Africa's secret - the men, women and children 'vanished' in the war on terror Fleeing war-torn Somalia, the refugees trapped and missing without rights Xan Rice in Moshi, Tanzania Monday April 23, 2007 The Guardian Fatma Ahmed Chande was cold. It was 3am and raining. The 25-year-old Tanzanian woman was kneeling on the taxiway at Nairobi's international airport. Headlights from a convoy of police vehicles punched holes in the darkness. She saw a group of blindfolded men being led towards a plane. She recognised some of the shackled women and children who followed them. A policeman jerked Ms Ahmed's scarf over her eyes. He tied her hands behind her back with a pair of plastic handcuffs that cut into her wrists. It was the same man who had threatened to kill her if she did not admit that her husband had supported al-Qaida terrorists in Somalia. "This is it," she thought. "I am going to die." The quiet 25-year-old from Moshi, at the base of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, did not die in the early hours of January 27. But the ordeal that had begun when she was arrested at Kenya's northern border three weeks before while fleeing the war in Somalia was far from over. Bundled aboard African Express flight AXK-527 she was about to become part of the first mass "renditions" in Africa, where prisoners accused of supporting terrorists in Somalia were secretly transferred from country to country for interrogation outside the boundaries of domestic or international law. Along with at least 85 others from 20 countries, she was flown back to Somalia - a war zone with no effective government or law - and on to Ethiopia. There, American intelligence agents joined the interrogations - photographing and taking DNA samples, even from the children. Detention On April 7, three months after her arrest, Ms Ahmed was released. Salim Awadh Salim, her husband and father of her unborn baby, is still in detention. So, too, are 78 of the other passengers aboard the three secret rendition flights. At least 18 are children under 15. Ethiopia admits holding 36 other "suspected international terrorists" but has refused to give the Red Cross access to them. The rest of the "ghost plane" passengers are missing. Recuperating at her parents' house in Moshi, Ms Ahmed made her allegations to the Guardian in the hope that it would pressure Ethiopia into releasing her husband and the other prisoners. She described how she had married in 2000 and moved to the Kenyan coastal town of Mombasa, where her husband ran a mobile phone repair shop. When his business soured last year, he decided to try his luck in the Somali capital Mogadishu, where a loose coalition of clan-based courts had established law and order for the first time since 1991. She joined him in August. War was brewing. Ethiopia, backed by the US, accused the Somali Council of Islamic Courts (SCIC) of links to al-Qaida. As Ethiopian troops pushed towards Mogadishu in late December, the couple joined thousands of people fleeing south by road. They joined up with two Swahili-speaking women who were also trying to reach Kenya. Halima Badroudine had three young children. Fatma Ahmed Abdulrahman had a son aged about six. "They told us that their husbands were Somalis who had stayed behind in Mogadishu," said Ms Ahmed. The truth was more complicated. Ms Badroudine is married to Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, a Comorian; Ms Abdulrahman to a Kenyan called Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. Both men are al-Qaida members accused of prominent roles in the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. When the group crossed into Kenya at Kiunga, on Somalia's southern tip, Ms Ahmed thought she was safe. But Kenyan anti-terror police identified and detained Ms Badroudine and Ms Abdulrahman. The problem for Ms Ahmed and her husband, and dozens of others detained at the border at the same time, was that they too were presumed "guilty" of supporting the Islamists. They were separated and repeatedly interrogated. Ms Ahmed slept on a floor in a cell with other arrested women and children. There was no water to wash. After 10 days, she was flown to Nairobi. The aggressive questioning continued. One Kenyan interrogator asked if she was willing to separate from Salim. When she said no, he beat his fist on the table. "He wanted to make me admit that my husband was a member of al-Qaida," she said. "He said he would strangle me if I did not tell the truth." She insists Salim had never had close contact with the SCIC in Mogadishu - or with al-Qaida members anywhere. Though she had her Tanzanian passport with her, the police refused to acknowledge her nationality. Her husband, who had since also been flown to Nairobi, had his Kenyan passport and birth certificate, but was also documented as an "illegal immigrant". Pressure was building on the Kenyan government to lay formal charges or release the prisoners. Kenya's Muslim Human Rights Forum filed an application to force the government to produce them in court. Instead, it produced three flight manifests. The first two were African Express charters to Mogadishu on January 20 and 27, one showing Ms Ahmed and her husband among the passengers. A third, operated by Blue Bird Aviation, had flown to Baidoa, Somalia's temporary capital, on February 10. In Mogadishu, where insurgents were already beginning to ambush Ethiopian troops, Ms Ahmed was held in a tiny cell with about 20 other women and children, including a Swede, a Sudanese, and a pregnant Yemeni. After nine days, they were flown to Addis Ababa. In the new jail, the prisoners were given mattresses, prayer mats, pizza and fruit. The Yemeni woman was taken to hospital to give birth. A doctor discovered Ms Ahmed was pregnant. She was spared more in-depth interrogation, but some of her cellmates were not so fortunate. "They told me the Americans were questioning them and wanted to know about their husbands," she said. Americans Her own experience with US agents was limited to being photographed, fingerprinted and supplying a saliva sample to a male investigator. And she was allowed a brief conversation with Salim, who said Americans had been questioning him. In Nairobi he had been told he was being held at the US's request. The FBI has acknowledged having access to the prisoners in Ethiopia, but denies it was involved in the renditions. "We are suspicious of allegations made by people deported from this country as undesirable elements," said a spokesman for the Kenyan government, who denied that the FBI had access to the prisoners in Kenya. "But if they feel any law has been broken they are welcome to file an official complaint." On April 7 Ms Ahmed was put on a flight to Kilimanjaro. Her escort promised that her husband and the others would be released with a week. It has now been 16 days Source

^^^LOL Belated welcome back Castro.

Xanthus, I must head off now. But it is impossible for you to be a whole day ahead. Salams lol.

^ LOL. Yes it was one of my favourites. Darn you Xalimo!. You've got me feeling all nostalgic now. That game was a source of much enjoyment and getting onto the hall of fame was one of my proudest moments as a ten year old.

You suggested that you were a few hours ahead. The only nation a few hours ahead of Australia is New Zealand, or one of the many smaller Pacific Islands.

Xanthus, would you happen to be a New Zealander? Intuition you were lucky, I only got one week, two weeks would have been a dream. My workload is a nightmare.

Paragon if you think Scandinavians are weird you should sample Japanese humour.

Thierry has covered it well. It is pretty much a given that the TFG will not survive in Post-ocuupied Somalia. Somehow I don't imagine Yusuf or Geedi would want to stick around for long. So Violet, if the Ethiopians were to leave right now expect their puppets to hitch a ride out with them.

Violet, you are ignoring the key points of this article. 1. Former enemies have publicly united to oppose the Ethiopian occupation. 2. They warn of increased resistance to the Ethiopian occupation. What say you of it?

Leave Somalia or face all-out war, Ethiopia told Asmara, Eritrea 18 April 2007 05:58 Ethiopia must withdraw its troops from Somalia immediately or face an all-out war that "no army" could resist, three senior Somali leaders warned on Wednesday. The three, including top Islamist leader Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed and Hussein Aidid, who holds a post in Somalia's government, were meeting in the Eritrean capital for talks. Aidid said Somalis will unite against the "brutal occupation" of Ethiopian forces, who earlier this year helped the government's armed forces wrest control of much of Somalia from an Islamist movement. "Up until now we [have used] dialogue to remove them but if they refuse to cooperate ... we will set everything aside to remove the Ethiopians ourselves," Aidid told reporters. Sporadic fighting has continued between Ethiopian troops and insurgents in Mogadishu since government troops returned to the capital. The three leaders, who shared a stage under a Somali map emblazoned with a dove and the logo "Somalia for Somalis", warned that the situation in the war-torn nation would deteriorate if Ethiopia failed to withdraw. "Less than 10% of our forces are on the ground against the Ethiopians. No army, I can tell you that, can stop what is coming up," Aidid said. Aidid, who holds the post of deputy prime minister and housing minister and is a member of the ****** clan that holds sway in the capital, Mogadishu, said the three leaders only wanted to work for peace in Somalia. "The aim is to create dialogue among our people after 16 years of civil war to act as a platform for reconciliation," he said. Despite his government posts, Aidid has openly opposed the presence of Ethiopian troops in Somalia. The third leader, Sheikh Sharif Hassan Aden, was ousted from his post as Parliament speaker in January. He was accused of being too close to the Islamists. Eritrea, which has been accused of backing the Islamists, has called for Ethiopia to withdraw its troops. Asmara rejects the accusations. Analysts have expressed fears that Ethiopia and Eritrea, still at odds over their unresolved 1998 to 2000 border conflict, may fight a proxy war in Somalia. Somalia has lacked an effective central government since the ousting of former dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991 touched off a bloody power struggle that exploded into inter-clan warfare. More than 14 attempts to restore a functional government in Somalia have since failed. -- AFP Source

Rudy, I detest Niiko. I'll pass.

I stand corrected Hunguri. There are many lovely dances throughout Somalia. I believe the guy who put up the clip of the Jandheer will soon put one up of some sword dance from Djibouti. That should be interesting. I think I may have to have a talk with my dad. He is an expert on all these matters.

^ Amiin. This whole situation reminds me of a quote by al-Ghazzali . Allah states that the consequence of deviating toward oppressors is the Fire (Surah Hud: 113). Just think: If not being an oppressor but just being close to them can lead one to the flames, what must happen to the oppressors themselves? I wonder what these people tell themselves.

^I was always under the impression that it was native to the Hawd region. I could be mistaken though.

LOL @ Caano Geel. You always seem to come across the weird and the strange. I await your next weird story.

I always liked the Jaandheer. When it is done really well it is impressive to watch. I remember seeing another video sometime ago, but these guys are experts. Cheers for the clip Paragon.

General Duke et al any thoughts?

What an achievement! I await your next report GD.. 'President Yusuf & PM Geedi have an uninterupted MEAL' lol

^Yes it was. Over to you Cent.

Lol, Actually im not very well read with these kind of quotes but this was one of very few I had come across. Im suprised i got the name correct actually. Who said the following. "He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy shall meet him everywhere"

^ Ibn Taymiyyah?

Bashir Suudi is the man!

This is a really refreshing article. We need to hear more about what we can do instead of continuously dwelling on everything that has gone wrong. It would be great to hear more ideas.

Published on Friday, March 30, 2007 by CommonDreams.org George Bush’s Land Mine: If the Iraqi People Get Revenue Sharing, They Lose Their Oil to Exxon by Richard Behan George Bush has a land mine planted in the supplemental appropriation legislation working its way through Congress. The Iraq Accountability Act passed by the House and the companion bill passed in the Senate contain deadlines for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, in open defiance of the President’s repeated objections. He threatens a veto, but he might well be bluffing. Buried deep in the legislation and intentionally obscured is a near-guarantee of success for the Bush Administration’s true objective of the war-capturing Iraq’s oil-and George Bush will not casually forego that. This bizarre circumstance is the end-game of the brilliant, ever-deceitful maneuvering by the Bush Administration in conducting the entire scenario of the “global war on terror.” The supplemental appropriation package requires the Iraqi government to meet a series of “benchmarks” President Bush established in his speech to the nation on January 10 (in which he made his case for the “surge”). Most of Mr. Bush’s benchmarks are designed to blame the victim, forcing the Iraqis to solve the problems George Bush himself created. One of the President’s benchmarks, however, stands apart. This is how the President described it: “To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.” A seemingly decent, even noble concession. That’s all Mr. Bush said about that benchmark, but his brevity was gravely misleading, and it had to be intentional. The Iraqi Parliament has before it today, in fact, a bill called the hydrocarbon law, and it does call for revenue sharing among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. For President Bush, this is a must-have law, and it is the only “benchmark” that truly matters to his Administration. Yes, revenue sharing is there-essentially in fine print, essentially trivial. The bill is long and complex, it has been years in the making, and its primary purpose is transformational in scope: a radical and wholesale reconstruction-virtual privatization-of the currently nationalized Iraqi oil industry. If passed, the law will make available to Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell about 4/5’s of the stupendous petroleum reserves in Iraq . That is the wretched goal of the Bush Administration, and in his speech setting the revenue-sharing “benchmark” Mr. Bush consciously avoided any hint of it. The legislation pending now in Washington requires the President to certify to Congress by next October that the benchmarks have been met-specifically that the Iraqi hydrocarbon law has been passed. That’s the land mine: he will certify the American and British oil companies have access to Iraqi oil. This is not likely what Congress intended, but it is precisely what Mr. Bush has sought for the better part of six years. It is why we went to war. For years President Bush has cloaked his intentions behind the fabricated “Global War on Terrorism.” It has long been suspected that oil drove the wars, but dozens of skilled and determined writers have documented it. It is no longer a matter of suspicion, nor is it speculation now: it is sordid fact. (See a brief summary of the story at http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/ . ) Planning for the two wars was underway almost immediately upon the Bush Administration taking office–at least six months before September 11, 2001. The wars had nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism was initially rejected by the new Administration as unworthy of national concern and public policy, but 9/11 gave them a conveniently timed and spectacular alibi to undertake the wars. Quickly inventing a catchy “global war on terror” theme, the Administration disguised the true nature of the wars very cleverly, and with enduring success. The “global war on terror” is bogus. The prime terrorist in Afghanistan and the architect of 9/11, Osama bin Laden, was never apprehended, and the President’s subsequent indifference is a matter of record. And Iraq harbored no terrorists at all. But both countries were invaded, both countries suffer military occupation today, both are dotted with permanent U.S. military bases protecting the hydrocarbon assets, and both have been provided with puppet governments. And a billion dollar embassy in Baghdad is under construction now. It will be the largest U.S. embassy in the world by a factor of ten. (To see it, go to http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070124&articleId=4579 .) It consists of 21 buildings on 104 acres, six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York city, larger than Vatican City. It will house a delegation of more than five thousand people. It will have its own water, electric, and sewage systems, and it is surrounded by a fortress wall of concrete fifteen feet thick. For an Administration committed to fighting terrorism with armies and bombs, that’s far more anti-terror diplomacy than a tiny country needs. There must be another purpose for it. In the first two months of the Bush Administration two significant events took place that preordained the Iraqi war. Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force was created, composed of federal officials and oil industry people. By March of 2001, half a year before 9/11, the Task Force was poring secretly over maps of the Iraqi oil fields, pipe lines, and tanker terminals. It studied a listing of foreign oil company “suitors” for exploration and development contracts, to be executed with Saddam Hussein’s oil ministry. There was not a single American or British oil company included, and to Mr. Cheney and his cohorts that was intolerable. The final report of the Task Force was candid: “… Middle East oil producers will remain central to world security. The Gulf will be a primary focus of U.S. international energy policy.” The detailed meaning of “focus” was left blank. The other event was the first meeting of President Bush’s National Security Council, and it filled in the blank. The Council abandoned abruptly the decades-long attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and set a new priority for Middle East foreign policy instead: the invasion of Iraq. This, too, was six months before 9/11. “Focus” would mean war. By the fall of 2002, the White House Iraq Group-a collection not of foreign policy experts but of media and public relations people-was cranking up the marketing campaign for the war. A contract was signed with the Halliburton Corporation-even before military force in Iraq had been authorized by Congress-to organize the suppression of oil well fires, should Saddam torch the fields as he had done in the first Gulf War. Little was left to chance. The oil industry is the primary client and top-ranked beneficiary of the Bush Administration. There can be no question the Administration intended to secure for American oil corporations the rich petroleum resources of Iraq: 115 billion barrels of proven reserves, twice that in probable and possible resources, potentially far more than Saudi Arabia. The Energy Task Force spoke to this and the National Security Council answered. A secret NSC memorandum in 2001 spoke candidly of “actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields” in Iraq. In 2002 Paul Wolfowitz suggested simply seizing the oil fields. These words and suggestions were draconian, overt, and reprehensible-morally, historically, politically and diplomatically. The seizure of the oil would have to be oblique and far more sophisticated. A year before the war the State Department undertook the “Future of Iraq” project, expressly to design the institutional contours of the postwar country. The ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­”Oil and Energy Working Group” looked with dismay at the National Iraqi Oil Company, the government agency that owned and operated the Iraqi oil fields and marketed the products. 100% of the revenues went directly to the central government, and constituted about 90% of its income. Saddam Hussein benefited, certainly-his lavish palaces-but the Iraqi people did so to a far greater extent, in terms of the nation’s public services and physical infrastructure. For this reason nationalized oil industries are the norm throughout the world. The Oil and Energy Working Group designed a scheme that was oblique and sophisticated, indeed. The oil seizure would be less than total. It would be obscured in complexity. The apparent responsibility for it would be shifted, and it would be disguised as benefiting, even necessary to Iraq’s well being. Their work was supremely ingenious, undeniably brilliant. The plan would keep the National Iraqi Oil Company in place, to continue overseeing the currently producing fields. But those fields represent only 19% of Iraq’s petroleum reserves. The other 81% would be flung open to “investment” by foreign oil interests, and the companies in favored positions today-because of the war and their political connections-are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell. The nationalized industry would be 80% privatized. The investment vehicle would be the “production sharing agreement,” a long-term contract-up to 40 years-that grants to the company a share of the oil produced; in exchange, the company underwrites the development costs and oilfield infrastructure. Such “investment” is touted by the Bush Administration and its puppets in Iraq as necessary to the country’s recovery, and a huge benefit, accordingly. But it is not unusual for these contracts to grant the companies more than half the profits for the first 15-30 years, and to deny the host country any revenue at all until the investment costs have been recovered. The Iraqi oil industry does very much need a great deal of investment capital, to repair, replace, and upgrade its infrastructure. But it does not need Exxon/Mobil or any other foreign company to provide it. At a reduced level, Iraq is still producing oil and hence revenue, and no country in the world, perhaps, has better collateral against which to float bond issues for public investment. Privatization of any sort and in any degree is utterly unnecessary in Iraq today. The features of the State Department plan were inserted by Paul Bremer’s Provisional Coalition Authority into the developing structures of Iraqi governance. American oil companies were omnipresent in Baghdad then and have been since, shaping and shepherding the plan through the several iterations of puppet governments-the “democracy” said to be taking hold in Iraq. The package today is in the form of draft legislation, the hydrocarbon law. Only a handful of Iraqi officials know its details. Virtually none of them had a hand in its construction. (It was first written in English.) And its exclusive beneficiaries are the American and British oil companies, whose profits will come directly from the pockets of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people do, however, benefit to some degree. The seizure is not total. The hydrocarbon law specifies the oil revenues-the residue accruing to Iraq-will be shared equally among the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish regions, on a basis of population. This is the feature President Bush relies upon exclusively to justify, to insist on the passage of the hydrocarbon law. His real reasons are Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Royal Dutch/Shell. No one can say at the moment how much the hydrocarbon law will cost the Iraqi people, but it will be in the hundreds of billions. The circumstances of its passage are mired in the country’s chaos, and its final details are not yet settled. If and when it passes, however, Iraq will orchestrate the foreign capture of its own oil. The ingenious, brilliant seizure of Iraqi oil will be assured. That outcome has been on the Bush Administration’s agenda since early in 2001, long before terrorism struck in New York and Washington. The Iraqi war has never been about terrorism. It is blood for oil. The blood has been spilled already, hugely, criminally. More than 3,200 American military men and women have died in Iraq. 26,500 more have been wounded. But the oil remains in play. The game will end if the revenue-sharing “benchmark” is fully enforced. The land mine will detonate. Mission almost accomplished, Mr. President. Author’s endnote: This article was written assuming the members of Congress were ignorant, when they passed the supplemental appropriation bills, of the clever origin, the details, and the true beneficiaries of the Iraqi hydrocarbon law. It was written assuming they did not know President Bush’s stated “benchmark” of revenue-sharing was fraudulently incomplete, intentionally obscuring the fully intended seizure, by military force, of Iraqi oil assets. The Bush Administration made every effort to mislead deliberately both the Congress and the American people. Ignorance of the circumstances was imposed. If any members of Congress acted with full and complete knowledge, however, then they have become complicit in a criminal war. Richard W. Behan lives and writes on Lopez Island, off the northwest coast of Washington state. He is working on his next book, To Provide Against Invasions: Corporate Dominion and America’s Derelict Democracy. He can be reached at rwbehan@rockisland.com (This essay is deliberately not copyrighted: it may be reproduced without restriction.)

^ You must be kidding.