Finally, abuse has been codified in the US as long as it is not practiced on American citizens. The US Senate has passed controversial legislation endorsing President Bush’s proposals to interrogate and prosecute — “abuse” in other words — foreign terror suspects.
It’s the first time in history that torturing or abusing suspects has been made legal in the American system. It is also the first time a country has violated the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war.
Article 3 of the Geneva Convention prohibits the humiliation of detainees and the abuse of their personal dignity.
This step is considered a dangerous political and ethical deterioration that opens the door to codifying abuse and torture. Others will soon begin to imitate the superpower in a way that will take the world into a new phase of legitimizing human rights abuse.
The legislation is a response to the US Supreme Court ruling in June that the original military tribunals set up by the Bush administration to prosecute detainees were in violation of both US and international law. Detainees the US imprisoned in Guantanamo for many years were abused and tormented throughout the interrogation process. They remained imprisoned without knowing when they would be released or why they were detained.
The US Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that detainees should have the right to challenge their detention and treatment in federal courts.
This decision encouraged lawyers to file 400 lawsuits in courts related to detainees’ rights. It caused much embarrassment to the American administration, especially with looming elections. These cases and lawsuits will surely expose the American administration’s policies in Guantanamo that is something they have tried hard to keep the world uninformed about.
Public opinion never realized the ugliness of official doings that are similar to the scandal of Abu Ghraib and the inhumane things that happened to its prisoners.
The American administration has not followed the procedures of any other democratic civilized country. On the contrary, it created new laws for human rights abuse and violations, which reflected an eccentric situation, imposed on the detainees in what is now labeled the “war on terror.” The administration also benefited from the Republican majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in order to pass this new legislation, which will conceal details of the truth and legalize immoral practices against the detainees whether in interrogation, detention or prosecution. The administration will now be able to drop all the charges and cases filed by detainees in the federal courts.
The new bill maintains the hidden prisons and gives American investigators the privilege of using “rough techniques” in interrogating and questioning non-Americans. Physical abuse is prohibited under any circumstances. But the use of non-harsh familiar “technical equipment” is permitted in order to acquire information, and it will be the American president who will determine what techniques are to be applied.
The White House clarified that part of the permitted procedure is that the court allows detaining the suspects before special military tribunals. However, detainees don’t have the right to appeal in federal courts. The new law also considers reporting, rumors, and statements from people — other than the suspects — as valid if an official in charge of military tribunal approves the statements’ credibility (which is something that regular American courts reject strongly). In other words, the definition of the new law is to give the American authorities full control over suspects and detainees in trials by contravening all legal pledges that would protect them during interrogation and provide them with a fair trial.
It wasn’t an easy thing to do but the American administration has fought a brutal war to pass this law in the past few weeks. People who opposed this bill were civil rights organizations, politicians, and well-known soldiers who warned of the dangers of this project not only as a violation of civil rights but as a corruption of the US’ moral reputation.
By doing this, the US is not only defaming its image and reputation around the world, but also creating a hazardous crack in laws and international conventions. It’s a license for all-powerful countries to violate the laws and conventions and misuse its content for foul purposes.
The American administration’s involvement in this new scandal prompted the former Secretary of State Colin Powell to break his silence and publicly oppose and criticize the proposed rules for the treatment of terrorism suspects. Powell’s opposition marks a rare public break with the administration he left 20 months ago. He said in an interview conducted two weeks ago, “Whether we believe it or not, people are now starting to question if we’re following our own high standards.”
Powell asked the question as to what the American administration would do when Korea or any other country started “clarifying” rules and redefining articles of the Geneva Convention.
According to us, as citizens of the Third World, these new developments are not simply the practice of abuse on or the violation of human dignity of non-Americans. They represent two new trends: First, they codify and legalize the violations and second, they mark the US’ official failure in defending freedom and human rights.
This ugly face of American policy does not hesitate to break all the principles and rules in the worlds of politics, law, and ethics in order to achieve US goals and aims.
Of course we all are familiar with this policy ever since the genocide of the Red Indians and up to the Iraqi invasion — not to mention the disgraceful things that happened in Latin America and US connivance with Israelis in the slaughter and enslavement of the Palestinians.
Now let me tell you something that has a relevance to what is going in the US. The other day I read the transcript of a lecture published by an Egyptian magazine named “Viewpoint” at the beginning of September. The lecture was by the former British Ambassador Craig Murray who spoke about his experiences in Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.
The lecture was in Britain at the University of York and presented a very interesting fact about the American publicity that served the administration of President Islam Karimov.
Karimov is known for his horrible torture techniques and for being one of the world’s most brutal dictators — (the number of political detainees in Uzbekistan is between 10,000 and 40,000).
And because the US has a military base in Uzbekistan, President Karimov is a “contemporary world hero” as described by the American treasury secretary during a visit to Uzbekistan in 2002.
Karimov has also been President Bush’s guest and had tea with him in the White House. Washington provides him with annual financial funds estimated at $500 million. It’s a figure in excess of what the Americans give to all of Western Africa. What caught my attention in the ambassador’s lecture — who was fired because of his accurate but undiplomatic statements — were two important issues. First, he told many truths about foreign countries’ collusion with Uzbekistan and their ignoring the horrible crimes and abuses there just because Karimov is a US ally. Second, Ambassador Murray’s discussions with his American counterpart in Uzbekistan about the horrible abuses in the country.
The American ambassador countered by saying that the US doesn’t abuse prisoners; however, it can’t stop other countries from practicing violence to win the war against terror. In light of the new US code, the American ambassador needs to reconsider his statements.
We in the rest of the world have had to endure many lectures by the Americans on the beauty of freedom and democracy; now it seems, the lecturer has become a member of the abusive states of the modern world.
The Case for Boycotting Vatican
More than 90 international organizations, members of the International Islamic Council for Propagation and Relief, chaired by Sheikh Al-Azhar Tantawi have demanded an apology from Pope Benedict XVI for his anti-Muslim statements.
The foreign ministers of the 56 member-countries of Organization of the Islamic Conference also demanded that the pope withdraw his anti-Islamic remarks.
The International Union of the Muslim Scholars declared that they would not have any relations with the Vatican, its organs or representatives anywhere in the world until the pope changed his stand enabling constructive and earnest dialogue with the Vatican.
In other words, the Muslim world demands a genuine, official and unequivocal apology from the pope, who went further in insulting the Muslims by stating that the Muslims were unable to understand what he meant by his statement. Muslims also insist that the apology should come directly from him, not from anyone else on his behalf.
While the supreme spiritual head of the Catholics in his arrogance and conceit refuses to make any sincere attempt to correct his mistakes, leading Western newspapers have criticized Pope Benedict XVI for some of the actions he took once he succeeded Pope John Paul II. The New York Times described the pope’s charges against Islam as grave and painful while the French newspaper Le Monde said, “Six months after the publication of the caricatures lampooning the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), we hoped that the pope to be moderate in his statements about Islam and not link it with extremism.”
Against the growing anger of the Muslim world, the Vatican was impelled to make the unprecedented move of inviting the ambassadors of 22 Muslim countries to Vatican to meet with the pope in order to mollify the offended Muslim sentiments. The meeting was frustrating. The pope kept on repeating the need for a bridge of friendship and dialogue between religions and civilizations without even alluding to his public statement shaking the very foundations of such a bridge.
There is no point in exacting a reluctant apology from the pope. His past points at his intolerance, bigotry and racism. The best strategy to deal with such a bigoted religious head is by severing all relations including diplomatic ties with the Vatican as long as he continues to be at the helm. I came to this conclusion based on the following factors:
In an article last month (Sept. 20), “Le Monde” said that in his statements abusing Islam Benedict XVI followed a mistaken philosophy in interacting with other religions, particularly Islam which is fundamentally opposite to the course taken by Pope John Paul II.
The French newspaper also made some disclosures that give an insight into the new pope’s approach to Islam. Soon after his investiture as the pope, Benedict XVI dismissed the official in charge of holding dialogues with the Muslims on the charge that he was more lenient than needed. The newspaper said further that the pope used to keep away from the dialogue between religions held in the town of Assizes in Italy, arguing that it threatened the dissolution of the Catholic personality.
The French “TV 2” channel’s correspondent in Rome said the pope himself wrote the provocative speech. The speech did not go through the official channels as is the normal practice in Vatican.
The New York Times reported that it was not for the first time that Benedict displayed his intolerance of Islam. He strongly objected to the Turkish attempt to join the European Union.
The pope refuses to offer an apology to the Muslim world because he believes that he is infallible. The concept of infallibility is a controversial notion held by the Catholic Church.
US President George Bush expressed his appreciation for the pontiff’s attempt to clarify his position with regard to the statement that provoked the Muslims.
The US leader said that the pope’s stand should not be interpreted as a clash between religions. On the other hand it is a clash between the murderers who employ religion as a cover for their crimes and those who believe in peace. No doubt Bush’s statement is an appreciation of the anti-Islamic stance taken by the pope and the neoconservatives’ hatred of Islam.
Pope Benedict XVI hates Islam and Muslims and thus adopts a line that is the very opposite of the policies of his predecessor Pope John Paul II whose moderate views earned respect from the followers of all religions.
An Italian journalist specialized on Vatican affairs, Sandro Magister, said the pope followed an impracticable strategy in his speeches which deprived him of his ability to contact with other religions in contrast to his predecessor Pope John Paul II.
A boycott of the pope would, presumably, bring an end to his bigotry — a bigotry that could lead to more religious clashes that the world does not need.
Dialogue of Civilizations: Good Intention but Bad Timing
Hatem Y. Ezz Eldin, Arab News
Pope Benedict’s recent remarks about Islam and last year’s humiliating cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by a Danish cartoonist coupled with the violence that is spreading throughout the Middle East clearly show that bridges between the Islamic world and the West is not that easy to build. The so-called dialogue of civilizations is hard to achieve; good intentions make people call for such a dialogue but the demand comes at the wrong time.
Before we both sit and discuss the points of discord, we should first take a look at ourselves in the mirror. Does the image we see really represent us?
Since 9/11 the West has been throwing away a lot of precious values it had long been fighting for. The world has been watching with surprise and shock Western elite defending abuse and torture inside an increasing number of detention camps on the pretext of fighting terror and safeguarding the values supposedly under assault from terrorists. We, maybe for the first time, hear about secret trials and oppressive laws formulated in Western capitals. Whenever Western press showed an inclination to attack faith and religious dogmas in the past, Western governments, intellectuals and courts took the lead to stop such irresponsible acts. But now, such irresponsible utterances and writings and heaping insults on other people’s religion and/or culture are being justified in the name of the freedom of expression.
In the past, if you told a Westerner in one of those democratic countries that somebody is eavesdropping his calls he would probably fight to retain his right to privacy. But now people in most democratic countries say it is OK if those I gave my vote and trust eavesdrop my calls — thanks to the war on terror!
Meanwhile, a fake model of democracy, the “tanks democracy”, is being practiced by the West in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. Abuse and threatening policies have become the tools of security for Western governments. Justice has been disregarded and international laws cast to the wind at the UN and elsewhere. These ideas and practices are not genuine as they don’t reflect the liberal West, but unfortunately it is the West itself that has been denying them in its land for so long.
The Islamic world on the other hand looks so different. You can hardly tell whether a Muslim there would condone terror or not against Westerners and Western interests though his government may assure you that fighting terror is their priority. In the past, Muslims used to state their positions clearly and bravely on any issue, but things have changed. For thousands of years, the Middle East has been a very good model for religious tolerance under Islamic laws. Now, Muslim reaction to any sensitive issue is likely to contain violence and threat.
Burning flags and attacking foreign embassies have become common practices.
The West asks: Where is the moderate Muslim we have been continuously told of? Why don’t they stand up and say they are with peace and dialogue? The West is right. Moderate Muslims are contained and silenced, either by overwhelming radical trends or by their oppressive governments.
It is clear that a majority of Muslims are against terrorist crimes, but despondently neither they nor their governments state that position clearly enough. It is their governments’ inefficient policies that allow flow of radicals to Europe and other continents to project Islam in a wrong way to the world, while the rest of Muslims continue to talk about the glory of their past. They opened the space for extremists to appear in live talk show programs to confront and threaten Western ideas and identity. But the West’s abuse of prisoners has been partially responsible for arming criminals with hatred and abhorrence.
If some Muslim governments and people have helped create the violence and extremism they are fighting fiercely now, it is also the Western elite and their supporters who violated values of peace and tolerance the humanity so desperately needs. Both of them are in big trouble now. It is not therefore the time to sit and talk. If we talk now we will shout at each other and we will not hear each other because we are both angry. We need time to correct and regain our genuine and peaceful image.
— Hatem Y. Ezz Eldin, M.A. is a political researcher at Al-Madina newspaper ([email protected])
