Guantanamo: New World Order Icon!

[Nur]

By: Mike Whitney

Other

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

June 22, 2005 -- We can add a new chapter to the Bush Administration's war on free speech as it was revealed yesterday that an Al Jazeera cameraman has been in custody for three years at Guantanamo Bay. Al-Hajj a Sudanese national was arrested in Afghanistan in 2001 and has remained in prison without being charged for 4 years.

 

Is this what Rumsfeld breezily refers to as the 'worst of the worst'? If so, independent journalists around the world should take note.

 

 

The report of Al-Haj's unlawful detention comes on the heels of a growing furor over eye-witness accounts of torture at Gitmo and an outcry from human rights groups (and members of Congress) to close down the facility. Amnesty International, who referred to the prison as 'the gulag of our times', has again been vindicated in its claims by these new charges that Al- Haj 'has suffered extreme physical, sexual and religious abuse'; charges that are consistent with other reports that the US is practicing 'systematic' abuse of detainees.

 

 

Attorney Clive Stafford-Smith, who visited clients at Guantanamo two weeks ago, said that 'Sami Al-Hajj had been beaten by his interrogators'. &'He has been beaten. He had a huge scar on his face when I saw him.' (Al Jazeera) 'He is completely innocent,' said Stafford-Smith. 'He is about as much of a terrorist as my granddad. The only reason he has been treated like he has is because he is an Al Jazeera journalist. The Americans have tried to make him an informant with the goal of getting him to say that Aljazeera is linked to al-Qaida.

 

 

Stafford-Smith's claims seem more credible given the open hostility of the Bush Administration, and particularly Donald Rumsfeld, towards Al Jazeera. Rumsfeld ordered the bombing of Al Jazeera's news facilities in Kabul and Baghdad. (even though the US military had been given the coordinates by Al Jazeera.) In the siege of Baghdad an F-16 launched a direct hit on the Al Jazeera station, killing veteran journalist Tariq Ayoub, even though there was no indication of fighting in the area. Many consider the attack to be a 'premeditated' act of murder.

 

 

Rumsfeld continued his attack on Al Jazeera last week with a rambling harangue completely divorced from the facts. At a security conference in Singapore he said, 'if anyone lived in the Middle East and watched a network like the Aljazeera day after day after day, even if he was an American, he would start waking up and asking what's wrong'.

 

'But America is not wrong. It's the people who are going on television chopping off people's heads, that is wrong,' he said.

 

 

In fact, Al Jazeera has never broadcast images of hostages being beheaded. The video of Nick Berg's execution appeared on an independent web site. But, by now, we know that the facts are of little concern to Rumsfeld; what he wants is uniformity of opinion and a narrative that reflects the positive aspects of America's aggression in Iraq. To that end, he has enlisted the support of America's 'embedded' journalists and intentionally targeted anyone who veers from the accepted storyline. (Presently, at least 8 journalists are being detained by the US in Iraq; some of whom apparently have stories and footage of Rumsfelds Dresden-type destruction of Falluja)

 

Guantanamo's Apologists

 

In the last week Donald Rumsfeld and VP Dick Cheney have defended Guantanamo publicly claiming it's an indispensable part of the war on terror. General Richard Meyers went as far to say that it was a 'model facility'; an appraisal that is strikingly at odds with the reports of torture and the mistreatment of prisoners. Right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer, a dependable source for absurd commentary, noted that treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo was 'remarkably humane and tolerant'. (This from a pundit whose anti-Arab sentiments have deep roots and a long history)

 

 

Neither Cheney, Rumsfeld, Meyers nor Krauthammer addressed the numerous accounts of prisoners 'chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more.' (from an FBI report)

 

 

Nevertheless, the debate over Guantanamo is not about to disappear anytime soon. Even supporters of the war in Iraq, like Tom Friedman and Senator Joe Biden, understand that the prison has been a public relations nightmare that has emboldened America's enemies and put American soldiers at greater risk.

 

 

In a June 21 article in the New York Times, Anthony Lewis chronicles some of the incidents of cruelty at Guantanamo and notes the violations to the Geneva Conventions which prohibit 'outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.' He also refers the less frequently mentioned United Nations Convention against Torture which requires the US to 'prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction &.cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.' The Bush Administration has painstakingly constructed legal arguments that refute the applicability of both conventions, strongly suggesting that they are willfully engaged in war crimes.

 

 

To fully appreciate the depravity of the Bush claque, we only need to visit the Rush Limbaugh web site, where the drug- addicted spokesman for the administration is currently hawking T-shirts (Orange; 'I got my free Koran and Prayer Rug at G'itmo' or, orange baseball cap reading 'Camp G'itmo') and baseball caps in an public relations scheme to trivialize the horrors of systematic torture of detainees in US custody. Limbaugh has always been at the forefront of apologists for the abuse of prisoners. During the Abu Ghraib scandal he defended the conduct of the military by saying that 'they were just blowing off steam'. Perhaps, Limbaugh finds something uplifting about being 'sodomized with a chemical light' or having 'electrodes attached to his penis to simulate electric torture'; its impossible to know. But, for most sane people, these are conspicuous acts of barbarism for which the perpetrators must be held accountable.

 

 

Plan Gitmo

 

Despite widespread condemnation, the Bush Administration will never abandon the Guantanamo concentration camp. As Amnesty International's Curt Goering puts it, the administration 'plans to memorialize in bricks and mortar its decision to operate outside of the law.' This is precisely the case. Guantanamo is emblematic of a militarized world stripped of humanity or justice. It looms as the salient icon of the new world order.

 

 

Mike Whitney lives in Washington State. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

[Salma]

The Bulgarian Nurses who infected the Libyan children and caused them death or sickness should be released right away, insisting the Bulgarian Government

 

The Australian drugs smuggler who smuggled drugs into Indonesia should be released right away, insist the Australian Governemnt

 

The British & American hostages in Afganistan or Yemen should be released immediately, insist the British & AMericans governments

 

Any American reporters/hostages/businessmen should be released no matter what they caused. But if its from another nationality then Law must take its course.

 

And more

 

But when it comes to 3rd World citizen,Muslims & Arabs, nobody care, the American & European Law should be executed even if its not just.

 

 

If this is happening every minute in the World Nur, do you think America will be merciful to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners??!!

 

The New World Order System : The Jungle Law, where the Predator doesnt care about the Prey at all.

 

Forget about the Human Rights, Democracy & Humanity. That's mandatory when its related to the Big Guyz and silly lie when its related to the 3rd World.

[Muhammad]

about 60% or the 3rd world is young

 

within 25 to 30 years most of the 3rd world countries will double in population.

 

what role will Gitmo play in the mindset of these rising generations?

 

The Icon of the Amerikkkan Era? or

 

the Avatar of Democracy and Freedom?

 

 

there is a moment in time when an empire reaches its limit, and falls down on its knees because of its own weight, not because of the barbarians on its border.

 

I fear this empire is "Digging its grave with its own teeth"! literally*

[Haddad]

I have read this report at the time it was released. What happened to Al-Hajj is appalling.

[Castro]

Guantanamo Bay holds Saudis (majority), Afghanis, Egyptians, Yemenis and Pakistanis. The remainder are very small minorities from Sudan and other arab countries.

 

Who in Saudi Arabia is going to "demand" the US release its citizens? The Americans have placed their d!cks so far up Saudi a$$ that they can hardly breath. Will Hamid Karzai demand Afghanis are released from Camp X-ray? Hamid Karzai? If you look up toothless in the dictionary it will have Karzai's picture. The poster boy for post colonial puppet head of government. Will Hosni Mubarak do it? Not while the US continues to supply him with hair dye to cover his age! The man gets $6 billion a year from the US. What on earth is he gonna tell Bush? Keep your money and "let my people go"? Yemen is basically at war with the US after the USS Cole bombing. They can't ask for a damn thing.

 

My point is: the mighty will dictate the rules of the game. In our times, this is the United States. In addition to dictating the rules, they will write the story of this game, later to be known as the history of the "War on Terror".

 

There are options:

 

1) "If you can't beat them join them". Like most so called muslims and arabs who live in the west. With their not so tacit approval and taxes that support US hegemoney. Popular option.

 

2) Refuse to be a part of this and move to their "3rd world" homelands and possibly place themselves on the waiting list for the next "shock and awe" bombing campaign by the US military. Dangerous option.

 

3) Refuse to be a part of this and become activists in the west that try to change public opinion through grassroots movements. Boring option.

 

4) Like Che Guevarra, believe that a revolution without rifles would never work and take up arms against the US. There are many areas that would welcome "insurgents". Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran (soon), Venezuala (soon), the islamic "istans" of this world, etc... This is almost guaranteed to end in violent death via a laser guided bomb intended for another target alltogether. Deadly option.

 

5) Refuse to be lulled to sleep by the elite and their powerful propaganda and recognize what's going on. Make attempts to educate those around you about what's happening and how it's going down. Understand that the US (and UK and most nations) is run by very powerful interests (not Bush, Blair, Chenney or Rumsfeld for they are merely tools of the elite) who will go to great lengths to keep their wealth and get more of it. And that the majority of the populations in those countries are just there to be manipulated with religion, patriotism, or the "boogey man" du jour.

Ofleh option.

 

Ofleh

[Haddad]

Originally posted by ofleh:

Who in Saudi Arabia is going to "demand" the US release its citizens?

Osama bin Laden? I am sure he would, if he were at the helm. Of course, the US would comply. I mean, the US cannot even contain Al-Zarqawi in a destabilized Iraq. Think about what Osama bin Laden could do, with +90% Saudi support, jihad, gas embargo option, and etc. Of course, the US can easily drop tons-weighting bombs from a safe distance, but what would that prove? That it's brave and bold? No. Besides, the Iraq insurgency is adapting very well to those bombs. Sooner or later, those bombs would not be a critical factor for the US.

[Castro]

I mean, the US cannot even contain Al-Zarqawi in a destabilized Iraq.

I'm not sure that "Al-Zarqawi" is not a fictional character. For the average Joe (or Chang, or Ali, or Pedro) it is easy to create a single anti-hero on whom to blame all the ills of the occupation. It's much more difficult to explain the complexity of such a widespread insurgancy as in Iraq. That would not serve the propaganda machine any way.

 

Every conflict the US engages in, it's important to quickly create a demon or a monster that must be destroyed. The whole "good vs. evil" thing. As examples in the not to distant past:

 

Afghanistan: Osama Bin Laden

Iraq: Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi (now) Saddam Hussein (in the 90's and up to 2003)

Somalia: Aideed

Nicaragua: Noriega

Libya: Qaddafi

North Korea: Kim Jong Il

Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh

 

While some of the men above may have been villians in their own right, they were also true heroes to their people. Nevertheless, the US propaganda machine ensured that public opionion reviled these men, justifiably or not. First you create the monster then you destroy it. It's a pretty good tactic. I'm not sure any other superpower would act differently. It's the standard operating procedure in warfare propaganda.

 

Ofleh

[Haddad]

Originally posted by ofleh:

I'm not sure any other superpower would act differently.

The Islamic superpower acted differently. The next Islamic superpower will act differently, just as in the past.

 

It's the standard operating procedure in warfare propaganda.

It's, to Western systems, not to the Islamic system.

[Castro]

It's, to Western systems, not to the Islamic system.

Lying and deception are permitted during war in Islam. Assuming, of course, the war is just to begin with. Lying and deceiving about an unjust war is not what I'm talking about here.

 

Ofleh