Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

[Cross posted at E-Bangladesh and Daily Kos]

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson

Earlier this week CSB, the only private 24-hour news channel in Bangladesh, was shut down without notice by the military government, allegedly for having filed a "forged" document last year in its application for frequency allocation. This shutdown came on the heels of warnings from the military government that the news channel stop showing "any provocative news, documentaries, talk shows and discussions against the government." The warnings came after television news in Bangladesh showed footage of nationwide anti-government protests. The action against CSB, condemned by Reporters Without Borders, and the intimidation and beatings of other journalists, students, and professors are part of a larger effort by the military government of Bangladesh to suppress dissent.

Ever since it dismantled democracy in Bangladesh earlier this year, intimidation and threats by the military regime have not been limited to within the borders of Bangladesh. Last week an article in the Bengali language newspaper Ittefaq, owned by the military government’s Information Advisor Mainul Hosein, reported that Bangladeshi intelligence agents had been dispatched to the United States to collect information on pro-democracy protesters. The article declared:

It has been learned that a list is being prepared of those who are protesting the arrest and demanding the release of those arrested in Bangladesh for corruption, nepotism and massive looting with abuse of state power. In addition effective measures have been taken to identify the source of funds, the financiers and patrons of these protest events. Three officials from a special law enforcement agency of Bangladesh have already arrived in New York on a special mission. These intelligence agents are contacting professional, political and community leaders and are collecting from various sources the names-addresses as well as the immigration status of the organizers of these protests. According to a reliable source in the Bangladesh embassy in Washington, it will not be at all difficult for the intelligence agents to track a handful of expatriate Bangladeshis. Full details of these protesters will be sent to airports and respective police stations in Bangladesh. The same source also informs us that naturalized American citizens will also not be spared as their photo along with video footage will be sent to special law enforcement agencies in Bangladesh. In addition, those expatriates who under the banner of news agencies, and without any basis and with ill motive, write in our local newspapers inflammatory and negative stories that damage the image of our country will also be tracked. [translation based on Rumi Ahmed] 

A similar report appeared in Jonomot, a weekly Bengali language newspaper published in London, England. The report in Jonomot claimed that a similar intelligence team had been dispatched to the United Kingdom to collect information on protesters there.

The report in a major Bangladeshi newspaper, Ittefaq, has already had a chilling effect amongst Bangladeshi expatriates and expatriate bloggers. However, this report is only the latest attempt at intimidation of bloggers and pro-democracy protesters of Bangladeshi origin. Last month, I co-authored an op-ed that examined the increasing relevance of expatriate Bangladeshis. It appeared in the leading Bangladeshi English language newspaper Daily Star. Three days later another op-ed appeared in the same newspaper that accused the same expatriates of "defaming" Bangladesh from the "immunity" of foreign safe havens and urged the Bangladesh government to put an end to these protests:

The most prominent exports from Bangladesh are readymade garments and workers. They contribute to the economy and are appreciated as the key force behind the engine of growth for the country. Less know is a third export from Bangladesh, its politics. This export costs the country its image in the international community and can be a source of embarrassment both for the government as well as other Bangladeshi migrants abroad.

Taking advantage of their immunity in the secure environment of faraway lands, Bangladeshi expatriates have become more active than the political activists within the country. They are holding demonstrations, lobbying leaders of various countries, demanding release of those arrested in Bangladesh, and even threatening to stop the flow of remittance to the country if their demands are not met. They have been successful in extracting statements of support from some second-string American, Australian, and British politicians and officials in support of their demands.

…

The majority of expatriate Bangladeshis are looking forward to the prohibition of these self-seeking politicians who exploit Bangladesh and harm its image for their selfish interest. If they really want to contribute to Bangladesh, they should return to the country and work under the same conditions as other leaders do. It is unlikely that these people will leave their life of comfort in foreign countries and suffer the hardship of politics in a developing country. Therefore, it will be good to see the government succeed in putting a stop to this undesirable trend. Every migrant carries Bangladesh in their heart, but this does not give them a right to defame the motherland and embarrass fellow Bangladeshi migrants.

Indeed Bangladeshi expatriate lobbying may have contributed to a letter being sent by 15 prominent and bipartisan US senators, including Hillary Clinton and Richard Lugar, to the military government in Bangladesh urging it to lift the state of emergency in Bangladesh and restore democracy. In a show of Orwellian chutzpah another newspaper owned by the military regime’s Information Advisor declared that the letter from the US senators was a hoax.

Earlier in the year, other bloggers and I were threatened for taking part in an international campaign to protest the Bangladesh military’s detention and torture of journalist Tasneem Khalil.

The latest report in the Ittefaq serves to further intimidate those in the West who are protesting the Bangladesh military government’s suppression of fundamental rights. If the report is correct and Bangladesh has indeed dispatched intelligence agents to the United States to spy on Bangladeshi nationals and US citizens of Bangladeshi origin, it is almost certainly a violation of US laws. The United States government should take immediate steps to protect the rights of its citizens against foreign government spying.

It seems that what the Bangladesh military government fears is freedom of expression. It beats students because they protest. It beats and tortures reporters for reporting on those protests. It shuts down television stations for showing footage of protests. It intimidates and threatens newspaper editors in Bangladesh. It detains and tortures university protesters. It locks up over 250,000 of its own citizens without charge. It carries out a political purge under the guise of an "anti-corruption" drive. While it suspends all fundamental rights, it declares that its goal is to return Bangladesh to democracy by the end of 2008.

Protest and dissent are fundamental to the health of a democracy. It is again Orwellian to suggest that this military regime aims to bring democracy to Bangladesh while it actively works to suppress the very pillars that prop up a democratic culture. As it snuffs out dissent and fundamental rights, it uses fear tactics on those who speak out against these acts of suppression. The military regime would be well advised to understand that it is not the reporting of human rights that is the crime; it is the violation of human rights that is the crime. It is the violation of human rights that defame the image of Bangladesh, not the reporting of them.

It is cowardice to try to silence those who protest against human rights violations. It shows the weakness of the regime. When the Bangladesh military beat unarmed students and reporters, they beat them because the students and reporters exposed the weakness of the regime.

I will not be silenced. I am just one blogger, but there are many like me. While I sit under the comfort, and yes the protection, of the United States Constitution, there are many who are today taking enormous risks from within Bangladesh reporting to the world about the human rights violations taking place there. I will not be silent and allow the military government in Bangladesh to snuff out those voices from within Bangladesh. As I’ve written before, silence is complicity.

A generation ago, Robert Kennedy spoke for those who had no voice. He said:

It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

One hundred and fifty million people today are living under the gun in Bangladesh. I will not remain silent and watch the world turn away.

[Cross posted at E-Bangladesh]

On August 26, the British High Commissioner to Bangladesh, Anwar Choudhury, apparently went off the reservation. After meeting with the foreign advisor in Dhaka Mr. Choudhury was the only foreign envoy to face the media. He apparently had a lot to say.

He described the protests and riots last week in Bangladesh as something "sinister". The Daily Star quoted him as follows:

"Our assessment from what we have heard is that it was initially spontaneous and then it was not. It became much more than the incident. It soon became something much bigger, something much sinister," said Anwar to the media, adding, "A lot of money and coordination came into the equation."

…

The Bangladeshi-born British envoy added, "Most neutral people could not understand why the escalation went into that dimension and that has caused a lot of question marks among the people."

…

Anwar said Britain’s assessment that the incidents were coordinated, stemmed from the fact that the demonstrations continued even after the government had issued an apology and met the students’ initial demands by withdrawing the army camp from the Dhaka University campus. [Emphasis added.]

It is striking that the High Commissioner makes the bombshell claim, a day after the Bangladesh army chief made the same claim, that "a lot of money and coordination" was involved and the protests had become something "sinister". He claims that his government’s "assessment" is based on the fact that the demonstrations continued even after the government apology and the withdrawal of the army camp. There is a giant leap from the High Commissioner’s observation to his claim. If indeed the High Commissioner has not gone off the reservation and was representing the position of the British government, it is incumbent on the United Kingdom to back up Mr. Choudhury’s claim with some evidence. Otherwise the British government is simply spinning conspiracy theories into a cauldron that is already spilling over with rumor and innuendo.

The High Commissioner went on to comment on the detention of five prominent university professors:

Asked about the detained university teachers, Anwar quoted Iftekhar as saying that the government will release those detained individuals who will be found not connected to last week’s incidents, but it will spare no one connected.

It is notable that a diplomatic envoy from the United Kingdom did not take the opportunity to raise concerns for the safety of the detained professors - especially after news reports from the previous day about allegations that at least on of the professors was tortured. Instead, he sounded like a Bangladesh military government spokesman when he echoed the Bangladesh foreign advisor that the government will "spare no one connected".

When asked for comments on the harassment and beating of journalists Mr. Choudhury’s stance was even more alarming:

The British envoy also condemned the reported harassment and beatings of journalists and called for an investigation, but added that the media could have exercised ‘restraint’ in their coverage for the sake of progress of the country.

Pressed for comments on the beatings and harassment of journalists by law enforcers during and between the curfews, Anwar said, "I condemn the incidents. I am really sorry to hear about that, I wish those didn’t take place. I hope the authorities will look into it and take action."

But, when asked about the requests for ’self-censorship’, Anwar said the media was allowed to be ‘very free’ since the state of emergency had been declared. "All parties should act responsibly so the country can progress. So if you [the media] exercise restraint then it might also contribute to the country’s progress," he added. [Emphasis added.]

Mr. Choudhury’s comments were not made in a vacuum. Human Rights Watch has protested the intimidation and torture of journalists by this military government. Reports of the beating and arrests of journalists are widespread and television stations have been directly threatened by this government. The Committee to Protect Journalists has expressed serious concern about restrictions on the media in Bangladesh. In light of the military government’s suppression of the news media, the British High Commissioner’s comments urging the media to show "restraint" will only add international sanction to the stifling of freedom of expression in Bangladesh.

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Mr. Choudhury’s employer, takes an uncompromising stand against torture and against the suppression of freedom of expression. Regarding torture, the FCO states on its website:

Torture is one of the most abhorrent violations of human rights and human dignity. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Yet torture continues to be inflicted on men, women and children around the world.

International action against torture has been a priority of the Government since the launch of the UK Anti-Torture Initiative in 1998. The Government’s position on torture has always been very clear. We unreservedly condemn its use as a matter of fundamental principle. The UK is committed to combating torture globally, and continues to implement an active campaign to help eradicate it. The UK is one of the most active countries in the world on this subject. We continue to work hard with our international partners to eradicate this abhorrent practice. This includes efforts to strengthen UN and other international mechanisms, diplomatic activity such as lobbying, and funding project work. [Emphasis added.]

Regarding freedom of expression, the FCO website quotes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and states:

‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through and media and regardless of frontiers.’

- Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Freedom of expression and opinion is a foundation without which many other basic human rights cannot be enjoyed. Allowing people to publicly investigate and report on human rights abuses makes it much harder for those responsible for them to hide behind a veil of silence and ignorance. Similarly freedom of expression makes a valuable contribution to other key areas of concern – good governance, rule of law and democracy. The media has a vital role in scrutinising and evaluating the actions of government, forcing them to manage resources and set policies in a transparent and equitable way. And without journalists having the right to report on court cases and legal judgements, it would be much harder to guarantee an independent and fair judicial process. Finally, the ability to hold, exchange and challenge the opinions of yourself and others is a necessary component of a functioning democracy.

Governments have a duty to eliminate barriers to freedom of expression and information, and to create an environment in which free speech and free media flourish. Media professionals should be able to work freely without fear of intimidation, violence or imprisonment. Sadly, there are still many countries around the world in which governments stifle dissent and criticism or fail to prevent other groups from targeting the media. A free and independent media requires governments to provide a fair and transparent regulatory environment, an equitable distribution of broadcasting frequencies and opportunities for all sections of society to access and contribute to the media. [Emphasis added.]

The British government’s commitment to human rights is laudable. The British government has made "human rights a central theme" of its foreign policy and has taken the view that human rights are universal. When the British High Commissioner to Bangladesh claims to speak for the British government and fails to raise concerns about allegations of torture, when the High Commissioner encourages press censorship by asking the press to show "restraint" in their reporting in the face of mass protests in the country and a government crackdown, when the High Commissioner spins conspiracy theories as the Bangladeshi military government uses those same theories to crack down on its citizens, the British High Commissioner - and by extension the British government - is promoting the suppression of human rights, by its own definition.

The British government must clarify whether their man in Dhaka, Mr. Anwar Choudhury, speaks for the government or has indeed gone off the reservation.

On March 12, 2006 a 14-year-old Iraqi girl named Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi was brutally gang raped and murdered in the village of Mahmoudiya. Members of her family, including her 5-year-old sister were also murdered. Five American soldiers stand accused of these heinous crimes. The preliminary hearing for four of the accused soldiers is currently taking place in Iraq.

CNN reported on the graphic testimony earlier today in an article on its website. However, something was curiously absent from the coverage. Below is a screen shot from CNN’s report:

Notice the caption under the picture: "Steven Green is alleged to have shot and killed the woman’s relatives, raped the victim, then fatally shot her." Since when have you heard of a 14-year-old being referred to as a "woman"? In fact, this article never once refers to Abeer as a "girl", instead referring to her as "an Iraqi" or a "woman". Only toward the end of the article do we learn that:

Identity cards and death certificates obtained by Reuters news agency suggest the rape-murder victim was 14 years old.

And further down still:

The identity cards and death certificates of the victims, obtained by Reuters, show that the alleged rape victim was Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, with the birthdate August 19, 1991. The mayor of Mahmoudiya confirmed her identity and birthdate to CNN.

The U.S. military had previously referred to the alleged rape victim as a "young Iraqi woman." A Justice Department affidavit in the case against Green says investigators estimated her age at about 25, while the U.S. military said she was 20.

Thank you CNN for some excellent reporting!

CNN also filed a second story on the hearing this evening. This time someone at CNN figured out that a 14-year-old is not a woman. Here’s a screen shot from the second article from CNN:

This time Abeer is referred to as a "girl" all throughout the article. In fact the contrast between the first and the second articles could not be greater. (Someone still forgot to update the caption under the photo).

It appears that by the second story editors at CNN may have decided to give up trying to spin this story. This crime is so heinous that no amount of lipstick will pretty up the facts.

Try as it might, CNN failed to capture the ambience at the hearing. Reuters reports on the seriousness of the proceedings:

Defense Attorney Captain Jimmie Culp was blowing chewing gum bubbles while Yribe, sitting to his left, began sucking on a red lollipop during the testimony.

Apparently testimony about the brutal rape and murder of a child is best enjoyed with bubble gum and lollipops.

Hearts and minds. No doubt CNN was thinking about hearts and minds when it massaged the facts just a bit in the first story of the day. Considering the levity at the hearing and the willingness of the media to shape the story, I wonder if the Iraqis think that they will ever get any justice from the Americans.

According to Human Rights Watch, the Bush Administration has operated a secret prison near Kabul, Afghanistan since 2002. The secret prison is affectionately known as "The Dark Prison". It has served as the drop off point for detainees captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East. Detainees are introduced to the art of torture here before being shipped off to other secret CIA torture stations or to Guantanamo Bay. The Dark Prison is the halfway house of the torture world. They practice the kinder gentler version of torture at The Dark Prison, leaving the more esoteric forms of torture to the more permanent CIA black sites.

The authorized kinder gentler torture techniques practiced by the CIA include (in increasing levels of discomfort):

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

These authorized techniques combine with creative freelance techniques to give The Dark Prison its reputation. Human Rights Watch has documented reports from detainees who have been guests there:

The detainees said U.S. interrogators slapped or punched them during interrogations. They described being held in complete darkness for weeks on end, shackled to rings bolted into the walls of their cells, with loud music or other sounds played continuously. Some detainees said they were shackled in a manner that made it impossible to lie down or sleep, with restraints that caused their hands and wrists to swell up or bruise. The detainees said they were deprived of food for days at a time, and given only filthy water to drink.  

…

It was pitch black no lights on in the rooms for most of the time…. They hung me up. I was allowed a few hours of sleep on the second day, then hung up again, this time for two days. My legs had swollen. My wrists and hands had gone numb…. There was loud music, [Eminem’s] “Slim Shady” and Dr. Dre for 20 days…. [Then] they changed the sounds to horrible ghost laughter and Halloween sounds. [At one point, I was] chained to the rails for a fortnight…. The CIA worked on people, including me, day and night…. Plenty lost their minds. I could hear people knocking their heads against the walls and the doors, screaming their heads off.

On the upside, no detainee claimed to have been kept at the facility for longer than six weeks. The other benefit of being in The Dark Prison is that it is convenient to the airport:

Most of the detainees said they were arrested in other countries in Asia and the Middle East, and then flown to Afghanistan. Detainees who arrived by airplane said they were driven about five minutes from a landing field to the prison. Afghan guards told some of them that the facility was located near Kabul. Some detainees who were kept at the facility were transferred at various times to and from another secret facility near Kabul. The detainees said they were later transferred to the main U.S. military detention facility near Bagram, where many other Guantánamo detainees say they were initially held.  

The downside of course is that if you are unlucky to be an inmate at The Dark Prison, you are likely at the beginning of a long journey that will be punctuated by torture and more torture at other facilities around the world. You will either be "disappeared" or find yourself in Guantanamo Bay.

There is some speculation that The Dark Prison may have been closed in late 2004 in favor of the better-equipped facility in Bagram, Afghanistan. Nevertheless, this facility remains as another dark spot in the tortured legacy of George W Bush and his Administration.

When the Bush Administration has been relegated to the dustbin of history, we will look back at facilities like The Dark Prison and Abu Ghraib with shame and disgust. We will look back at this time in history as the period when America misplaced its humanity.

[Cross posted at Bloggers Against Torture]

"Outlawed" is a video created by WITNESS and tells the story of torture and extraordinary rendition practiced by the Bush Administration. According to WITNESS:

"Outlawed: Extraordinary Rendition, Torture and Disappearances in the ‘War on Terror’" tells the stories of Khaled El-Masri and Binyam Mohamed, two men who have survived extraordinary rendition, secret detention, and torture by the U.S. government working with various other governments worldwide. "Outlawed" features relevant commentary from Louise Arbour, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, U.S. President George W. Bush, Michael Scheuer, the chief architect of the rendition program and former head of the Osama Bin Laden unit at the CIA, and Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. Secretary of State.

WITNESS is a human rights organization founded by Peter Gabriel that documents human rights abuses by using the power of video. I received a copy of this video when I attended the Extraordinary Rendition and Torture Teach-in at Georgetown University Law Center last month. It was an event organized by Amnesty International and others as part of Torture Awareness Month.

[Cross posted at Bloggers Against Torture]

[Hat tip to Beagle for bringing this to my attention in a comment.]

The Pakistan High Commission in London confirmed, on the day a protest was scheduled at its doorstep, that Mirza Tahir Hussain’s execution has been stayed again for another month. He is now scheduled to be executed on September 3.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf should, instead of torturing Mr. Hussain and his family with one-month stays of execution, do the right thing and pardon this man.

According to The Guardian:

The Pakistani high commission in London today confirmed reports that a British man being held on death row in Pakistan has been granted a stay of execution.

Mirza Tahir Hussain, 36, has spent half his life in jail awaiting execution after being convicted of the murder of a taxi driver in 1988 - a crime he has always maintained he did not commit.

Despite the Pakistani high court clearing his name in 1996 an Islamic court took over his case and reaffirmed the death sentence.

 

This morning, as 150 demonstrators gathered at the Pakistani high commission in London, Mahmood Ahmed, an official at the Adiala jail in Islamabad said he had received an order from the Pakistan president, General Pervez Musharraf, on Wednesday to postpone Mr Hussain’s execution until September 1.

 

Mr Hussain’s brother condemned President Musharraf for "playing a game of cat and mouse" with his brother’s life.

"We did not ask for a further stay of execution," Mr Hussain said. "We asked for President Musharraf to pardon my brother, or commute his sentence."

He said that the stay of execution was "prolonging the agony" of the family.

Sarah Green from Amnesty International said that the campaign group was deeply suspicious of the timing of the announcement.

"It’s worrying that the family were not told first, and that the news was given directly to journalists," she said.

"It reflects the way this case has happened and we suspect the information on the reprieve was given out in the hope that the protestors will go away."

Officials at the Pakistani high commission had earlier refused to confirm that Mr Hussain had been granted another month to live.

Click here to read the article in its entirety. Click here for background on his case.

Alan Dershowitz says that civilians in Lebanon are not "civilians" like civilians in Israel. Civilians in Lebanon, according to Dershowitz, must be graded on a sliding scale of terroristness or "the continuum of civilianality." Dershowitz’s argument is the same tired argument used by tyrants and murderers all throughout history. Dershowitz is in notorious company. He can count his peers as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussain and Pol Pot.

Mr. Dershowitz, the apologist for murderers, has this to say:

Hezbollah and Hamas militants, on the other hand, are difficult to distinguish from those "civilians" who recruit, finance, harbor and facilitate their terrorism. Nor can women and children always be counted as civilians, as some organizations do. Terrorists increasingly use women and teenagers to play important roles in their attacks.

The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. Some — those who cannot leave on their own — should be counted among the innocent victims. [Emphasis added by me.]

At this point, I could cite all the international laws and conventions that debunk Mr. Dershowitz’s ridiculous claims, but I will not waste my time with defending something so obviously basic to the law of war and human rights. What Mr. Dershowitz is advocating is terrorism. Dershowitz is inciting and condoning terror. In that he is behaving like a terrorist.

Instead, I want to tell you two stories from Lebanon and let you judge for yourself the merits of Mr. Dershowitz’s argument. These two stories are only a small part of the larger story of death in Lebanon.

Ali Sha’ita is a 12 year-old Lebanese boy. Ali and his family were fleeing Israeli bombing of Southern Lebanon. His family was traveling in a caravan of 3 minivans, having abandoned their homes, at the order of the Israeli military. Ali’s family only made it as far as 9 miles from their home before an Israeli helicopter fired upon their minivan. Three of his family died instantly - 16 others were injured. In the carnage that followed, Ali held his mother’s hand:

The ambulanceman gave Ali the job of keeping his mother alive. The 12-year-old did what he could. "Mama, mama, don’t go to sleep," he sobbed, gently patting her face beneath her chin. Behind her black veil, her eyelids were slowly sinking. "I’m going to die," she sighed. "Don’t say that, mama," Ali begged, and then slid to the ground in tears.

On the pavement around mother and son were the other members of the Sha’ita family, their faces spattered with each other’s blood. All were in varying shades of shock and injury. A tourniquet was tied on Ali’s mother’s arm. A few metres away, his aunt lay motionless, the white T-shirt beneath her abaya stained red. Two sisters hugged each other and wept, oblivious to the medics tending their wounds. "Let them take me, let them take me," one screamed.

Their mother was placed on a stretcher, and lifted into the ambulance. "God is with you, mama," Ali said. She reached up with her good arm to caress his face.

Of course these people are not really "civilians", they are something less according to Dershowitz. Let him bear their deaths and their injuries. Let him carry these atrocities on his conscience. Ali’s life doesn’t count; neither does his mother’s. Why check to see whom you are killing if there is the slightest chance that you may get a Hezbollah fighter. In either case, these people, even if they were not Hezbollah, surely had the potential of becoming Hezbollah.

Zeinab Haidar is a 13 year-old Lebanese girl. Zeinab is a survivor of an Israeli attack on her three-car convoy fleeing Israeli bombing. She is lucky to be alive. Only four of her convoy escaped death:

Zeinab, 13, is one of four people still at Tyre’s Najm Hospital who survived an ill-fated civilian convoy that left the village of Aitaroun last Friday to escape from one of the most bombed areas in south-east of Lebanon near the Israeli border.

As the convoy’s three cars approached Tyre, the first was hit by an air strike, killing everyone on board.

The two remaining cars tried to escape, but one was also hit by an missile, causing more deaths and injuries.

The Haidars jumped out of their car and ran to a nearby orchard, but the Israeli jets returned to drop two more bombs, wounding Zeinab, her mother and grandfather, and killing her grandmother.

After about 30 minutes hiding among the trees, Zeinab’s father went back to the car. He found it was still working and drove to Najm hospital, on the southern edge of Tyre.

Ambulance drivers say two charred bodies still remain trapped in the first car, and two days later dogs and cats have started to eat their remains.

So, there you go. Zeinab escaped the death that Dershowitz believes she deserves. Maybe now she will grow up to be a terrorist.

The balance of firepower between Israel and Hezbollah is not even close. Even with such superior firepower if Israel feels compelled to fire indiscriminately at anything that moves, then Israel has already lost this war. In 18 years in Lebanon, Israel failed to destroy Hezbollah. This time they are succeeding mightily in blowing up women and children.

Shame on Israel for presiding over these killing fields. Shame on Dershowitz for his inhumanity. Shame on the Bush Administration for providing the weapons that are doing the killing.

This isn’t self-defense. This isn’t war. This is slaughter, pure and simple.

Hey, hey, Olmert, how many Hezbollah did you kill today?

Hey, hey, Olmert, how many kids did you kill today?

[Via Christy Hardin Smith and Atrios]

Sarah McLachlan is a beautiful human being. I have admired her music, her angelic voice, her beauty, and her compassion since her very first album. Listen to her today as the bombs fall on Lebanon, as the slaughter continues in Iraq, as the innocent die in Darfur, as lives are swept away in Indonesia, as children are enslaved all over the Third World, as mothers watch their babies starve to death…and as our President vacations in Crawford while his Secretary of State flies to Italy to buy some new shoes.

Please help me carry the water today. It is very heavy today and I feel especially weak.

• Official World On Fire web site
• List of donation recipients from World On Fire
• Sarah McLachlan’s official web site

In 1971, as Pakistan perpetrated genocide in what was to become Bangladesh, the United States took up position on the wrong side of history. Despite widespread genocide and military aggression, the Nixon Administration decided to support Pakistani strongman Yahya Khan in his brutal repression of Bangladeshi resistance. History would prove Nixon wrong. But that history was written at the cost of 3 million lives killed at the hands of the Pakistani military.

The US Policy toward Pakistan came to be known as "The Tilt". Declassified documents show the extent of Nixon’s support for what was universally condemned as genocide around the world:

Discussing the martial law situation in East Pakistan during March of 1971, President Richard Nixon, in his February 9, 1972 State of the World report to Congress indicated that the "United States did not support or condone this military action." Nevertheless, the U.S. did nothing to help curtail the genocide and never made any public statements in opposition to the West Pakistani repression.(4)

Instead, by using what Nixon and Kissinger called quiet diplomacy, the Administration gave a green light of sorts to the Pakistanis. In one instance, Nixon declared to a Pakistani delegation that, "Yahya is a good friend." Rather than express concern over the ongoing brutal military repression, Nixon explained that he "understands the anguish of the decisions which [Yahya] had to make." As a result of Yahya’s importance to the China initiative and his friendship with Nixon and Kissinger, Nixon declares that the U.S. "would not do anything to complicate the situation for President Yahya or to embarrass him. (Document 9)." Much like the present situation post 9/11, Washington was hesitant to criticize Pakistan publicly out of fear that such a tactic might weaken the dictator’s support for American interests

As the conflict in the Sub-continent began to grow, so did criticism of American policy leanings toward Pakistan. The administration denied that any specific anti-India policy was being followed. Declassified documents show that in addition to tilting towards Pakistan in its public statements, the U.S. also followed a pro-Pakistan line in the UN, in discussions with China, and on the battlefield as well.

Not only did the United States publicly pronounce India as the aggressor in the war, but the U.S. sent the nuclear submarine, U.S.S. Enterprise, to the Bay of Bengal, and authorized the transfer of U.S. military supplies to Pakistan, despite the apparent illegality of doing so.(5) American Military assistance was formally cutoff to both India and Pakistan. A combination of Nixon’s emotional attachment to General Yahya and his dislike for Indira Gandhi, West Pakistan’s integral involvement with the China initiative and Kissinger’s predilection for power politics greatly influenced American policy decision-making during this conflict.

In the service of perceived strategic goals, the United States has in the past been quite capable of ignoring gross human rights violations in favor of naked aggression. As I write this Israeli tanks are entering Lebanon in a repeat of their ill-fated occupation of Lebanon that ended in failure six years ago. But this time the Israelis promise it will be different. This time the Israelis say they will crush Hezbollah. This time more Lebanese will die.

As the United States rushes weapons to Israel to kill more Lebanese, our Secretary of State leaves for the Middle East to pay lip service to diplomacy. The United States has taken sides in this conflict. This conflict is not between Israel and Hezbollah - this conflict is between an overwhelming military force and a defenseless population. For every Hezbollah fighter that has been killed, innumerable innocent civilians have been blown up. Israel is succeeding in killing women and children in its ill fated quest to fight "terror". Now as the bombs continue to rain down, Israel adds to the killing with a ground invasion of Lebanon.

More civilians will die in Lebanon. We have already been told by the US Anti-Diplomat John Bolton that Lebanese civilian deaths are not morally equivalent to other people’s deaths. By such glib statements and by its resupply of Israel in the middle of hostilities, the Bush Administration is now morally responsible for every civilian that has been killed and will be killed in Lebanon. As children die in Lebanon today and the days to come, I want George W Bush and the mustachioed Anti-Diplomat to ponder the words of Mahatma Gandhi:

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

I weep for Lebanon today. I weep for a people that have struggled to put their country together after years of civil war. I weep for a country that had been lauded only recently as a symbol of progress in the Middle East. The cedars of Lebanon are on fire today. The country burns and its children die. All this destruction is being ostensibly wrought because 2 Israeli soldiers have been kidnapped by Hezbollah. Israel is killing Lebanese because it has failed to kill Hezbollah. People of Lebanon are dying today over a game of geopolitics that they are only expendable pawns in.

To the mothers huddled with their children, to the fathers holding their daughters tightly today in Lebanon, to the children of Lebanon, my thoughts are with you. My prayers are with you. Hold on to each other as this spasm of destruction passes over you. May God keep you safe.

[Hat tip to LithiumCola and Alfredo]

UPDATE: mariachi mama from the Daily Kos referred me to Robert Fisk’s poignant plea for Beirut entitled "Elegy for Beirut". Please read the whole article. Here is a brief excerpt:

Beirutis are tough people and are not easily moved. But at the end of last week, many of them were overcome by a photograph in their daily papers of a small girl, discarded like a broken flower in a field near Ter Harfa, her feet curled up, her hand resting on her torn blue pyjamas, her eyes - beneath long, soft hair - closed, turned away from the camera. She had been another "terrorist" target of Israel and several people, myself among them, saw a frightening similarity between this picture and the photograph of a Polish girl lying dead in a field beside her weeping sister in 1939.

On March 12, 2006 a gruesome crime took place in a farmhouse in Mahmoudiya, Iraq. A 14-year-old girl was raped and murdered. Her parents and her 5-year-old sister were shot in the head in another room. Their bodies were then burned to hide the evidence. A discharged United States soldier has been charged with one count of rape and four counts of murder stemming from the this crime. Four other soldiers who were allegedly involved in the killings and rape have also been charged.

The first person to arrive at the scene of the crime described the horrors he saw:

"Never in my mind could I have imagined such a gruesome sight," Abu Firas Janabi said of the day in March when his cousin, Fakhriya Taha Muhsen; her husband, Kasim Hamza Rasheed; and their two daughters were slain and their farmhouse set ablaze.

"Kasim’s corpse was in the corner of the room, and his head was smashed into pieces," he said. The 5-year-old daughter, Hadel, was beside her father, and Janabi said he could see that Fakhriya’s arms had been broken.

In another room, he found 15-year-old Abeer, naked and burned, with her head smashed in "by a concrete block or a piece of iron."

"There were burns from the bottom of her stomach to the end of her body, except for her feet," he said.

"I did not believe what I was seeing. I tried to fool myself into believing I was in a dream. But the problem was that we were not dreaming. We put a piece of cloth over her body. Then I left the house together with my wife."

As regular readers may have noticed, I have not been posting with the regularity I normally do. That is because after I wrote the above paragraphs I hit writer’s block. I had to step away from this post for a number of days before I could return to it. I also realized that if I don’t finish this post I wouldn’t be able to focus enough to write other posts. I have chronicled many atrocities and deaths in Iraq since I started blogging, but what happened in Mahmoudiya struck harder than all others. Sometimes it takes a concentrated act of insanity to give clarity to the surrounding madness. The rape and murder of a 14-year-old child and the cold-blooded murder of her 5-year-old sister is that act of insanity. American soldiers are accused of this insanity. It is time for an accounting.

Over 2500 American soldiers have died, perhaps a hundred thousand Iraqis have died, a country is in tatters, neighbors are slaughtering neighbors. This is George W Bush’s Iraq. This is America’s Iraq. Who is responsible for the chaos in Iraq? The Bush Administration is fond of saying that the Iraqis must learn to defend their own country; that they must show the will to fight for their country - and when they stand up, we will stand down. Although this kind of rhetoric makes for good campaign slogans it also shirks responsibility. The responsibility for the chaos in Iraq lies with the United States and more specifically it lies with George W Bush, our Commander-in-Chief.

President Bush insists that he has a "responsibility" to "stay the course". But he has shirked his most basic responsibility - that is, the protection of the civilian population of Iraq. The Law of Occupation as codified in the 1907 Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Conventions make it the responsibility of the occupying power to ensure public order and safety. The United States is the occupying power in Iraq. It is therefore subject to Article 43 of the Hague Regulations:

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

The Law of Occupation has been adopted by the United States Military. Article 43 is explicitly stated in the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare. The Manual’s chapter on Occupation states:

363. Duty to Restore and Maintain Public Order

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.(HR, art. 43.)

The United States has failed in its primary responsibility as the occupier in Iraq.

Instead of public order and safety, we have car bombs and death squads. We have Iraqis committing atrocities on Iraqis. We have Iraqis committing atrocities on Americans. We have Americans committing atrocities on Iraqis. George W Bush has lost all control in Iraq. The people of Iraq, who Mr. Bush claims to have liberated, are dying by the dozens every day.

Three years after he declared "Missions Accomplished", the Pax Americana in Iraq has brought murder and mayhem instead of public order and safety. It is not the responsibility of the Iraqis to restore order after an invasion by a hostile force; it is the responsibility of the United States. Every time President Bush says "stay the course" he is shirking his responsibility as the Commander-in-Chief of the occupying forces to protect the Iraqis. Having failed to restore order for the past three years, President Bush has encouraged and condoned continued violence in Iraq by saying "stay the course".

On Mr. Bush’s watch, people are being beheaded, shot through the head, and blown up. Children are being raped and murdered in cold blood. That is the accounting in Iraq. The account is large and getting larger still. We have turned many corners in Iraq. The latest corner sees American soldiers accused of being rapists and murderers of children. How many more corners must we turn before this atrocity of an occupation is brought to an end?