terrorism

Bruce Schneier on Terrorism

Bruce Schneier writes on security and our response to terrorism:

Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy a country’s way of life; it’s only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage. The more we undermine our own laws, the more we convert our buildings into fortresses, the more we reduce the freedoms and liberties at the foundation of our societies, the more we’re doing the terrorists’ job for them.

The whole piece is definitely worth a read. Schneier is insightful and as refreshingly candid as usual.

12/31/09
1 response

more in:
current affairs, insight, politics, terrorism

Two Years Later and It’s Still Wrong

On Saturday, worldwide protests marking the two year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq drew hundreds of thousands of people. In New York City alone several thousand people marched from Harlem to Central Park in protest. Yet the U.S. mainstream media continues to downplay worldwide dissent.

For those not paying attention, here’s a brief recap pulled from articles I’ve del.icio.us-ed:

Since the United States invaded Iraq 21,100-39,300 Iraqi civilians and 1,511 U.S. troops were killed. (At least 108 people have died in U.S. custody in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, with only a quarter of the cases have been investigated as possible U.S. abuse.) At lowest estimates, U.S. taxpayers have spent $200 billion dollars ($9 billion of which the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority cannot account for) on the illegal, immoral and unjustified war in Iraq. No Weapons of Mass destruction were found in Iraq. Halliburton overcharged the government and reaped the benefit of no-bid contracts.

Not surprisingly, as Greg Palast recently discovered, before the war there were two competing Secret US Plans for Iraq’s Oil, one crafted “within weeks” of Bush’s first taking office in 2001 (even before the September 11th attacks). Yet Bush asserted that there is no need to hold any of his officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in pre-war planning or managing the aftermath because U.S. voters have vindicated his decisions based on the results of presidential elections tainted by widespread minority disenfranchisement, lack of adequate voting machines, and questionable and unverifiable electronic voting results.

Will Joe American see any of this when he watches Fox news (or CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.) tonight? I doubt it. To learn some of what is actually happening in Iraq, check out Baghdad Burning, the weblog of a twenty-something Iraqi woman.

03/20/05
0 responses

more in:
activism, current affairs, media, terrorism

torture

More details of torture have emerged from Guantanamo Bay. From a New York Times article:

Mr. Kahtani, a Saudi, was given a tranquilizer, put in sensory deprivation garb with blackened goggles, and hustled aboard a plane that was supposedly taking him to the Middle East.

After hours in the air, the plane landed back at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where he was not returned to the regular prison compound but put in an isolation cell in the base’s brig. There, he was subjected to harsh interrogation procedures that he was encouraged to believe were being conducted by Egyptian national security operatives.

The account of Mr. Kahtani’s treatment given to The New York Times recently by military intelligence officials and interrogators is the latest of several developments that have severely damaged the military’s longstanding public version of how the detention and interrogation center at Guantánamo operated.

Interviews with former intelligence officers and interrogators provided new details and confirmed earlier accounts of inmates being shackled for hours and left to soil themselves while exposed to blaring music or the insistent meowing of a cat-food commercial. In addition, some may have been forcibly given enemas as punishment.

Recently, the Justice Department rewrote a legal memo “on what constitutes torture, backing away from its own assertions prior to the Iraqi prison abuse scandal that torture had to involve ‘excruciating and agonizing pain.’”

The document, again directly contradicting the previous version, says torture need not be limited to pain “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

Instead, the memo concludes that anti-torture laws passed by Congress equate torture with physical suffering “even if it does not involve severe physical pain” but still must be more than “mild and transitory.” That can include mental suffering under certain circumstances, but it would not have to last for months or years, as the previous document said.

The timing of the revised memo is convenient. The author of the original legal memo, Alberto Gonzales, is due before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week to be considered as Bush’s pick to replace Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Yet none of this is stopping the government from planning on keeping suspected terrorists imprisoned for LIFE at Guantanamo Bay “even if the government lacks evidence to charge them in courts…” Senators on both sides of the aisle are publicly denouncing the plan as a bad idea. It’s getting harder and harder to maintain the story that prisoner abuse is the result of a few rogue soldiers. When will those responsible be held accountable?

It clearly goes all the way to the top:

After officials at Guantánamo asked for more leeway in dealing with Mr. Kahtani, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in December 2002 approved a list of 16 techniques for use there in addition to the 17 methods in the Army Field Manual. He suspended those approvals the next month after some Navy lawyers complained that they were excessive and possibly illegal. But after a review, Mr. Rumsfeld issued a final policy in April 2003, approving 24 techniques, some of which needed his permission to be used. [ link ]

01/02/05
0 responses

more in:
current affairs, terrorism

Fear

A recently released survey conducted by Cornell University found that

“Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll… The survey showed that 27 percent of respondents supported requiring all Muslim Americans to register where they lived with the federal government. Twenty-two percent favored racial profiling to identify potential terrorist threats. And 29 percent thought undercover agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations to keep tabs on their activities and fund-raising.”

Not suprisingly, this is all tied to how the media depicts Muslims and the “War on Terror”:

“Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim Americans.”

Yesterday I saw the trailer for “Battleground,” a documentary about what is actually happening in Iraq, and one particular sentiment really struck me. May, a journalist said

“The Iraqi people haven’t had their perspective represented by anyone. In the American media we’ve always just talked about Saddam, and Saddam, and Saddam. Saddam himself repressed the opinions and the expression of the people here. So we’ve all been complicit in silencing the Iraqi people.”

It’s been asked before, but it needs to be asked again and again and again. How does one “win” a “War on Terror”? Let’s start by clarifying who the real criminals are, instead of rewarding them.

12/18/04
0 responses

more in:
current affairs, media, terrorism