open Democracy News Analysis - security briefings - Comments

NYCartist on "Torture revelations provoke controversy in US"

NYCartist — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:49:52 +0100

Center for Constitutional Rights launches a website on US psychologists who were involved in torture and abuse of "detainees"/prisoners. It is announced on the website,
AfterDowningStreet www.afterdowningstreet.org

The CCR's new website is called WhenHealersHarm
http://whenhealersharm.org

A controversy raged a long time in the American Psychological Association over whether or not to say their members should not participate in interrogations at Guantanamo and other places, where US military was
interrogating detainees. It had been done awhile ago by the American Psychiatric Association, but the debate
went a very long time,in the American Psychological Association, which recently ended with "members can't participate" vote. It was covered extensively on the radio/tv show DemocracyNow, which archives shows and transcripts. www.democracynow.org Of particular interest
are the two individuals, men, who designed the "enhanced interrogation techniques", reverse engineering the US program based on the 1950s (I think is date) that was used to train US military on resisting torture,as alleged to have been used on captured US soldiers in Korea, and methods alleged to have been used by the Soviets. The men then sold their program
to the military. One of the men is or was, on the board of the American Psychological Association. It has recently been stated on DemocracyNow, that the US military did not evaluate the program of "enhanced interrogation techniques" these two guys designed and sold them, before using. Jane Mayer covered it extensively and was on DemocracyNow recently with Philippe Sands discussing the torture memos of the Bush Administration. Each author has a book on their perspective of the issues: Mayer on the torture and Sands on the memos.

SamSam on "UN Human Rights chief calls for Sri Lanka inquiry"

SamSam — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:24:53 +0100

Some of the LTTE Killings for the last 30 years

Heads of States killed by LTTE

1 Ranasinghe Premadasa President of Sri Lanka; killed on May 1, 1993 by a suicide bomber
2 Rajiv Gandhi - former Prime Minister of India; killed on May 21, 1991 by suicide bomber Thenmuli Rajaratnam

Members of Sri Lankan parliament killed by LTTE

1 K. Sivanesan TNA MP (Jaffna); killed in a roadside bombing in LTTE -held territory, on March 6, 2008
2 T. Maheshwaran UNP MP; killed in a Hindu temple on January 1, 2008
3 Nadarajah Raviraj TNA MP (Jaffna); killed on November 10, 2006 by unidentified gunmen
4 Joseph Pararajasingham Member of the TNA; December 25, 2005
5 Dr Neelan Thiruchelvam TULF MP killed on July 29, 1999 in Colombo by a suicide bomber
6 Mohammed Maharoof MP killed on July 20, 1997 in Trincomalee
7 Saranabawan Shanmuganathan MP killed on July 15, 1997 in Wanni
8 A Thangadurai MP killed on July 5, 1997 in Trincomalee
9 Dr Gamini Wijesekara UNP MP and Party Secretary; killed on October 24, 1994 by a suicide bomber in campaign rally in Grandpass, Colombo
10 Ossie Abeygunasekara UNP MP; killed on October 24,1994 by a suicide bomber in campaign rally in Grandpass, Colombo
11 P. Kirubakaran MP killed on July 15, 1990 in Pottuvil
12 V.YogasangariEPRLF MP; 19 June 1990
13 Sam ThambimuthuEPRLF MP; 7 May 1990
14 Appapillai Amirthalingam leader of the TULF; killed on July 13, 1989 in Colombo
15 Anura Daniel UNP MP for Kandy shot dead on June 25, 1989 in Thalatuoya
16 V.Yogeswaran TULF MP (Jaffna); July 13, 1989
17 Lionel Jayatilake Minister & UNP MP shot dead on September 26, 1988 in Kuliyapitiya
18 G.V.S. de Silva District Minister & UNP MP for Habaraduwa killed on May 1, 1988 in Galle
19 Keerthi Abeywickrema UNP MP killed on August 18, 1987 in bomb attack on parliament in Jayawardenapura-kotte
20 Jinadasa Weerasinghe UNP MP shot dead on July 20, 1987 in Angunakolapelessa
21 K Alalasundaram MP ; Manipai September 2, 1985
22 Dharmalingam MP; Kopai September 2, 1985

For a complete list please visit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_assassinations_of_the_Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

Check this for Canadian Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s Tamil friend who was killed by LTTE

http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2009/0514/columns/021.html

Jean-François Lassalle on "Iraq slams “criminal” American raid"

Jean-François Lassalle — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:45:11 +0100

Dear Ms Cooper;

In response to your comments about Total’s activities in Sudan, we wish to inform you that Total is inactive in Sudan. Our company holds a 32.5% interest in Block B in Southern Sudan through a 1980 Agreement (the “EPSA”). Exploration operations were suspended in 1985 because of escalating security concerns. The EPSA was revised, effective December 21, 2004, and provided that the parties (the Government of Sudan and the Oil partners) would mutually agree upon a resumption date when the exploration operations could be undertaken. A joint decision on the resumption date has not occurred yet.

Before oil operations can resume on the ground, we feel that it is necessary to reach agreements concerning the oil consortium reorganization and security conditions. We also want to ensure that our potential future exploration operations and possible development operations in Southern Sudan meet our environmental, ethical, community, transparency and, above all, security standards. In the mean time, we supervise and finance socio-eco programs lead by 2 NGOs in favour of local populations in the region of Jonglei.

Regards,

Jean-François Lassalle
Total – E&P Vice President Public Affairs

Iron Mike on "Torture revelations provoke controversy in US"

Iron Mike — Mon, 11 May 2009 15:27:00 +0100

Republicans meanwhile seem likely to continue playing the patriot card. The claim that Democrats and other left-leaning Americans are unpatriotic and do not stand behind the country's armed forces and intelligence services is age-old.

The only thing age old here is the canard of patriotism or lack thereof. Republicans are making a reasonable request for the "transparency" promised by the Obama administration. Dems consistently beat their chest against a strawman critique that exists only in their own minds as a deflection from the truth.

Releasing half the story of enhanced interrogation may be good to advance a political agenda, but does little for evaluating the truth. If, as Cheney claims, the additional memos correlate actionable intelligence that resulted in aborted terrorist operations, doesn't the public have a right to know in order to weigh the relative value of enhanced interrogation? Isn't the truth required in order to make an informed decision? Or is truth the first casualty of politics?

Anthony Barnett on "Pressure mounts on Israel as it rejects NPT"

Anthony Barnett — Sat, 09 May 2009 11:20:39 +0100

Great security alert. I didn't know about the Biden speech. But the video clip does not include the passage you refer to, and I wanted to hear the audience response!

Goerge Washington on "Pressure mounts on Israel as it rejects NPT"

Goerge Washington — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:30:40 +0100

George Washington on Israel

"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ~George Washington Farewell Address

"The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interests." ~ George Washington

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Kumar Nathan on "Sri Lanka continues bombing of "safe zone" "

Kumar Nathan — Mon, 04 May 2009 10:26:37 +0100

Dear Sir

I am the author of the following article first published in a Sri lankan newspaper. 'mawbima Lanka'.

The URL is http://www.mawbimanews.com/2009/04/point-of-view-by-peace-loving-sri.html

I wrote this article from my personal experience and to give a balanced view of Sri Lankan Tamil problems. Recent days, there is a lot of awareness due to the war, one should understand the causes and how the Tamils ended up in the present disaster. Therefore, I would be happy, if you could publish all or parts of this article to the readers of your newspaper,.

I can be contacted by email sa863@hotmail.com

Thank you
Kind regards
Kumar Nathan

abuelita42pj on "Torture revelations provoke controversy in US"

abuelita42pj — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:00:49 +0100

Please do not believe everything Dick Cheney tells Fox News or any other TV Channel or group he speaks to. If NY Times was correct this past weekend, Dick Cheney requested those papers over a month ago--long before he or Obama said anything about CIA/military memos. He wanted them to write his memoir, not to bash Obama or Democrats--though he'll gladly do so whenever possible.

He's a hypocrite and has been since he left home about 50 years ago.

deteodoru on "Obama faces resistance in Europe over Afghanistan policy"

deteodoru — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 23:49:52 +0100

http://www.ww4report.com/node/6943

A rather interesting analysis above raises the issue of the Bush Administration's role in Central Asia. It was really a Bush Administration imperial crime on top of an imperial grab by the Clinton Administration. President Obama inherits a most shameful post Cold War Great Grab for oil and gas rich Central Asia. Our nation now is attempting to hold Afghanistan which is nothing but a cork to the Islamic spread throughout the South and Central Asian regions. Therein lays a severely sticky and high traction momentum for which Clinton and Bush must hold personal responsibility. The feebleness of Russia under Yeltsin permitted Western avarice to become paroxysmal. In particular, the American right-wing "wrecking crew" so well described in recent literature accelerated libertine expression of this corporate avarice to a point of utter recklessness.

Defensive reactions were inevitable. Firstly, alQaeda entered the negotiating realm with an Islamo-ideologic argument based on the role of Islamic religion to Soviet anti-ecclesiastic campaign. It can be factually argued that, not President Reagan, but the Muslims of the USSR defeated the Soviet Union. The CIA's role was as a limitless supplier of arms and cash only. alQaeda had argued that the Islamic Revolution of Afghanistan must be advanced "Westward" as well as Southeastward into India. The Taliban bought into the transnational argument of binLaden. But we were fraudulently presented with the "westward" argument as defining attacking Europe and the US when in fact the target was Central and South Asia. At first, Saudi Arabia and Iran fully supported the anti-Soviet Afghan War. China-- which has long been fighting the Uygur Muslim nationalists in Sinkiang Province, nevertheless, supported Muslim Pakistan as the bridgehead to dismembering of India, its main Asian enemy.

Since the 1980s we have witnessed a Sunni-Shia unity directed from Teheran that undermined the Egyptian and Saudi governments. These in turn supported Saddam Hussein as a transition to Islamism. Perceiving the Iranian Iean-to-Iraq collaboration to destroy the Western economic hold in the Middle East, the US worked a wedge war between Baghdad and Teheran. This drained American power out of South Asia (Afghanistan). The EU was well aware that the "western" target of the Muslims was limited to the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia and insisted on maintaining emphasis on diplomatic efforts in the Middle East on the promise of an Iraq-Iran switch from the perto$ to the Euro would enrich its European members. The Bush Administration, without any logical reason expected that as US troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan the European would be forced to fill the void. But just as they favored on-intervention in Iraq they felt no need to invade Afghanistan. Such expectation from NATO only exposes the utter illusion of dominion that the Bush Administration felt it had over Europe.

Bush Administration reckless bully diplomacy forced a Russo-Chinese collaboration, the Shanghai Accord, which on the surface pretends to be only a trade accord but is in fact a security pact created by Moscow in response to the Chinese panic over pre-9/11 US policy to surround China. Over the post 9/11 years, the Bush Administration was skillfully maneuvered, dissipating the credibility of its bully threats, so that now the Shanghai Accord extends to Central and Mainland Asia, including India, Pakistan, Iran and all the Central Asian states. Admittedly this construction is still amorphous and a work in progress suffering much internal contradictions. But it is a means to an end that is united on one point only: the US cannot be allowed to dominate Afghanistan. Despite their opposition to each other, the Shanghai Accord members have a common goal of keeping Afghanistan as a means of exasanguinating US power while never allowing a resolution by the US and US withdrawal. A sort of "1984" Russo-Asian Bloc is standing against the even weaker western US-EU Bloc that seeks domination of Afghanistan to cut off Asian influence over Central Asia, leaving a weak Russia alone as an easy Western barrier to Western corporate domination of Central Asia. Alas, the Shanghai Accord surrounds Afghanistan, the EU sees no reason to lose more wealth and lives there and the US is exasanguinating hopelessly alone because it cannot afford to invest the massive effort required to dominate that vast mountainous nation. The crux of the matter is that America is finding itself abandoned by NATO and alone in Central-South Asia and can only stay there if manipulated to Shanghai Accord interests because the American economy is dependent on its Shanghai Accord bankers. The range of options permitted the US because of the internal contradictions of the Shanghai Accord does not range to include any prospect of successful elimination of the Taliban.

It has been propagandized by right-wing Republicans that if the US withdraws it will betray the women of Afghanistan. Videos of a 13 y/o girl whipped for taking to a boy is used to make the case. But if one were to consider the violation of women's rights in India, Pakistan and China--America's illusory allies and bankers-- the entire case seems utterly hypocritical. It seems utterly irresponsible for the United States-- much like the late Roman Empire-- to waste its volunteer army under incompetent command in areas where victory is beyond their abilities and the investment of resources required far beyond what the American people are willing to invest. It is true that, in the absence of conscription, most Americans care so little for the lives of the heroic soldiers in the field that staying in the fight will be supported when contraposed with defeat-- a position would never have been accepted had we drawn the troops through universal draft. But the material costs will soon sour the US public to this incredibly poorly fought war, almost as bad as the Soviet effort. By then, this grossly mishandled "Bush's War" will have become "Obama's War," leaving him to bear responsibility for the withdrawal in defeat that is inevitable. It will be like blaming an operation botched by a lead surgeon on the one who sutures the wound because the patient died while the latter was closing.

Nevertheless, Americans traditionally avoid learning from the past. Too many defeats have been wiped from analytic memory in shame and a desire to maintain the illusion of military omnipotence. Like the Israeli army, the American military pretends that the incompetence of its command is not the issue and that the growing competence of its opponents can never match its own.

So what would happen if the US withdrew from Afghanistan?

First and foremost, let us recall that the real concern of Americans is that the Islamic struggle would then pour out of Afghanistan to flood Pakistan. In retort, let us recall that a) Pakistan's original involvement with the Taliban is because of the latter's strategic importance in its endless war with India. India is attempting an end-run around Pakistan by exploiting economic relations with non-Taliban Afghan tribes. That forces Pakistan to stand with the Taliban at cost of the Taliban having created a Pakistani Islamist Taliban to overthrow the secular Pakistani government and establish the first nuclear Sharia. India's hope is that in this way it convinces the US/EU alliance to dismember Pakistan and return it to Indian rule, as it had been under British colonialism. Seeking depth, Pakistan cannot afford to succumb to Western demands that it be engulfed by India while Pakistan serves as the staging base for a Western defeat of Afghanistan’s Pashtuns. This Indian scheme, however, would never be allowed by China because Pakistan is the most critical ally of China in Asia and the sole barrier between Western China-- where Muslim resistance is a problem-- and India. Pakistan is also China's Southern port outlet and inlet for its Mideast oil. And, Pakistan is the best means China has of putting pressure on India in the economic-strategic competition between the two states. b) The bonds of the Shanghai Accord constitute a complex balance between all its members. That is why there is little formal organizational rigidity in it except for economic processes; that is why it is misread as an economic accord. That strategic flexible balance becomes far more stressed and at the same time far more necessary to all its members if the US withdraws from Central Asia so that no one wins and no one loses. And, as the region ceases to be a war zone resisting Western imperialism, these internal contradictions become increasingly prominent, causing these nations to resort to complex diplomacy rather than combat. Also, many of these contradictions can only be ameliorated by economic ties to the West as none of the members can really dominate nor satisfy the needs of each member.

American presence in the area will only polarize the locals as more and more non-combatant "collateral damage" results from defensive American/NATO action. NATO can destroy itself, overcome by its inadequacy in Afghanistan, as opposed to its orderly operation as a European Defense Structure only. The Shanghai Accord needs only operate as an opportunity to Central/South Asian states seeking a bypass of American power, as the above article seems to imply.

Obama has very little time to bite the bullet. As the Iraq War ends muddled and unresolved, his presidency cannot afford Afghanistan also ending as HIS failure. His only hope is to transfer the whole problem to the Shanghai Accord where it will forever be entangled in the Accord's fluidity where no one loses, no one wins. It has been mendaciously put forward by VP Cheney, Rumsfeld (though now he dares no longer speak as recklessly as before), Rove and several FOXNEWS Republican propagandists that if we withdraw from Afghanistan we will again face a repeat of 9/11. What they fail to truthfully admit is that post-9/11 Bush mendaciously covered for the airline companies that had violated laws established during the 1970s when the US faced multiple skyjackings. It was decreed at the time that all airlines would be provided a locked impenetrable pilot's cabin and two sky marshals would be put on every plane. But because of cheap fares competition all the airlines violated this law. As a result, Jihadi shahids looking for a way to try again to destroy the World Trade Center and to do damage to Wash DC government buildings, while riding First Class cross country, discovered that the pilot's cabin is never locked. Thus, on 9/11, four aircrafts were completely taken over within ten minutes each. Unless we repeat this gross negligence, such conversion of airlines into missiles will never again occur. To say, therefore, that 9/11 happened, because Afghanistan was a "rogue" state controlled by the Taliban, we suffered 9/11 is a gross lie. It happened because security LAWS WERE DISOBEYED. I can only conclude that utterly irresponsible political opportunists are making the current Republican case. For had Afghanistan been so important, Bush would have held to his refusal to cannibalize the Afghan War in order to present Congress with a fait accompli in Iraq, as proposed by Rumsfeld, wherein US troops in battle could not be refused funding.

Americans as a people cannot pretend that the past does not exist and that they, therefore, do not have to face its consequences. The US had its chance to deal with the Islamic Jihad and totally failed. This fact cannot be erased with mechanized killing of Muslims using remote controlled drones guided by platoons on the ground. This nation is exsanguinating its young men and resources, manipulated by nations that have no match in force but are endowed far greater ability in diplomacy and "stratergerizing." Obama cannot be a repeat of corrupt Bush II. He must courageously face the amputation required to avoid the systemic infection that the Soviet Union faced after its defeated veterans returned from Afghanistan. Those returned PTSD victims, the maimed and the families of the dead are Bush's victims. Soon they will be Obama's. His only hope is to dare to do the right thing now and not wait for some miraculous "Dayton Accord" illusion.

Daniel E. Teodoru

siobhan mckenna on "Continuity IRA claim responsibility for second shooting"

siobhan mckenna — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:33:08 +0000

"alleged oppressive measures by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and British Army." - there was nothing ALLEDGED about 30 yeras of ruthless oppression and collusion.

roiman on "Continuity IRA claim responsibility for second shooting"

roiman — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:01:04 +0000

Theres not going to be a `united Ireland` because the majority of people in the Republic don`t want Northern Ireland.Its a bit like asking South Africa to unite with Zimbabwe.Southerners won`t pay the huge taxes that would need to be raised to support 1.7 million mostly council tenants the majority of which get at least some benefits such as tax credits etc.They are also accustomed to free medical treatment -there is no free NHS in the Republic.

Ian O'Flynn on "Continuity IRA claim responsibility for second shooting"

Ian O'Flynn — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:31:33 +0000

Martin McGuinness is not "the deputy first minister of Ireland". He is the deputy first minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

It is probably true that "Any large-scale deployment of the British military would be likely to spread dissatisfaction among more moderate Republicans who still harbour resentment of alleged oppressive measures by the Royal United Constabulary and British Army." However, the real worry is that the presence of British troops would refocus attention on the vital question that lies at the heart of the conflict, namely, should Northern Ireland remain part of the United Kingdom or should it become part of a united Ireland? One of the great achievements of the Belfast Agreement was to put that question into cold storage, so to speak. Recent events threaten that achievement; indeed, they were probably designed with precisely that intention in mind.

roiman on "Continuity IRA claim responsibility for second shooting"

roiman — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:51:45 +0000

They were not removed from anywhere.The 26 counties seceded to form the Free State later to become the Irish Republic.

BigC on "Continuity IRA claim responsibility for second shooting"

BigC — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:34:46 +0000

It's 3 counties. Cavan is also an Ulster county. They had to be removed in order to ensure a Unionist majority

e_hruk on "Continuity IRA claim responsibility for second shooting"

e_hruk — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:16:20 +0000

Does RUC is stand for Royal United Constabulary?

I assumed it was the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Unfortunate that 2 counties of Ulster, Donegal and Monaghan is in the Republic of Ireland and have its own police force, called Garda or An Garda Siochana.