btchd

As the final days tick down on the worst President of the United States, it seems that history has already started judging his legacy. Today’s Guardian has a couple of interesting pieces both about the Bush White House.

David Miliband, UK Foreign Secretary, writes that:

The terrorist attacks in Mumbai seven weeks ago sent shock waves around the world. Now all eyes are fixed on the Middle East, where Israel’s response to Hamas’s rockets, a ferocious military campaign, has already left a thousand Gazans dead.

Seven years on from 9/11 it is clear that we need to take a fundamental look at our efforts to prevent extremism and its terrible offspring, terrorist violence. Since 9/11, the notion of a “war on terror” has defined the terrain. The phrase had some merit: it captured the gravity of the threats, the need for solidarity, and the need to respond urgently – where necessary, with force. But ultimately, the notion is misleading and mistaken. The issue is not whether we need to attack the use of terror at its roots, with all the tools available. We must. The question is how.

The idea of a “war on terror” gave the impression of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The reality is that the motivations and identities of terrorist groups are disparate. Lashkar-e-Taiba has roots in Pakistan and says its cause is Kashmir. Hezbollah says it stands for resistance to occupation of the Golan Heights. The Shia and Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq have myriad demands. They are as diverse as the 1970s European movements of the IRA, Baader-Meinhof, and Eta. All used terrorism and sometimes they supported each other, but their causes were not unified and their cooperation was opportunistic.

So it is today.

The 2nd, and in my opinion, more interesting article tells the story of torture and the Bush plan to protect its own: Read the rest of this entry »

As Pakistan wakes up to the New Year, we read in our national newspapers that a 5 man team from the FBI was recently in Pakistan to investigate the Mumbai attack. They went high. They went low. They even went to Faridkot. But they found no Ajmal Kasab.

For India, the result of the FBI visit is another slap in the face. Since the Mumbai attacks, the Indian government has showed no hesitation in blaming “elements in Pakistan” and our ISI, but as the days pass the world sees that India’s hysterics were nothing more than hysterics. The proof doesn’t exist.

How can I say that? The FBI itself stated that Ajmal Kasab is not Pakistani. While India would like to push forward with its disinformation campaign the people are now starting to understand the true dynamic between India and Pakistan.

Additionally, W called President Zardari yesterday and asked that Pakistan cooperate in a joint investigation structure with India, which is what Pakistan’s government officials have been saying since the attack happened. Now, as India’s story falls apart, the United States are putting pressure on the Pakistani government to cooperate. But can the United States assure that India will not create evidence to try to pressurize Pakistan, much like they tried to paint initial evidence to corner Pakistan?

India has proven to the world that they are untrustworthy. The story that has been told to the world has been checked and re-checked by numerous news organizations only to find massive holes of fact. 

This is a repeat of the finger-pointing that happened after the Samjhauta Express massacre when Pakistan was accused of carrying out the attack with the assistance of the ISI. Instead, when India investigated, they found that their own Army intelligence had carried out that and other attacks.

Until India accepts that it has massive security problems from groups within India, India can never be incredible again.

It’s now time for the world to pressure India to tell the truth and share the evidence with reputable investigation organizations.

Pro-Pakistan has put together a great analysis and list of questions about the “evidence” that has been presented by the Indian government. If you understand the questions, you will understand why Pakistan is steadfast on the fact that India has not provided a shred of evidence linking Pakistan to the Mumbai attacks.

These, coupled with the list of questions on Rediff India’s website, show that the story that India is trying to sell to the world is “Made in India.”

I stumbled on this website today and it has really gotten my attention for a few reasons. Before I get into the reasons, let me share a little about MEMRI TV.

MEMRI TV based on the information listed at the About page:

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) was founded in 1998 in Washington, DC to bridge the language gap between the Middle East and the West by monitoring, translating, and studying Arab, Iranian and Turkish media, schoolbooks, and religious sermons. MEMRI is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has branches in Baghdad, Tokyo and Jerusalem, and a staff of over 70 working around the globe. MEMRI’s research is translated into English, German, French, Italian, and Spanish with a subscriber list of over 75,000. MEMRI is a 501 (c)3 organization and is incorporated in Washington, D.C.

Seems like a simple media monitoring organization that is funded through donations. But when you start to browse the site, you realize that it is nothing more than a collection of speeches, schoolbooks and media stories that are geared at pointing out that Muslims are terrorists.

Check out the page that has been created for Pakistan. The videos posted are from Baithullah Mehsud and others that the Western world consider terrorists translated from our national languages into english for the Western media to reference when creating biased stories.

Why don’t the Muslim bloggers do the same thing for the Christians? Many Christians say that if Jesus Christ were to come back today, most of the Christian world would not recognize Him.

Watching what is happening in Gaza, I find it hard to dispute that belief.

As the Bush legacy comes to a close in the United States, Laura Bush took to Fox News to defend her husband’s legacy and brand the Iraqi shoe-thrower with the charge “assault.”

What I find humorous is that after 8 years in the White House, with the American people hating this president more than any ever, Ms. Bush doesn’t realize that neither her nor W’s perception of success matters to anyone. If the Iraqi show-thrower would be charged with assault, then what would your CIA operatives that were involved in torture exercises be charged with?

Oh, yeah, nothing because America, like Israel is above humanitarian and international law.

Anyway, Laura on her husband’s legacy.

“I know that if Saddam Hussein was still alive, he would have never been released. So we can see that Iraq’s are more free.” Correction, Ms. Bush. If Saddam Hussein were still alive, there would be no war, and the shoe would not have been thrown at your husband. If you are going to try to make a point, make sure you understand the dynamics.

First, understand that the US would not be in Iraq had your husband not created false evidence of WMDs.

Second, understand that had the US actually investigated the 9/11 attacks, the fingers might have been pointed somewhere else. Rather, to get revenge, the US attacked Afghanistan (and ran away), then attack Iraq (and can’t get away).

Third, understand that had the US actually believed that they could do some good, they would never have asked Iraqis and Afghanis to sign away their right to justice. Under the invasion agreement, no American soldier can be charged with war crimes for anything that they do in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Justice is a wonderful word, just like freedom and democracy. Words like Patriot Act, Gitmo, and military tribunals have no place in a free and democratic nation. But under your husband, they became common place as the rights of Americans were limited to assure that your husband could pretend to be a good president.

And the interview, itself. Read the rest of this entry »

Bloomberg is reporting that a deal is in the works that will move the prisoners from Gitmo to Australia on a case-by-case basis, said a spokeswoman for acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Amanda Lampe, spokeswoman for acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard, said that the US had approached Australia and about 100 other countries in regards to resettling the detainees, but was clear to point out that each individual would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Lampe went on to say that “for anyone to be accepted, they would have to meet Australia’s strict legal requirements and go through normal rigorous assessment processes.”

This all comes on the heels of President-elect Barack Obama’s promise to shut down Gitmo when elected president. Obviously, the world view was that Gitmo would be shut down and the detainees transferred into the US judicial system where prosecutions would be continued. Sadly, it doesn’t seem that will be the case.

According to the article at Bloomberg.com, Australia joined Germany and Portugal in voicing a willingness to take some Gitmo detainees, making it easier for Obama to fulfill his campaign pledge.

David Hicks, an Australian who trained at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and 5 years at Gitmo, was the first so-called enemy combatant to be convicted by the US “military commission” and allowed to spend some of his prison term in his home country of Australia. Hicks was released into Australia’s population on the 21st of December.

According to reports, there are about 250 detainees at Gitmo, which the US military prosecutors categorize as:

• 80 that will be charged with war crimes
• 60 are deemed eligible for resettlement
• 100+ pose security risks too serious to be released and cannot be tried on war-crimes charges

80 will be charged with war crimes and over 100 are such serious security risks that they can never be released into public life, but the can also never be charged with war crimes.

That is over 100 people that will never see the freedom again because of the perceived “risk they pose” to society. 

Do you ever wonder if maybe, just maybe, we need to re-asses our terminology and understanding of what a terrorist really is?

Is it the person that reacts to years of injustice violently? Or is it the person that causes the years of injustice to cause the violent reaction?