) and placement of US Army ballistic missile defense (BMD) task force. It is supposed to report the overall impacts that the military’s plans will have on Guam’s environment. It was a document of 11,000 pages and we were given a 90-day window to comment (ending Feb. 17, 2010) with a Final EIS to be completed in July and a Record of Decision to be released in 30 days.

The selective and exclusive sharing of information on the military’s plans prevented our full participation and served to silence our voices in this critical process. The community scrambled to respond to the 11,000-page report within the rigid schedule. The “record speed” of a two-year environmental impact study for such unprecedented militarization of a non self-governing territory was obviously suspect. We were not told about the 80,000 people or that the US had planned to go outside their existing footprint. At the public outreach meetings, hundreds spoke resoundingly against the military’s plans. At the close of the public comment window, the military received over 10,000 comments from various indigenous Chamorro groups, community members and stakeholders and other external stakeholders.

The fear of being overwhelmed by the construction of a new US Marine base has permeated the community. In reference to the local government’s costs grossly underfunded in the plan, Lt. Governor Michael Cruz, M.D. who himself is a Colonel in the Army National Guard, stated “Our nation knows how to find us when it comes to war and fighting for war, but when it comes to war preparations—which is what the military buildup essentially is—nobody seems to know where Guam is.” Government officials put the total direct and indirect costs of coping with the military buildup at about $3 billion, including $1.7 billion to improve roads and $100 million to expand the already overburdened public hospital.

Last January 22, the 30th Guam Legislature adopted a resolution expressing the “strong and abiding opposition of the Guam Legislature and the People of Guam to any use of eminent domain [condemnation] for the purpose of obtaining Guam lands for either the currently planned military buildup or other U.S. Federal Government purposes, or both.” Copies were transmitted to the President of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, the President Pro-Tem of the U.S. Senate, to UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and other officials. Another resolution (No. 275-30 (LS)) was introduced and adopted relative to presenting to President Obama and the US Congress, the sentiments expressed by the people of Guam regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Guam military build-up; to enumerating the findings of the Legislature that have led to the conclusion that the DEIS is grossly flawed; to providing a list of essential elements which must be favorably resolved; to restate Guam’s agenda of priority concerns relative to federal-territorial issues that must be addressed concurrently with the buildup; and to asserting additional findings on actionable items relative to the DEIS.

Of grave concern is the fact that Chamorro self-determination and decolonization was not even addressed by the military in the DEIS and the fact that decisions have been made in the context of a huge power imbalance in which the US has the ultimate decision-making power with the social, cultural and political implications to the Chamorro community being grossly understated. It is no secret that the US and its military representatives are fully cognizant of the irreversible and significant consequences that their decision will have on its colonial people. Broad concerns relating to local infrastructure, environmental, labor and workforce, socio-economic and health and human services are being discussed among government and military officials. But the difference is: The US has completely ignored the negative implications to its colonial people’s human, political and legal right to self-determination. Just as select private businesses collectively predict positive gain by Guam’s militarization, the Chamorro people alone have historically and will predictably bear the unequal proportion of the burden.

On the last day of the public comment period, the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued the lowest possible rating of the DEIS of “environmentally unsatisfactory” and providing “inadequate information.” In its strongly worded six-page letter, the US EPA stated that “The impacts are of sufficient magnitude that..…action should not proceed as proposed and improved analyses are necessary to ensure the information in the EIS is adequate to fully inform decision makers.” Specifically, the EPA stated that the military’s plan would lead to:

a. A shortfall in Guam’s water supply, resulting in low water pressure that would expose people to water borne diseases from sewage.

b. Increased sewage flows to wastewater plants already failing to comply with the Clean Water Act regulations.

c. More raw sewage spills that would contaminate the water supply and the ocean.

d. “Unacceptable impacts” to the 287,000 sqm (71 acres) of a high quality coral reef.

But even with this indictment of its draft EIS, the military continues with its military expansion and restructuring plans today.

In Congress, Guam’s delegate introduced a bill that would provide for public education on Guam’s political status options. This bill was amended in the House of Representatives and now includes the other two NSGT’s: American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands and would “include but not (be) limited to the 3 internationally recognized options.

The implication is that the educational program could also include other options, albeit not defined in the bill. There is no reference to any referendums nor provision of a specific budget although Congressional estimate of the costs is some $2 million in the next 5 years for all the territories. It remains to be seen what will happen in the US Senate.

If the draft Guam Commonwealth bill or the Guam War Reparations bill or the bill to amend the US Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (to give compensation to the “down winders” (Guam included)) are any example, it will end up taking many forms over many years without resolution or action. Only time will tell. And, time, Mr. Chairman is not on our side.

V. OBSTACLES/OPPORTUNITIES/RECOMMENDATIONS

The Question of Guam shall remain a question of Chamorro self-determination and decolonization for Guam. As a process of decolonization, the exercise of Chamorro self-determination must necessarily occur outside the influences of the administering Power and with the cooperation of the United Nations.

We make the following recommendations to this seminar:

1. That the inalienable right of the Chamorro people of Guam to self-determination in conformity with all relevant UN documents be given utmost priority by the Special Committee on Decolonization in view of the administering power’s massive militarization planned from 2010 to 2014.

2. That a customized process of decolonization for the Chamorro people of Guam be immediately adopted in view of the severe irreversible impacts on Guam by the US administering power.

3. That an investigation be conducted as to the compliance of the administering power with its treaty obligations under the Charter of the United Nations to promote the economic and social development and to preserve the cultural identity of the Territories as related earlier in this text.

4. That a study must be conducted on the implications of US militarization plans on Guam’s decolonization and that UN funding be allocated immediately.

5. That the UN denounce the militarization of the non-self-governing territory of Guam without the consent of the people of Guam due to irreparable harm to the inalienable human rights of the Chamorro people and interests of the people of Guam.

6. That a work programme be adopted by the Special Committee to carry out its objectives for the decolonization of Guam.

VI. CLOSING

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and delegations for the opportunity to make this presentation. My people’s journey towards decolonization is at a very critical juncture. We can only rely on the United Nations to assure that the US live up to its obligations under the United Nations Charter and to its promise of self-determination and decolonization for the people of Guam.

Dugong Sighted – What is Sacred?

A dugong, the endangered sea manatee of Okinawa, a sacred animal deity that is recounted in ancient Okinawan songs, was recently seen in Henoko, proposed site of the military base relocation from Futenma. A ho’ailona (sign)?

Meanwhile, Carolyn Raffensperger, Executive Director of the Science and Environmental Health Network., asks “what is sacred?” She reflects on the new science that is showing how environmental contamination can be linked to many diseases formerly blamed on “lifestyle choices”.  She also refers the recent adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the protections it enshrines for indigenous peoples of the world.  Not mentioned in Raffensperger’s article is another clause referring to militarization:

Article 30
1. Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned.
2. States shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions, prior to using their lands or territories for military activities.

In Hawai’i, the military destruction of sacred places like Lihu’e, Mauna Kea, Makua and Mokapu continues despite protests.   Clearly in the case of Okinawa, Guahan/Guam, Hawai’i, these conditions were not met.

>><<

http://okinawa-dugong.blogspot.com/2010/05/dugong-was-seen-in-henoko-bay.html

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Dugong was seen in Henoko Bay!

See the following link from Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting news report!

http://www.qab.co.jp/news/2010051217881.html

Ryukyu Asahi Broadcasting (QAB) captured a Dugong, swimming in the Eastern Coast of Nago City.

Both Environmental Ministry and Defense Ministry have admitted that the ocean area from Henoko Bay to Kayo Bay is “the important sea area for the inhabitant of Dugong.”

The Nature Conservation Society of Japan is warning that, “seagrass beds, which feed dugong, are distributed in the shallows in front of the Camp Schweb. Therefore, even the pier plan proposed by the government, surely vanish the seagrass beds. Moreover, change of sea current would possibly vanish the distribution of the seagrass.”

+++

http://womensearthalliance.blogspot.com/2010/05/following-article-has-been-written-by.html

Thursday, May 6, 2010

What is Sacred?

The following article has been written by Carolyn Raffensperger, Executive Director of the Science and Environmental Health Network.

What is sacred? What does the law recognize as sacred? These were the questions that haunted me yesterday, the third full day of the delegation’s trip to Nevada and Arizona to join with indigenous people to protect sacred sites from defilement and desecration.

Our first stop was at a uranium mine owned by Dennison Mines Corp.

The mine is one of the stand-by projects of Dennison. The corporation is awaiting the price of uranium to go up and the boom of nuclear power to resume. Dennison, according to its website, “enjoys a global portfolio of world-class exploration projects…” The problem is that the neighbors of the mine, in this case Navajo and Havasupai do not enjoy the exploration or the mining. The legacy of uranium mining in the Southwest is grievous. Cancer, contaminated land, and water are the consequences of six decades of a nuclear weapons program and nuclear power. Indigenous people bear the brunt of the environmental problems associated with uranium mining.

This is personal for me. One of my dearest friends, an indigenous woman, grew up playing in the mine tailings near Tuba City AZ. Monday she had surgery for her third cancer. She is in her 30s. The mining official we met with yesterday argued that the uranium miners’ high cancer rate was caused by their smoking rather than the radioactivity associated with the radon in the mines or the uranium itself.

The old argument that most cancers are a result of lifestyle “choices” is increasingly discredited by science. Just today the President’s Cancer Panel, a distinguished group of scientists issued a new report on environmental causes of cancer. Radon is fingered as one of the culprit carcinogens.

Northern Arizona is full of places sacred to the Hopi, Navajo, Havasupai and other tribes that have called this place home for millennia. But it is also pock marked by uranium mines and old mine tailings. Over 10,000 new uranium mine claims were staked between 2005 and 2009.

U.S. law, particularly the antiquated General Mining Act of 1872 treats all mines and potential mines as part of the wild frontier, the cowboy west. There are few barriers to mines except some procedural hoops that might delay a mine from opening for a few months or years.

The tribes consider this land to be sacred. There are springs and mountains, canyons and buttes that hold the religion, the stories and the histories of these people. It is the relationship of a community of humans to a place that makes that place sacred. Yet U.S. law only recognizes religion, which amounts to beliefs held by individuals. Indigenous spirituality is made up of the web of exquisitely-tended relationships that manifest and express beliefs.

We are only beginning to shape laws to reflect the sacred. The U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People includes this statement:

“Article 25: Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.”

While not law in the United States, the Declaration sets the standard for how the law should treat the sacred places and relationships of indigenous people. The Declaration was not signed by the United States because it clashes with the U.S. private property regime. Private property trumps the sacred. Uranium mining trumps the rights of indigenous people to care for their springs and their holy sites.

The question of what is sacred sometimes only surfaces when we see what has been defiled–the rage we feel when we think a cancer might have been prevented, or an ocean might not have been polluted. How could we contaminate the very land from which we live? How can we contaminate the bodies of our children? How can we defile the places where we bury the dead? How can we destroy the places of great beauty and much history? All of these are sacred. We know this in our hearts.

Iraq Vets: Coverage of Atrocities Is Too Little, Too Late

http://www.truthout.org/iraq-vets-coverage-atrocities-is-too-little-too-late58527

Iraq Vets: Coverage of Atrocities Is Too Little, Too Late

Tuesday 13 April 2010

by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: Spc. Jeffery Sandstrum / U.S. Army, thomas.merton)

The WikiLeaks video footage from Iraq taken from an Apache helicopter in July 2007 showing soldiers killing 12 people and wounding two children has caused an explosion of media coverage. But many Iraq vets feel it is too little and too late.

In contrast to most of the coverage that favors the military’s stated position of forgiving the soldiers responsible and citing that they followed the Rules of Engagement (ROE), Iraq war veterans who have spoken to the media previously about atrocities carried out against innocent Iraqis have largely been ignored by the mainstream media in the United States.

Also See: Iraq War Vet: “We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us”

This includes Josh Steiber, a former US Army specialist who was a member of the Bravo Company 2-16 whose acts of brutality made headlines with the WikiLeaks release of the video “Collateral Murder.”

Steiber told Truthout during a telephone interview on Sunday that such acts were “not isolated incidents” and were “common” during his tour of duty. “After watching the video, I would definitely say that that is, nine times out of ten, the way things ended up,” Steiber was quoted as saying in an earlier press release on the video, “Killing was following military protocol. It was going along with the rules as they are.”

Steiber was not with his unit, who were the soldiers on the ground in the video. He was back at his base with the incident occurred. While not absolving of responsibility those who carried out the killing, Steiber blames the “larger system” of the US military, specifically how soldiers are trained to dehumanize Iraqis and the ROE.

“We have to address the larger system that trains people to respond in this way, or the same thing will probably happen again,” Steiber told Truthout.

However, Steiber explained that during his basic training for the military, “We watched videos celebrating death,” and said that his leaders would “pull aside soldiers who’d not deployed, and ask us if somebody open fired on us in a market full of unarmed civilians, would we return fire. And if you didn’t say ‘yes’ instantly, you got yelled at for not being a good soldier. The mindset of military training was one based on fear, and the ability to eliminate any threat.”

Steiber was released from the military as a conscientious objector, and is now a member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW).

“I saw many instances, frequently, of the military killing civilians,” Steiber added, “One thing we were told was that if a roadside bomb went off, anybody in the area was considered an enemy. Obviously those are innocent civilians since most of them, if not all of them, are not involved with the bombing. So I would consider those innocent civilians as lives lost. That policy came down from high up [the chain of command].”

When Truthout asked Steiber how many times this happened with his unit, he said, “Between five and ten times, and each time we’d end up killing people.”

The group to which Steiber belongs, IVAW, sponsored the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16, 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland. The hearings provided a platform for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to share the reality of their occupation experiences with the media.

While the hearings garnered major coverage from foreign media outlets, they were ignored by mainstream US media outlets. The censorship of that event is reflective of an overarching censorship by the mainstream media in the US of veterans from both occupations who have tried to tell their stories to the public.

Garret Reppenhagen, who testified at the Winter Soldier hearings, served in Iraq from February 2004-2005 in the city of Baquba, 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) northeast of Baghdad.

“There are so many incidents like this that happen in Iraq it’s bound that eventually one of them hits the vein of public attention, like this one,” Reppenhagen told Truthout of his opinion of the WikiLeaks footage, “Film helps – like this, and Abu Ghraib – the video and film documentation helps spurn public attention. So, it’s sad that these instances happen, and they are occurring and it has to do with how we conduct ourselves in this conflict – clearly there are things that need to be done for soldiers to adhere to the Geneva Conventions.”

Reppenhagen doubted the media uproar caused by the leaked video would change how soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan conduct themselves. “I still doubt enough support will be garnered to change how we operate in theater. Eventually I hope there’ll be a critical mass of people coming out and telling their stories about these things.”

Bryan Casler, a corporal in the Marines, who served both in Iraq and Afghanistan, has also spoken out publicly about atrocities committed by US soldiers he’d witnessed in Iraq.

“First, my response to the video is utter disgust,” Casler told Truthout, “You watch it and the first thing you see is them blow away a group of men who are obviously not hostile – obviously breaking any ROE they had. Then you watch them blow away a van coming to rescue the wounded people … a van that happens to have kids in it.”

Casler admitted that he has experienced some frustration in not having had mainstream media coverage when he has spoken out about what he witnessed in Iraq. “You have to share this, because as an Iraq veteran, and talking with other vets, we know this is happening all the time. This is damning video for a propaganda machine trying to say we’re over there trying to save the Iraqi people. But this isn’t happening just in Iraq, but anywhere the military is engaged in fighting with the local population.”

The US military’s response to the WikiLeaks video has been to claim that it was an isolated incident, and the soldiers were properly following their ROE.

In an interview on the ABC News “This Week” program on Sunday, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the soldiers were operating in “split second situations,” and that, “It’s unfortunate. It’s clearly not helpful. But by the same token, I think – think it should not have any lasting consequences.”

Casler begs to differ with Gates’ response.

“The argument about this being just a few bad apples – pilots are known for keeping their cool in tough environments, but the whole time you have to remind yourself, it’s not these pilots committing the atrocities – these guys had years of training and practice to do this, and loads of money making it happen,” Casler told Truthout, “This is what they are trained to do. American taxpayer money was paid to make them into this. This is not a few bad apples.”

In a response similar to Steiber’s, Casler added, “I don’t think anybody is murderous by nature – this is why the military trains you every day, both when you’re deployed or not, because people are not naturally killers – so the training is to have no barrier to killing. And that’s what you see in the video.”

When asked how he felt about the incident getting the coverage it has, Casler said he was pleased.

“I’m happy the average person might see this,” he told Truthout, “So I’m happy this is finally getting the coverage it deserves, and every vets story coming back needs this type of coverage. The military is censoring what is happening over there – but this video blows this apart. I hope more videos like this get leaked to the media, because people need to know about this.”

Casler may not have to wait long.

WikiLeaks.org is now poised to post another damning video of US forces slaughtering civilians – this time in Afghanistan.

On May 5, 2009, US aircraft bombed a number of homes in the Afghan village of Abdul Basir Khan in Farah Province. According to Afghan officials, the death toll was upwards of 140 civilians. The Pentagon initially claimed the entire incident was fabricated, but then later conceded that people were killed by the airstrike, but that “no one will ever” know the exact number. They also claimed that the pilots had no idea civilians were in the area.

More recently, on April 12, four Afghan civilians were killed in Kandahar when US troops fired on a bus in Afghanistan. The slaughter sparked furious protests and an expression of “regret” from the military. The Afghan government said a woman and child were among the dead, and that at least 18 others were wounded in the shooting.

After serving a tour in Iraq, Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia became the first conscientious objector to the Iraq war.

Mejia claimed that he left his post in order to avoid duties that he considered to be war crimes, particularly citing the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers. He was court-martialed and listed as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International while serving his prison sentence.

“It was sad,” Mejia said of his reaction to the WikiLeaks video from Iraq, “You talk to other people, and they are shocked and can’t believe it. The fact that people are surprised and it’s getting so much coverage like it’s isolated and new – this is stuff we’ve been talking about for a long time, we know this is happening.”

Mejia, in addition to talking with people about atrocities he committed and witnessed in Iraq, told Truthout he was surprised at the reaction to the video, given that he and others had shared similar information at the Winter Soldier hearings two years ago.

“We’re talking a couple of years from when we talked about this stuff and exposed it – and here it is getting coverage … it’s like we live in a twilight zone where people don’t pay attention to when things actually happen, but then longer after the fact, when somebody else says the same thing, it’s huge news,” Mejia added.

Two of the Iraqis shown being murdered in the WikiLeaks video were employees of the Reuters news agency: photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh.

While most mainstream media in the US has reported on the Pentagon’s statements saying that two internal investigations have cleared the soldiers of any wrongdoing, and that they were following the ROE, international media like Al-Jazeera English have reported on reactions from the families of the victims of the attack.

In particular, the families of the slain Iraqi civilians are seeking justice for the deaths, and want the military personnel responsible for the deaths to be taken to court.

Two young children, whose father was killed in the attack, could not understand why they were targeted. “We were coming back and we saw an injured man,” said Sajad Mutashar, whose father was killed in the attack while he and his sister were wounded, “My father said, let’s take him to hospital. Then I heard only the bullets … Why did they shoot us? Didn’t they see we were children?”

His uncle, Satar, is demanding that the pilot be taken to court. “Nobody gave the children anything, their rights are gone and the Americans didn’t even compensate for the destroyed car. I sold it for $500 to spend the money treating them,” Satar told Al Jazeera.

The family of Saeed Chamgh, one of the Reuters employee killed in the attack, is also demanding justice for his death. “The pilot is not human, he’s a monster,” Safa Chmagh, Saeed’s brother, said, “What did my brother do? What did his children do? Does the pilot accept his kids to be orphans?”

Salwan Saeed, Saeed’s son, said, “The American has broken my back by killing my father. I will not let the Americans get away with it. I will follow the path of my father and will hold another camera.”

Mark Taylor, an international law expert and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, told reporters the evidence so far “indicated that there’s a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed.”

Taylor said US authorities, and especially the US military, have to take a closer look at this investigation. “There are questions about the way the investigation was conducted and whether or not it was done in a proper manner,” he said, adding, “There are precedents of US soldiers being prosecuted for crimes in Iraq, for crimes of murder, rape and manslaughter. So it’s not unprecedented that this could go forward both in military courts as well as in civilian criminal courts in the US.”

Taylor believes the case raises larger questions about the laws of war, and added, “I think what this video shows is really a case that challenges whether the laws of war are strict enough.”

Marjorie Cohn is a former president of the National Lawyer’s Guild, a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and co-author of the book “Rules of Disengagement: The Politics of Honor and Military Dissent.” She spoke with Truthout about possible war crimes committed by the soldiers in the WikiLeaks video.

“I think there’s clearly enough there to warrant an investigation,” Cohn said, referring to the need for an investigation of war crimes committed by US soldiers in the video, “I’m distraught and disappointed the US government refuses to launch an investigation about whether or not there’ve been violations of the law.”

Cohn cited the three possible violations to Truthout. “What I thought after watching the video, is that it looks like there were three possible violations of the Geneva Conventions. There were civilians standing around, there was no one firing at the US soldiers, and at least two people with cameras … there may have been people armed, like there are many people armed in the US, but this does not create the license to fire on people. That’s one violation of the Geneva Conventions – targeting people who are not a military necessity who do not pose a threat.”

Cohn said that the second and third possible violation of the laws of war are evident in the scene on the tape when the van attempts to rescue the wounded and a later scene of a US tank rolling over a body on the ground. “The soldiers shot him and those in the van, another possible violation of the Geneva Conventions – preventing the rescuers,” she added, “Third, when the wounded or dead man was lying on the ground, and a US tank rolled over him, effectively splitting him in two – and if he was dead, that was disrespecting a body – another violation of the Geneva Conventions.”

In that scene that occurs at 18:50 into in the full version of the WikiLeaks video, a soldier is heard saying, “I think they just drove over a body.” To this another soldier is heard laughing before he respond, “Really?”

Shortly thereafter, a soldier is heard saying, “Well, they’re dead, so.”

Cohn concluded, “So I see several possible violations, certainly enough to warrant an investigation by the US military.”

—————

View Coverage of Winter Soldier:

Camilo Mejia speaks on a panel at Winter Soldier titled “Racism and War: the Dehumanization of the enemy.

Garret Reppenhagen discusses the evaporation of the Rules of Engagement upon his arrival to Iraq.

Bryan Casler on his experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

28 Nations Helped U.S. to Detain “Suspects”

http://smirkingchimp.com/print/27720/

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://smirkingchimp.com)

28 Nations Helped U.S. to Detain “Suspects”

By Sherwood Ross

Created Mar 31 2010 – 10:19am

Twenty-eight nations have cooperated with the U.S. to detain in their prisons, and sometimes to interrogate and torture, suspects arrested as part of the U.S. “War on Terror.”

The complicit countries have kept suspects in prisons ranging from public interior ministry buildings to “safe house” villas in downtown urban areas to obscure prisons in forests to “black” sites to which the International Committee of the Red Cross(ICRC) has been denied access.

According to published reports, an estimated 50 prisons have been used to hold detainees in these 28 countries. Additionally, at least 25 more prisons have been operated either by the U.S. or by the government of occupied-Afghanistan in behalf of the U.S., and 20 more prisons have been similarly operated in Iraq.

As the London-based legal rights group Reprieve estimates the U.S. has used 17 ships as floating prisons since 2001, the total number of prisons operated by the U.S. and/or its allies to house alleged terrorist suspects since 2001 exceeds 100. And this figure may well be far short of the actual number.

Countries that held prisoners in behalf of the U.S. based on published data are Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Libya, Lithuania, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Somalia, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zambia. Some of the above-named countries held suspects in behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA); others held suspects in behalf the U.S. military, or both.

Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, termed the detention policies used by the U.S. “Crimes against Humanity”:

“These instances of the enforced disappearances of human beings and their consequent torture, because they are both widespread and systematic, constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, which have been ordered by the highest level officials of the United States government…”

Referring to President Bush and his principal advisers, Boyle continued, “Since these criminal activities took part in several states that are parties to the ICC Rome Statute, that renders these U.S. government officials subject to prosecution by the International Criminal Court on the grounds of territoriality of the offense, even though the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute.”

According to Human Rights Watch, as of Jan., 2004, the U.S. held detainees from 21 different countries including Algeria, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israeli-occupied Gaza and West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and Yemen.

The nations that cooperated with the U.S. to detain these prisoners have done so even though detainees commonly were held — in the words of an Associated Press report of Sept. 18, 2006 –“beyond the reach of established law.” Efforts by this reporter to learn from the Pentagon the total number of prisoners held captive and related information proved futile.

However, in Feb., 2005, Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder, Army Provost Marshal General, said, “In all, roughly 65,000 people have been screened for possible detention, and about 30,000 of those were entered into the system, at least briefly, and assigned internment serial numbers.” Possibly, to date, the U.S. and its allies have detained 100,000 suspects or more.

It is not known whether the customary legal rights of any of these tens of thousands of captives have been honored. But given the absence of due process, trials, and convictions compared to the vast numbers of those detained, the “War on Terror” takes on the appearance of a monumental fraud.

As Jane Mayer wrote in “The Dark Side” (Anchor Books), “Seven years after the attacks of September 11, not a single terror suspect held outside of the U.S. criminal court system has been tried. Of the 759 detainees acknowledged to have been held in Guantanamo, approximately 340 remained there, only a handful of whom had been charged. Among these, not a single ‘enemy combatant’ had yet had the opportunity to cross-examine the government or see the evidence on which he was being held.” Similarly, Nick Turse of TomDispatch.com reported U.S. intelligence officials themselves estimated that 70-90% of prisoners detained in Iraq “had been arrested by mistake.”

According to the German weekly Der Spiegel in a Dec. 10, 2005, article: “It is likely that nobody will ever know how many terror suspects abducted by the CIA have died in the torture chambers of Egyptian, Algerian, Syrian, or Saudi Arabian prisons.”

It was “because of the gruesome treatment of prisoners that made it expedient to remove suspects as much as possible from the responsibility of American judges. This practice gave birth to the Guantanamo prisoner camp, as well as a whole range of so-called black sites, or secret interrogation areas, where the CIA keeps its most valuable prisoners under continuous observation,” Der Spiegel said. Writing in The Washington Post on Nov. 2, 2005, Dana Priest put it this way: “It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials. Legal experts and intelligence officials said that the CIA’s internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries, where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.”

In a concise observation that appears to summarize the U.S. campaign of detention, Patrick Quinn of the Associated Press wrote, “Captured on battlefields, pulled from beds at midnight, grabbed off streets as suspected insurgents, tens of thousands now have passed through American detention, the vast majority in Iraq. Many have said they were often interrogated around the clock, then released months or years later without apology, compensation, or any word on why they were taken.”

Clive Stafford Smith, legal director of British human rights group Reprieve, told the UK Guardian June 2, 2008: “By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been ‘through the system’ since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them.” Note: The UN Commission on Human Rights asserts prolonged incommunicado detention itself can “constitute a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or even torture.”

A brief look at the prison operations of America’s accomplices follows:

AFGHANISTAN: Human Rights First says since Nov., 2001, the U.S. has operated approximately 25 detention facilities in Afghanistan. Secret prisons at Bagram Air Force Base include the “Dark Prison” and “Salt Pit.” It was in Salt Pit in Nov., 2002, that guards stripped an Afghan prisoner naked, chained him to the concrete floor and left him in below-zero temperatures all night. He was dead in the morning, Der Spiegel reported. Other prisons include Rissat and Rissat2, north of Kabul, and Prison Number 3. At Kandahar Air Force Base, U.S. army officers hung prisoners from the ceiling for days. At times, the prison held up to 40 detainees. Other Afghan sites include transient facilities near Asadabad, Gereshk, Jalalabad, Tycze, Gardez, and Khost. A federal Grand Jury in North Carolina indicted CIA contractor David Passaro for allegedly beating detainee Abdul Wali to death at Khost in June, 2003. Officials there also told the family of Sher Mohammed Khan he was killed by snakebite when his body showed marks of abuse. Another base, according to the Feb. 15, 2010, issue of The Nation, is Rish-Khor, an Afghan army facility atop a mountain overlooking Kabul. The magazine also reported there are nine Field Detention Sites the Red Cross is aware of that “are enveloped in a blanket of official secrecy.” There may, however, “be other sites whose existence on the scores of U.S. and Afghan military bases that dot the country have not been disclosed,” writes the magazine’s Anand Gopal. At Bagram, Gopal wrote, former detainees allege they were “regularly beaten, subjected to blaring music twenty-four hours a day, prevented from sleeping, stripped naked and forced to assume what interrogators term ‘stress positions.” It is routine to hold prisoners at Bagram for two or three years without access to lawyers, Red Cross, or their families. And the official U.S. detention center in Kandahar is known among former inmates as “Camp Slappy.”

AZERBAIJAN: prisoners have been detained in behalf of the U.S. in Baku, the capital. The country is known for imprisoning journalists and other critics, some of whom have been tortured and murdered by authorities.

ALGERIA: The U.S. transferred prisoners there from Guantanamo. Amnesty International has warned against transfer of prisoners to Algeria based on the country’s history of torture and warned “Algeria has become a prime ally of the United States (US) and other governments preoccupied with the so-called War on Terror.” According to Wikipedia, Manfred Nowak, a special reporter on torture, has catalogued in a 15-page U.N. report that the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and other nations have violated international human rights conventions by deporting terrorist suspects to countries such as Algeria.

BOSNIA: the Eagle Base in Tuzla is a black site. The British Telegraph said Eagle is part of a U.S. military facility where alleged Al-Qaeda members were tortured.

DIEGO GARCIA(UK): a British possession in the Indian Ocean the U.S. has transformed into a powerful military base to dominate the Middle East and Asia. Reportedly, the CIA has a facility there that was used in 2005-06 to hold Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, a Syrian-Spanish national. According to Reprieve, “the UK has a significant military and administrative presence on Diego Garcia, which has its own independent administration run by the East Africa Desk of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London.” Reprieve further stated, “In October, 2003, Time Magazine cited interrogation records from the US prisoner Hambali that had reportedly been taken on the island, while respected international investigators at the Council of Europe and the United Nations expressed similar suspicions. US officials went on to make seemingly careless public statements confirming the use of Diego Garcia for secret detentions.”

DJIBOUTI: said to have three CIA-run prisons, according to the UK Guardian. The former French foreign legion base Camp Lemonnier is a U.S. facility at Djibouti-Ambouli International Airport.

EGYPT: said to operate six prisons in behalf of the CIA, where numerous victims have been rendered, one of them being the General Intelligence Directorate in Cairo. U.S. officials are alleged to have participated in interrogation/torture sessions there where prisoners are hung from hooks and electrical shocks administered. On June 13, 2004, the UK Observer reported, “Egypt has also received a steady flow of militants from American installations.” The paper also identified Mulhaq al-Mazra prison as a facility used in behalf of the U.S.

ETHIOPIA: has held detainees on behalf of CIA. U.S. agents interrogated one man there for three months. An investigation by the Associated Press published April 3, 2007, found, “CIA and FBI agents hunting for al-Qaida militants in the Horn of Africa have been interrogating terrorism suspects from 19 countries held at secret prisons in Ethiopia, which is notorious for torture and abuse.” Three prisons are used for such purposes, the report said.

GAMBIA: in Banjul, the capital, safe houses in a residential area were used to jail Bisher Al-Rawi. He was also jailed in Guantanamo where he was said to be subjected to cold temperatures and had his prayer rug taken away when he tried to use it as a blanket.

GUANTANAMO: In addition to Camp Delta, a military prison, this base is the site of “Camp No” about a mile to the north, that is either CIA or under Joint Special Operations Command. It was to this camp, according to Harper’s, where three prisoners were taken and never again seen alive. In 2006, the UN called for closing Guantanamo. According to The Miami Herald’s Carol Rosenberg, (Jan. 29, 2010) Guantanamo has held about 770 prisoners since it opened eight years ago and nearly 580 have been released over the years. What’s more, a review by DOD and five other agencies agreed unanimously that “roughly 110” more are eligible for release, meaning there was not enough evidence on 690 of the 770 prisoners to prosecute them—further proof, if any is needed, of the fraudulent nature of the War on Terror. Amnesty International called for Guantanamo detainees to be either released from their “super max” high security cells or allowed to stand trial. Irene Khan, Amnesty International’s general secretary, termed Guantanamo “the gulag of our time.”

IRAQ: The U.S. and its allies have operated at least 20 prisons. In 2006, Human Rights First documented 98 deaths in U.S. custody there, including five in CIA custody. Every detainee in Iraq “is detained because he poses a security threat to the government of Iraq, the people of Iraq, or coalition forces,” said a spokesman for U.S.-led detainee operations in Iraq, Army Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry. This statement is hard to credit as virtually all of the tens of thousands of persons arrested have never been charged with an offense and the vast majority of them have been let go. Scott Horton wrote in Harper’s that the U.S. “is holding 19,000 Iraqis at its two main detention centers, at Camp Cropper and Camp Bucca.” Horton noted Iraqi law requires any detention to be justified before a magistrate in a matter of only a few days but the U.S. has “complete contempt for the requirements of Iraqi law.” It should be noted that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki’s government complained U.S. detention violates Iraq’s national rights. In March, 2006, UN Secy.-Gen. Kofi Annan said the extent of arbitrary detention in Iraq is “not consistent with provisions of international law governing internment on imperative reasons of security.” Since, as of this January, the U.S. is said to hold only 5,000 detainees in Iraq, apparently tens of thousands of persons have been released without ever being charged. Between June, 2004, and Sept., 2006, alone, the U.S. released some 18,700 Iraqi detainees, according to a reliable source.

This points to a massive conspiracy to deprive innocent people of their rights by the U.S. on a scale not seen since the U.S. interned its own Japanese-American population during World War II. “It was hard to believe I’d get out,” Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi, told the Associated Press after his release, without charge. “I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell.” It was in the U.S. Forward Operating Rifles Base in Al Asad where Abdul Jaleel was murdered in Jan., 2004, after being beaten and tied by his hands to the top of a door frame. At the U.S. detention facility in Al Qaim, Baghdad, former Iraqi Major-General Abed Hamad Mowhoush, was tortured and smothered to death in Nov., 2003. At Camp Bucca, in the southern desert, said to hold 9,500, detainees were forcibly showered with cold water and exposed to cold air. At Site 4, a prison run by Iraq’s Ministry of Interior and which in May, 2006, held some 1,431 detainees, there was evidence of systematic physical and psychological abuse and in a prison in the Green Zone run by Baghdad Brigade detainees suffered severe ill treatment.

At the notorious Abu Ghraib, Ms. Umm Taha, an Iraqi woman detainee, told of tortures she witnessed. Soldiers made prisoners stand one leg “then they kicked them to make them fall to the ground.” She said she watched GI Lynndie England use a rubber glove to snap the detainees on their genitals. “The soldiers also made all the men lay on the ground, face down, spread their legs, then men and women soldiers alike kicked the detainees between their legs. I can still remember their screaming.” Ms. Taha was interviewed by Nagem Salam, an American journalist, according to Islam Online of June 14, 2004. At its peak occupancy in 2004, Abu Ghraib, also known also known as the Baghdad Central Correctional Facility, was said to hold 7,000 prisoners. At Al-Jadiriya prison, in Baghdad many prisoners were detained off the books, and at least 168 unlawfully detained were abused there. Among the main detention facilities in Iraq are Camp Redemption and Camp Ganci, both located at Abu Ghraib, as well as Camp Cropper, near the Baghdad Airport. Other major facilities include Camp Bucca in Umm Qasr and Talil Air Force Base south of Baghdad, also known as Whitford Camp. Additional Iraqi bases where prisoners were held included Al-Rusafa, Al-Kadhimiyya, and Al-Karkh, in Baghdad and Camp Falcon, near Baghdad; the Al-Diwaniyya Security Detainee Holding Area; Ashraf Camp MEK near Al-Ramadi; FOB Tiger in Anbar province; an FOB near Al-Asad, outside Mosul; a temporary holding camp near Nasiriyah; an FOB in Tikrit, in northern Iraq; Al-Qasr al-Jumhouri and Al-Qasr al-Sujood. Another facility, Camp Sheba, is under British command.

According to GlobalSecurity.org, Camp Whitehorse is a Marine-run detention site near Nasiriyah in Southern Iraq: “Prisoners were held at Whitehorse until they could be interrogated by a Marine ‘human exploitation team,’ which would determine whether the detainees should be released or transferred elsewhere. Prisoners were forced to stand 50 minutes of every hour, in heat sometimes topping 120 degrees, for up to 10 hours at a time. Prisoners were forced to stand until interrogators from the Human Exploitation Team arrived. If the team failed to get the information it wanted, prisoners were forced to continue standing.”

GlobalSecurity.org reported further, “In October 2003 the US military charged eight US Marine reservists, including two officers, with brutal treatment of Iraqi prisoners of war that may have resulted in the death of one Iraqi man. The eight fought in Iraq as part of the First Marine Division and were detailed to guard prisoners at Camp Whitehorse. Military prosecutors allege that an Iraqi man named Nagem Sadoon Hatab died at Camp Whitehorse in early June 2003 following a possible beating by US guards.”

ISRAEL: “Thanks to the Israeli paper Haaretz [1],” wrote Reporter Tom Engelhardt of TomDispatch.com of Nov. 2, 2006, “we learned for the first time that at least some CIA rendition flights stopped at Ben-Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv on their way to and from Cyprus, Jordan, Morocco, and other spots east and west, north and south — and that the first case ‘of the United States handing Israel a world jihadi suspect’ in a rendition operation has been confirmed.”

JORDAN: Abducted men rendered by CIA were held in Jordan’s General Intelligence Department (GID) in Amman. One detainee said his experience was “beyond description.” On June 13, 2004, the UK Observer reported prisoners were also held “in desert locations in the east of the country.” Al Jafr Prison, in the southern Jordanian desert, has held prisoners for the U.S. In the Israeli publication Ha’aretz, an article in Oct., 2004, said the CIA was holding 11 high-level Al Qaeda prisoners incommunicado in Jordan. The Jordanian government flatly denies there are any U.S. detention facilities in Jordan. One of the 11 is said to have been Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the hijacked airliner attacks on New York and Washington. Citing international intelligence sources, Ha’aretz said: “Their detention outside the U.S. enables CIA interrogators to apply interrogation methods that are banned by U.S. law, and to do so in a country where cooperation with the Americans is particularly close, thereby reducing the danger of leaks.”

KENYA: Detained 84 captives for the U.S. in Nairobi with no opportunity to challenge their detention. One captive, Mohamed Ezzoueck, a Britsh national, was detained at three different police stations in Nairobi, and also at a military police station located near Kiunga. Suspects “disappeared” in 2007 in the region were believed to have been interrogated by the CIA and FBI.

KOSOVO: CIA-operated Camp Bondsteel, a black site; was said by some, including an official of the European Commission on Human Rights, to be similar in design to Guantanamo. The British Telegraph reported alleged members of Al-Qaeda were questioned and tortured at Bondsteel.

LIBYA: Since 2004, for example, the CIA has handed five Libyan fighters to authorities in Tripoli. Two had been covertly nabbed by the CIA in China and Thailand, while the others were caught in Pakistan and held in CIA prisons in Afghanistan, Eastern Europe and other locations, according to Libyan sources, Craig Whitlock reported in The Washington Post of October 27, 2007.

LITHUANIA: The CIA operated a prison in a riding academy in Antaviliai, on the outskirts of capital Vilnius. Lithuania held eight terror suspects there for the CIA.

MAURITANIA: CIA reportedly operated one detention facility there. In an article in the June 25, 2007, The New Yorker, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote: “I was told by the former senior intelligence official and a government consultant that after the existence of secret C.I.A. prisons in Europe was revealed, in the Washington Post, in late 2005, the Administration responded with a new detainee center in Mauritania. After a new government friendly to the U.S. took power, in a bloodless coup d’etat in August, 2005, they said, it was much easier for the intelligence community to mask secret flights there.”

MOROCCO: Held CIA detainees at a prison in al-Temara. The CIA rendered Binyam Mohamed, a British citizen, to Morocco, where he was moved around to three different prisons. Abou Elkassim Britel, an Italian and Moroccan, was tortured at al-Temara. The prison is located in a forest five miles outside of Rabat, the capital. It was in Morocco that Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident arrested in Pakistan in 2002 was tortured by interrogators who sliced his penis with a scalpel and later transferred him to Guantanamo Bay. He was freed in Feb., 2009, without charge and allowed to return to England. The London Sunday Times reported Feb. 12, 2006, that Morocco “is one of America’s principal partners in the secret ‘rendition’ programme in which the CIA flies prisoners to third countries for interrogation.” The paper said Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have compiled dossiers “detailing the detention and apparent torture of radical Islamists at the DST’s current headquarters, at Temara, near Rabat.” DST is the Moroccan secret police.

PAKISTAN: Human Rights Watch said men claimed the U.S. tortured them when detained there in behalf of the CIA. Several hundred suspects were seized in Pakistan in 2001-2002 and held in prisons in Kohat and Peshawar. Prisoners also held in an old fortress outside of Lahore; in the military barracks in Islamabad. It was in Islamabad that Moazzam Begg was held and severely tortured. At one villa in central Peshawar run by U.S. authorities, prisoners were beaten regularly. Another facility in Peshawar was underground where Americans did all the interrogating. A black prison was also reported to be in Alzai. Seymour Hersh received a report in May, 2005 of “800-900 Pakistani boys 13-15 years of age in custody.”

POLAND: The CIA operated a black prison from 2003 to 2005 where eight “high value” detainees were held in the village of Kiejkuty. One of them was said to be Khalid Sheik Mohammed, alleged 9/11 mastermind, who was severely tortured.

QATAR: The UK Observer reported on June 13, 2004, “Scores more (terror suspects) are thought to be at a US airbase in the Gulf state of Qatar…”

ROMANIA: Three CIA detention centers operated there, including one in downtown Bucharest and one in Timisoara.

SAUDI ARABIA: Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, was convicted in U.S. federal court in Nov., 2005, on charges of conspiracy to commit terrorism. Amnesty International said his trial was flawed as prosecution relied largely on evidence obtained when he was flogged and beaten by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Interior’s General Intelligence while imprisoned with apparent U.S. knowledge. In Saudi Arabia, the UK Observer reported on June 13, 2004, “CIA agents are allowed to sit in on some of the interrogations.”

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC: The CIA rendered a number of captives to Far Falestin prison. Canadian Maher Arar was held there were he was tortured with cables and electrical cords. When the Canadian government found Arar was tortured, the Prime Minister apologized to him and Canada paid him $10.5-million in compensation plus legal fees. UK Observer reported June 13, 2004, “In Syria, detainees sent by Washington are held at ‘the Palestine wing’ of the main intelligence headquarters and a series of jails in Damascus and other cities.”

SOMALIA: Suleiman Abdallah, never charged, was arrested in Somalia and held there for a short time by warlord Mohammed Dere, allegedly working for the U.S., and later interrogated by CIA and FBI. Another captive, Mohamed Ezzoueck, a British subject, was held at the Army base in Baidoa, Somalia, but never charged.

SOUTH AFRICA: UK Guardian reported Jan. 23, 2009, that South Africa has two CIA “black sites.”

THAILAND: One of the first CIA black sites known as “Cat’s Eye” is located outside of Bangkok. Al-Qaeda operatives were flown there to be interrogated and tortured, including waterboarding. Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were videotaped there. Some 92 videotapes were made and stored and subsequently destroyed by the CIA. In 2005 ABC News reported Zubaydah was held in an unused warehouse on an airbase where he was made to stand in a cold cell and waterboarded.

UZBEKISTAN: The New York Times reported in May, 2005, the U.S. had sent dozens of suspects to Tashkent.

YEMEN: U.S. handed over prisoners, including some from its Bagram prison, to Yemen, where they allegedly were tortured.

ZAMBIA: According to UK’s Guardian Jan. 23, 2009, Zambia is one of countries with a CIA secret prison facility.

In addition to the prisons in the above-cited nations, the U.S. operates a number of illegal floating prisons.

U.S. PRISON SHIPS: On June 2, 2008 UK’s Guardian reported, “The US has admitted that the Bataan and Peleliu were used as prison ships between December 2001 and January 2002”. According to Reprieve, the U.S. may have used 17 ships as “floating prisons” since 2001. Detainees are interrogated on ships and may be rendered to other, undisclosed locations. Reprieve expressed concern over the time the U.S.S. Ashland spent off Somalia in early 2007. According to The Guardian, “At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were ‘disappeared’ to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantanamo Bay. Reprieve believes prisoners may have also been held for interrogation on the USS Ashland and other ships in the Gulf of Aden during this time.”

The U.S. Navy, through a spokesman, said, “There are no detention facilities on US navy ships” but Commander Jeffrey Gordon told The Guardian some individuals had been put on ships “for a few days” during initial days of detention.

Reprieve quoted one prisoner released from Guantanamo who was on one of the U.S. ships who said there were 50 other prisoners in cages in the bottom of the ship and they were beaten even more severely than in Guantanamo. Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s legal director, is quoted as saying, “They choose ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their legal rights.”

From all of the above, it would be difficult to conclude anything other than that the U.S., with the help of a score of other nations, illegally seized and then processed countless innocent persons from the Middle East who were held incommunicado in scores of facilities where they were abused, tortured, denied all legal rights, and where approximately 100 of them that we know of died in Iraq alone, probably the victims of homicide.

Professor Boyle of the University of Illinois said he would submit the findings of this article to the Prosecutor of the ICC in support of his previous Complaint calling on the ICC to open “an international criminal investigation of these (President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, etc.) former U.S. governmental officials.”

Sherwood Ross wishes to express his gratitude to the journalists whose works he quoted for their original research that exposed the conditions in prisons described above, and particularly to the Associated Press.

China suspends military exchanges with U.S. over arms sales to Taiwan

Relations between the U.S. and China just got chillier with the U.S. announcement to sell $6.4 billion in arms to Taiwan.   The AP reported that:

China suspended military exchanges with the United States, threatened unprecedented sanctions against American defense companies and warned Saturday that cooperation would suffer after Washington announced $6.4 billion in planned arms sales to Taiwan.

I wonder which companies are in line to get the contracts.