Jenny’s Pennies

From the BBC.

A German citizen has gone to court in an attempt to force his government to seek the extradition of 13 suspected CIA agents who allegedly kidnapped him. Khaled al-Masri says he was abducted in December 2003, flown to a US detention centre in Afghanistan and tortured. Mr Masri was released in May 2004 after his captors allegedly told him he had been mistaken for someone else.

I wish him the best of luck - it’s absolutely appalling that you could be kidnapped and tortured “by mistake” and then receive no compensation what so ever.
And towards the end of the article:

Mr Masri says his case is an example of the US policy of “extraordinary rendition” - a practice whereby the US government flies foreign terror suspects to third countries without judicial process for interrogation or detention. He says he was kidnapped in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, in 2003, flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, nicknamed the “salt pit” and tortured there. On his flight to Afghanistan, he says, he was stripped, beaten, shackled, made to wear nappies and drugged. Mr Masri says he was finally released in Albania five months later after the CIA realised they had got the wrong man. He told the BBC in February 2007 he had been “traumatised” by his experiences.

Why the hell do they put scare quotes around the word traumatised? Of course he was traumatised, he was freaking kidnapped, taken to a ghost prison and tortured. And then finally after five months of hell the Central Intelligence Agency - what kind of intelligence do they operate on?! - realized they had the wrong guy. Dear BBC “editor”, I think you would be traumatised by that too.

In the light of the Condoleezza Rice interview discussed in this post, this becomes even more … no I’m at loss for words.
From the Independent:

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

This is their desired end state!? Permanent occupation, more political sectarian violence, more money being spent on the occupation, more soldiers sent to Iraq (how many people do you need to man 50 bases?), more people killed on all sides? That is a victory?
How is permanent occupation a victory? How is forcing a puppet government into signing a contract which means their subjugation to the foreign occupier a victory? How is a a less stable Iraq - which a deal like this will inevitably lead to - a victory? How is something which will make the United States less safe a victory (remember that one of the reasons stated for the 9/11 attacks was the presence of US bases in Saudi Arabia). How would this end the war?

(Really, I’m not as surprised as it may seem. I knew, like all sane people, that the war wasn’t about peace and liberty and justice for all.)

Ok this is a bit late, but.

As you might know, a big conference on Iraq was held in Stockholm last Thursday. Condoleezza Rice was there, and Dagens Nyheter scored an interview, which was overly polite and fawning - it ends with a question about her piano playing career.

And in there, there’s this:

/…/ Or how long does the United States plan to stay militarily in Iraq?
- Well, we are there by invitation of the Iraqis. We are there to help them defend themselves against enemies like al-Qaida, to train their forces so that they can handle their own security, which they to an increasing degree does. The United States does not want permanent bases in Iraq. But we will help the Iraqis to finish the work they have begun - to build a stable and decent society.

Yeah there are a load of stuff to bite into in that answer (about permanent bases for instance), but… The US are in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi people to help them defend themselves against al-Qaida? Really? I thought you were there to find those WMDs? No wait, sorry, it was to remove Saddam Hussein. No wait, sorry, it was to bring peace and freedom. No wait, sorry…

And that - the statement that the US are in Iraq by invitation from the Iraqis - got no follow up question. Nothing. What kind of a journalist makes stuff like that (and more) just pass by?! (yeah, I know the answer…)

I have a new article up on Amnesty Sweden’s website.

Steven Miles, M.D. works at the University of Minnesota and has written the book Oath Betrayed - torture, medical complicity and the war on terror about how medical personnel has been involved in torture and other human rights violations in the so called “war on terrorism”. My article is based on a lecture that Miles did in Stockholm in April. A shorter version of the article is also published in the new issue of Amnesty Press (#2/08).

(In that issue, there is more from me: a report from Amnesty Sweden’s general meeting 2008 and a book review of Catrin Ormestad’s Gaza - en kärlekshistoria - a highly recommended book!)

I’m sick, feeling like crap and have a book review to work on. I direct you to read this:

Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved ‘Enhanced Interrogation’
Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects

It’s a sad world we’re living in. But I’m just an onlooker from an insignificant country whose cowardly prime minister didn’t dare to raise the question of Guantanamo and other human rights abuses when meeting with Bush because it could “damage relations”.

Wolfrum of Shakesville said:

So is impeachment still off the table? Because the U.S. has been hijacked by bloodthirsty ghouls and cowards. Of course, this report is not unexpected, and will be cheered by the right wing. It actually wouldn’t be that surprising if the White House allowed this story to get out. They’ve softened up the public enough to the idea of torture, after all.

Can someone please explain: a consensual blow-job is grounds for impeachment, war crimes and lies that has killed hundreds of thousands are not? A sad world indeed.

Apparently nipple piercings are the latest weapon al-Qaida. So thinks the American Transportation Security Administration (TSA) anyway.

Hamlin, 37, said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on Feb. 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.

The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin’s chest, the Dallas-area resident said.

Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.

Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.

She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.

“Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her,” said Hamlin’s attorney, Gloria Allred, reading from a letter she sent Thursday to the director of the TSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Liberties. Allred is a well-known Los Angeles lawyer who often represents high-profile claims.

Applying pliers to the torso of a mannequin that had a peach-colored bra with the rings on it, Hamlin showed reporters at the news conference how she took off the second ring.

She said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring.

It’s clear that the male TSA agents, on a stupid power trip, used Hamlin for their own entertainment: A chance to ogle her breasts and snicker at her pain and humiliation. You know, setting off the metal detector should be the cause of a more thorough inspection. As in 1) a hand-held detector (that wand thing they run over your body), 2) a same-sex pat down and finally 3) same sex visual inspection. Once it was clear that the “threat” in this case was nipple piercings, the TSA agents should have apologized for the inconvenience and wished Hamlin a safe journey.

This story begs a lot of questions:
Why did they all have to be there to observe the piercing removal - to defend each other if she were to use her pierced nipple super powers and blow up the airport? Why did they only force her to remove her nipple piercings and not the belly-button ring? Is it a more dangerous threat to air travel safety to have metal in one part of your body than in another? If the nipple piercings were so dangerous, then why was Hamlin allowed to keep the jewelry and carry it on board the plane?

The TSA has said that the agents followed the policy (yeah, right), but that the policy regarding body piercings will now change.

You know, when this type of stuff happens, many people say that the victim should just suck it up and deal. That she or he is making too big a deal out of it. That it probably wasn’t too bad. That we need to accept things like this in order to be Safe^TM. I’ve traveled quite a bit, and have experienced power abuse and violations, although nothing as bad as what Hamlin went through, from security personnel and border agents. Most of the time, we just bow our heads and hold back our anger, relieved to be let into the country or onto the plane. Kudos to Hamlin for standing up for her rights and speaking out!

More about the story from Cara here and here, and at Shakesville here.

I apologize for not doing this yesterday - I had a migraine that threatened to explode my head. So here, one day late, is my Iraq War Blogswarm 2008 contribution. I really want to write something smart, something new, something that sums it all up. But what can I offer? I have never seen war. I type in the comfort of my warm apartment, with snow glistening in the sunshine outside, my breakfast beside me and my loved ones only a simple phone call away. What can I say that isn’t simply platitudes, that isn’t just a reiteration of what so many have said before me, about the lies, the atrocities, the pain and the suffering. My love is coming home tonight, we’re making easter candy. When night falls, we’ll turn on the lights, run water to make tea and then sleep peacefully knowing that nothing bad will happen to us tonight. Half a world away, people are dying, crying, ripped to pieces by shrapnel, humiliated, debilitated. Half a world away, people are lied to, asked to be cannon fodder, asked to lose their lives and limbs for some grand idea, told they are heroes but treated like trash. What can I say?
——————————
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Wilfred Owen (1893-1918)

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the hunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick boys! - An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime…
Dim, through the misty panes of thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, -
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

My gut feeling is to agree with Per Gudmundson in today’s Svenska Dagbladet (and it doesn’t happen often that I agree with their editorials).

Background for non-Swedish readers: a few days ago, the Swedish police performed searches at members of Svenska Motståndsrörelsen, SMR (the Swedish Resistance Movement). Weapons and explosives were found, and three men are detained for illegal possession of weapons and preparation to inflict serious damage (I guess that means blowing stuff up).

SMR is a neo-nazi organization which wants to abolish democracy and create an authoritarian national socialist society, hates Jews, Muslims and homosexuals, and struggles for the ultimate victory of the national socialist ideology and the creation of a new world order. (More in Swedish at Expo here.)

They have organized paramilitary training camps for their members, they idolize people like Hitler (obviously) and William Pierce, they want racial war, obviously store weapons and explosives, and their leader, Klas Lund, has been convicted of bank robbery, assault, illegal possession of firearms and manslaughter.

So, my gut feeling is to agree with Per Gudmundson when he says that the SMR members should be charged using the law on terrorist crime. Because that law says that terrorism is (big disclaimer about me not being a legal expert and knowing how to translate legal text accurately) to seek to “instill grave fear in a population” or “to seriously destabilize basic political, constitutional, economical or social structures in a state”. And that seems to fit pretty nicely with a movement that wants to destroy our society and install a dictatorship.

But.
Just as Svensson, Christian Engström and Mårten Schultz, I think that we should be careful to use the terrorism rubber stamp. Individuals can be guilty of acts of terrorism, but to label a whole movement or organization as “terrorist” is problematic. Especially when the organization or group is incoherent and multifaceted - that may not be the case with SMR, but it is certainly true of other organizations that we, in the era of the “war on terror” have put the terrorist label on.

And, as Christian Engström writes - the law on terrorism has mostly been used against non-Swedish citizens. It has allowed the state to deport them to torture and to freeze their assets, all in breach of human rights and rule of law. Even though it is tempting to put an equal opportunity spin on it and for once use the terrorism law against shiny white very Swedish people, we’d better not. Terrorism can and should be addressed using our perfectly fine “normal” laws.

And I really don’t want something like this in Sweden - The law HR.1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which is being passed in the USA. It defines “homegrown terrorism” as: the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

This is what the American Civil Liberties Union have to say about it (they’re not too excited, as you can imagine). A snippet:

“Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme.”

So true. So even though my gut feeling tells me that of course the SMR members should be tried as terrorists, the implications, real and possible, makes me think that it might not be such a good idea after all.

Today, Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter published a letter to the editor from Shahbaz Khan. He had gone to the bank to open a new account. He writes (my translation):

In the morning, a clerk calls me and asks what country I am from, where I am born and what citizenship I have. I have to give them all this information to open an account. Sweden, I answer to all the questions. ‘I’m sorry, but your name showed up on our list from the EU over terrorist names’, the woman says /…/ The bank does have my personal number*, isn’t that enough? ‘No we don’t use the personal number, we have a list of names that we check’ says the woman. So, if I change my name to Daniel Karlsson, it would be cool? The woman agrees. I can hardly believe it. And if it hadn’t happened to me personally, I would have doubted that it was true. A change of name, and you’re through the net.

So, what kind of “security” is that EU list of terrorist supposed to provide? A false one, it is. If you change your name to Daniel Karlsson, you’re off. Because we can’t start tracking all the Daniel Karlssons now, can we? A terrorist is called Shahbaz. Not Daniel.

Shabaz Khan writes:

Instead of efficient and necessary surveillance to protect the society, broad strokes are drawn all across Sweden and the EU. All of you with a certain name, consider yourself targeted. This is called contraproductivity.
What you are suspected of is not based on your actions, but on your name. You are a suspect, and there is nothing you can do about it. This is hard to swallow in a society that preaches that everyone is judged by their actions.

Indeed.
It should be noted that it is perfectly possible to track all changes of name that Swedish citizens do. The information is there, and we have the technology. But somehow the authorities chose not to. Because it would target, you know, normal people. People with names like Daniel Karlsson. So it is better limited to people like Shahbaz Khan. You know, the terrorists.

*Personal number = a number every Swedish citizen is given, consisting of your date of birth and then four unique digits, such as YYMMDD-XXXX.

/co-written with my husband Markus, who should have a blog of his own, but piggybacks here instead.

So, CIA has admitted that they have used the torture technique known as waterboarding. Of course, they emphasize that it was a long time ago, and only in three cases, and only on the really bad guys. Yeah right. And they admit it on “super Tuesday”, when the news are likely to drown in the flood of primary election frenzy. Hm.
And they “may” use it again.

John McCain, the republican presidential candidate who seems likely to win his party’s nomination, has spoken out against torture. McCain is a Vietnam veteran and was a prisoner of war for over five years. In November 2005, in a piece for Newsweek called “Torture’s terrible toll” he wrote:

Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear-whether it is true or false-if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers’ offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.

About waterboarding, he wrote:

For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called “waterboarding,” where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth-causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn’t, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.

The whole piece is available at Truthout.

In a study from 2007, Metin Basoglu and Maria Livanou from King’s College in London, UK and Serbian psychiatrist Cvetana Crnobaric, asked whether there was any difference between physical and psychological torture. The study is published in Archives of General Psychiatry (payment required to access the article). The subjects, who had experienced torture during the civil war in former Yugoslavia, stated that the worst experiences were fake executions (such as waterboarding - my comment), watching someone you know being tortured, rape, and isolation. A text about the study, in Swedish, is available here.

CIA hasn’t said anything about what kind of “intelligence” they got from waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Nothing about how it averted terror attacks or gave them the location of Osama bin Laden. Maybe all they got was the latest Green Bay Packers lineup.