|
US accused of human rights abuses in
Iraq
Compiled by Eamon Martin
July 29 (AGR)— At a military checkpoint in Iraq,
American soldiers found a handgun, ordered a 56-year-old man out of
his car, and proceeded to bash his head with a rifle butt.
Rahim Nasser Mohammed points to his right temple, the side of his mouth,
and lifts his shirt, to show the spots where the soldier cudgeled him
again and again nearly a month ago.
His story — that of a government employee pulled over in his car
by the US army — seems one in a thousand as reports mount of beatings
and sometimes deaths of Iraqi civilians at the hands of US soldiers.
On Sunday, five innocent Iraqi civilians were killed during a raid on
a home in Baghdad’s wealthy Mansur district as troops conducted
a raid.
The same day, a demonstration over a nighttime patrol near a holy shrine
in the southern Shiite holy city of Karbala, turned ugly, ending with
marines firing in the air and one protester dead.
“It’s an embarrassment for us. A lot of this has to do with
the war being over, and there being not a lot for us to do and soldiers
getting killed and then their friends taking it out on regular civilians,”
said a US military police officer investigating instances of excessive
force.
“I’ve seen at least 20 cases,” the officer, who spoke
on condition of anonymity, said, referring to incidents where soldiers
have beaten or robbed civilians at checkpoints.
Mohammed’s story is a cause for alarm, with his account backed
by Iraqi police and US military officers themselves.
“They beat him pretty bad. They beat him, tied him u,p and beat
him again,” said a US officer on condition of anonymity.
On July 3, Mohammed, an electricity department employee, was stopped
by two army vehicles and his government car searched.
The soldier found a small handgun, which Mohammed said he carried to
protect the car and himself, but immediately the soldier started to
beat him.
“He cuffed my hands behind my back and taped my mouth and started
to beat my face, hands, and stomach using his rifle,” Mohammed
said, faint bruises still visible on his face.
The rifle was butted into his stomach repeatedly even as Mohammed tried
to warn him he had just received an operation for a hernia, with the
scars fresh on his belly.
Mohammed was then shoved into a police car.
“He put me down on the floor and kicked me with his feet and put
the rifle to my head, as if he was about to shoot,” Mohammed recalled.
“Then he took me to the police station, where he started to hit
me with the gun in front of the police station.”
This past week, renowned human rights group Amnesty International released
a scathing report criticizing the US military in Iraq for human rights
abuses, particularly violence against civilians and its treatment of
prisoners.
The organization warned US military raids are claiming the lives of
everyday people and resulting in the disappearance of Iraqis without
a trace into the prison system.
Amnesty’s spokeswoman, Judit Arenas Licea, who recently attended
a meeting with Iraqi civil associations, said she was struck by the
groups’ testimonies of abuses under the Americans.
“People are afraid of going out on the streets, being picked up
and going missing,” she said, in a warning that the climate evoked
by the Americans unintentionally reminded Iraqis of their experiences
under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
During the years of Hussein’s rule, countless Iraqis disappeared
behind the walls of Abu Graib, one of the most notorious prisons in
Iraq. Now it’s open again for business with new wardens, the Americans.
Relatives looking for any information about their loved ones still inside
line up at the gate. They are told nothing.
“It is the same scene being repeated now. You still have the same
crowds of people outside Abu Gharib prison looking for their relatives,”
Licea said.
The Amnesty report surveyed incidents across Iraq since Apr. 24, two
weeks after Baghdad fell.
The study expressed alarm about violence against the civilians and lists
multiple incidents of excessive force, in which the death of Saddi Sueliman
Ibrahim al-Ubayadi stands out.
Ubayadi’s house was raided in the early morning by US forces in
Ramadi on May 14 when they proceeded to beat him with rifle butts.
“He ran out of the house to get away from them; soldiers shot him
a few meters away and he died immediately,” the report says.
Licea also drew attention to the shooting of Mohammad al-Kubaisi, aged
12, on June 26.
Soldiers in an opposite building opened fire on Kubaisi, as he carried
bedding up to the roof of his house.
A witness told Amnesty he shouted to the soldier: “‘That’s
a baby,’ but the soldier said ‘No baby’ and opened fire.”
The boy’s mother told Amnesty about 20 soldiers entered the house
and “did not offer medical treatment.”
When neighbors tried to drive the boy to the hospital, a tank stopped
them and the driver was handcuffed to the ground. They were allowed
up after 15 minutes, but by then the boy was dead.
Amnesty is looking into a number of cases of suspected torture in Iraq
by American authorities. One case involves Khraisan al-Aballi.
Al-Aballi’s house was raided by American soldiers who came in shooting
and arrested Khraisan and his 80-year-old father. They shot and wounded
his brother Dureid.
Dureid was carrying a weapon, his brother says, thinking the Americans
were looters.
The three men were taken away. Khraisan and his father went to the US
detention center at Baghdad’s airport. But they still don’t
know where his wounded brother is. The Americans, who should know whether
Dureid is dead or alive, say they have no record of him at all.
Khraisan says his interrogators stripped him naked and kept him awake
for more than a week, either standing or on his knees, bound hand and
foot, with a bag over his head.
Liz Hodgkin of Amnesty International commented: “The United Nations
Committee Against Torture has stated quite clearly that these methods
constitute torture. The US has signed up to high standards. It’s
not keeping them.”
Khraisan rejects American claims such as those made by the US occupation’s
administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer, that they are not using torture.
“They are liars. They use it. They use it,” he says. “They
make me losing my mind.”
This past month, the US military itself charged four American soldiers
with abusing prisoners of war in Iraq.
The four military police from a Pennsylvania-based Army Reserve unit
are accused of punching, kicking, and breaking bones of prisoners at
Camp Bucca, the largest US-run POW camp in Iraq.
The soldiers are the first US troops known to face charges of abusing
prisoners during the Iraq conflict.
Sources: Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, CBSNews.com,
Taipei Times
Military mutinies in Philippines
By John Aglionby
July 28— The financial heart of the Philippines capital
was turned into a surreal conflict zone for 20 hours yesterday after
marines surrounded a glitzy shopping center that had been taken over
and wired with explosives by some 300 junior officers demanding the
resignation of the government.
Following a barrage of pleas from their wives, mothers, and girlfriends,
the mutineers left the Gloriana complex in Manila’s Makati district,
and returned to their barracks without a shot being fired.
Even the loyal generals hinted they might pardon the renegade troops,
such was the sympathy for their grievances. But the president, Gloria
Arroyo, who described the outcome as “a triumph for democracy”
scotched such ideas.
“They will be investigated and their cases will be disposed of
in accordance with the articles of war,” a relieved and ebullient
Arroyo told a press conference last night. “They have not asked
and they shall not be given special treatment.”
She did, however, order her military commander, General Narciso Abaya,
to “immediately restore normalcy in the military,” a clear
reference to the mutineers’ demands.
These included the resignation of the president, her defense minister,
Angelo Reyes, the police chief, Hermogenes Ebdane Jr, and the military’s
intelligence chief, Brigadier General Victor Corpuz.
Other complaints from the troops were poor pay and conditions.
The officers, many of whom are decorated veterans of the decades-long
war against Muslim separatists in the southern islands, sought to play
the role of underdog heroes standing up to government villains in the
continuous live television coverage propaganda war.
They claimed Arroyo and her military commanders had sold arms to rebel
groups, had staged terrorist attacks on mosques, and were planning a
series of “incidents” in the capital to justify declaring
martial law and perpetuate the president’s tenure in office, which
is scheduled to end next year.
Arroyo refuted all the allegations and the mutineers presented no compelling
evidence to justify their claims, before dismantling the web of booby
traps they had installed around the complex.
But for Arroyo, one of the United States’ most stalwart supporters
in fighting terrorism, the incident will have been embarrassing and
might yet inflict irreparable political damage. Her first test will
be today’s annual state of the nation address, parts of which were
being hastily rewritten last night. Some observers said the mutiny was
staged by Arroyo’s political rivals seeking to destabilize her.
She is also struggling to repair her image after one of the region’s
most infamous bomb-makers, the Indonesian Islamist Rohman al-Ghozi,
and two other convicted terrorists walked out of a high-security prison
within the national police headquarters compound a fortnight ago.
Coups, attempted coups and rumors of coups are fairly commonplace in
the Philippines but Arroyo, who replaced Joseph Estrada in January 2001
after he was ousted in a military-backed people-power uprising, had
thus far escaped unchallenged. That changed at the end of last week
when armored personnel carriers were ordered to defend the presidential
palace in the wake of reports that junior troops were mounting an insurrection.
The president ordered their arrest after some 300 went missing with
their weapons. Some had reported to their superiors by text message
that they were “going underground.”
Manila’s state of alert was raised to triple red on Saturday but
just after midnight the rebels sneaked past the patrols and into the
Gloriana.
It backs on to the Oakwood residences, popular with diplomats and expatriates
and for several hours dozens of foreigners, including the Australian
ambassador, were held hostage. They were all released unharmed.
By this stage thousands of marines had surrounded the area and at one
stage they oddly went up to the mutinous guards, shook hands and exchanged
banter.
One of the young officers, a navy lieutenant, said he was only seeking
to “win a moral victory.” “I’m risking everything,
my life,” he said. “But the risk is worth it to raise what
we want.”
Arroyo initially talked tough, ordering the men to surrender by 5pm
local time. “You have already stained the uniform,” she said.
“Do not drench it with dishonor.”
But as the day went on, with both sides calling press conferences to
retain the upper hand, the government’s position softened. Its
deadline was extended once and then indefinitely.
This tactic appeared to work as at first 17 and then some estimated
two dozen rebels surrendered. The mood of the day was encapsulated by
these men being hugged by their superior officers rather than manacled.
Sources: Guardian (UK)
9-11 report: no connection between Iraq
and al-Qaida
Compiled by Shane Perlowin
July 30 (AGR)— A 900-page report of the joint congressional
inquiry into the suicide hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, reveals US intelligence
had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved
in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida.
“The report shows there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaida,”
said a government official who has seen the report.
Former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), who was a member of the joint congressional
committee that produced the report, confirmed the official’s statement.
Asked whether he believed the report will reveal that there was no connection
between al-Qaida and Iraq, Cleland replied: “I do ... There’s
no connection, and that’s been confirmed by some of [al-Qaida leader
Osama] bin Laden’s terrorist followers.”
The revelation is likely to embarrass the Bush administration, which
made links between Saddam and bin Laden — with the attendant possibility
that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction —
a major plank of its case for war.
“The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida)
to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war,”
said Cleland. “What you’ve seen here is the manipulation of
intelligence for political ends.”
The inquiry, by members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees,
was launched in February last year amid growing concerns that failures
by US intelligence had allowed 19 al-Qaida terrorists to enter the United
States, hijack four airliners, and kill almost 3,000 people.
Although the committee completed its work at the end of last year, publication
of the report has been delayed by wrangles between the committees and
the Bush administration over which parts of it could be declassified.
Cleland accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying the
report’s release to avoid having its case for war undercut.
The probe may have prompted more questions than it answered when 28
pages on a possible role by Saudi Arabia were blacked out by the Bush
administration.
The revelation has sparked the indignation of the Sept. 11 victims’
families.
For reasons of “national security” the White House blacked
out the entire section of the report entitled “Finding, discussion
and narrative regarding certain sensitive national security matters.”
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who helped spearhead the probe, said the
administration wrongly blanked out 28 pages dealing with suspected foreign
support of those responsible for the attacks.
“I think they’re classified for the wrong reason,” Shelby
said on NBC’s Meet the Press program. “My judgment is 95 percent
of that information should be declassified, become uncensored, so the
American people would know.”
Shelby said the section was classified because it “might be embarrassing
to some international relations.”
Shelby had said last week that he felt too much of the report was classified,
but had not been as critical of the censorship as Democrats who said
the Bush administration had “an obsession with secrecy.”
Although congressional members have refused to name the suspected country,
uncensored portions of the report appeared to point at Saudi Arabia.
A Saudi official last week dismissed any implications that Riyadh played
a role in the Sept. 11 attacks as motivated by political aspirations
of Democrats.
The report said intelligence agencies missed opportunities to disrupt
the Sept. 11 plot in the months before the hijacked plane attacks.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss (R-FL) defended the
exclusion of portions of the report, saying it could hinder current
congressional investigations on the attacks. Goss said on NBC’s
Meet The Press that he expected the pages to be made public after the
conclusion of the investigations.
Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who was involved in compiling the report, said
that a foreign government which he could not name for legal reasons
“provided logistical assistance to at least two of the hijackers.”
“High officials in this government, who I assume were not just
rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions
to the support and well-being of two of these terrorists and facilitated
their ability to plan, practice, and then execute the tragedy of September
11,” Graham said.
The report cited one CIA memo that concluded there was “incontrovertible
evidence” that Saudi individuals provided financial assistance
to al-Qaida operatives in the United States.
The White House, meanwhile, resisted efforts to pin down Bush’s
knowledge of al-Qaida threats and to catalogue the executive’s
pre-Sept. 11 strategy to fight terrorists. It was justified largely
on legal grounds, but Democrats said the secrecy was meant to protect
Bush from criticism.
And while the report contains extensive details about counterterrorism
policy and operations under President Bill Clinton, it also leaves out
substantial material deemed classified. The panel took testimony from
former senior advisers to Clinton and Bush but did not interview either
president.
With respect to Bush, the congressional panel indicated that it tried
to determine “to what extent the President received threat-specific
warnings during this period” — but obtained only limited information.
Among the only clues cited in the report about Bush’s knowledge
of al-Qaida’s intentions against the United States is an Aug. 6,
2001, President’s Daily Briefing (PDB) — described in the
report only as a “closely-held intelligence report” —
that included information “acquired in May 2001 that indicated
a group of [Osama] Bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the
United States with explosives.”
The PDB also said “that Bin Laden had wanted to conduct attacks
in the United States for years and that the group apparently maintained
a support base here.” It cited “FBI judgments about patterns
of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types
of attacks,” according to the report.
The CIA declined to declassify the PDB, and the White House, which had
the authority to release it, declined to do so, citing “executive
privilege.” Executive privilege allows the president to withhold
from public disclosure all advice and communications he receives from
advisers so that they feel free to offer frank advice without fearing
that it will become public.
The committee also unsuccessfully sought budget information from the
Office of Management and Budget to determine where in the Bush administration
the decision was made not to provide more funding for counterterrorism
activities.
Members of the panel offered differing assessments of the impact of
the administration’s efforts to keep secret certain politically
sensitive subjects.
“We were never able to get much of the material we requested from
the National Security Council,” said House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D-CA), former ranking member of the House intelligence committee.
“The nation was not well-served by the administration’s failure
to provide this critical information.”
Sources: The Ottawa Citizen, Washington Post, Reuters,
Agence France-Presse, New York Times
|
