You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘human rights’ tag.

Birds of a feather flock together! Drumpf has just emboldened his fellow traveler troglodytes with his jaunt to Saudi Arabia! The Saudis are about to execute 14 Shias (including a deaf and blind man), who had coerced confessions and were also subject to prolonged solitary confinement and torture!

From Iran’s Press TV:

Saudi officials execute convicts by sword and then dangle their corpses from a helicopter to make sure the public could see the result of the execution.

Advertisements

A big part of of why the “Israel Project” is so out of step with the present is because that it is a colonial/colonialist project, indeed. Human rights is a concept that only came about — in its ultimate/present formation at least — in the mid to late 20th century. Today however it seems bizarre that one of the “justifications” for Israel (or a Jewish state) is European anti-Semitism and the Holocaust — and yet now all or most of the wars of the West seem to be waged, at least ostensibly on the basis it (human rights)!

The project of Israel is an anachronism, though. Stolen lands and genocide to displace one group of people and replace them with another group of people, just shouldn’t have any legitimacy with anybody anymore. Israel has encroached so far on what would have been the two-states, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out with the intention of only leaving bantustans for the Palestinian people. Although, I do believe that whatever the final agreement is that it will be put up to a referendum to be voted on by all of the Palestinian people. And I should think that it stands to reason that based upon an illicit occupation that has been ongoing for some 47 years that Israel has great pressure on itself to push for a just (and one that will be long lasting) peace agreement. Indeed, in order join the rest of the world as a legitimate country. It’s quite clear to me that its government(s), instead, drag their feet however, and seem to be using the “peace process” as a ruse in order to continue on with their aggressive; as well as illicit of course, territorial expansionism.

It’s no wonder then that the PA would seek to make a “unilateral” decision like attempting to join the International Criminal Court (ICC)! Israel has made a “unilateral decision” like becoming the only nuclear power in the Middle East, for instance! And there hasn’t of course been any concomitant hue and cry about that! And moreover, it (the state of Israel) has also made “unilateral” decisions such as: building illegal settlements, making repeated military incursions unquestionably into occupied Gaza, bombing the sovereign nation of Syria, and in past history even annexing the Golan Heights.

And so, it’s said that history is written by those who won. Well, any person of good conscience who has been following the Israel/Palestine conflict can tell that the same can certainly, at least roughly, be true of the present! But a learned individual also said that the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice, and so additionally anyone that follows this situation closely should also know just how untenable, and how flimsy and indeed how “see through” moreover that the propaganda and the PR that is behind it (the pro-Israel narrative) clearly is! And furthermore, how it is just so lacking as compared to its absolute utmost level of effectiveness! And withal, how it is just so in fact not going to cut it anymore! Indeed, anyone who meticulously follows the conflict and what’s more is assiduously looking at the signposts, as well as reading the tea leaves, knows exactly what’s up ahead.

Google has a rainbow logo for the Sochi Olympics. I’m glad a company can still take the “moral high ground” that is incredibly active in developing a totalitarian American Stasi, and in fact records all of an individual’s searches — via their search engine — for one’s lifetime (eternity!). As well as, of course, that helps filter/censor the Internet for many of the authoritarian/iron-fisted countries in this world! Which they are active, as aforementioned, in helping America also join the ranks of as well, too! And so, anyway I hope that when the World Cup is in Qatar that Google will be consistent, and put out something about the many encroachments on freedom that exist in the Wahhabi state/absolute monarchy of the Qatari Kingdom.

A country where gay rights, the rights of women, religious freedom, the rights of non-citizens, and the rights to publicly assemble are far worse than the Federation of Russia! Qatar does not recognize Buddhism, Hinduism and the Baha’i faith. Non-Muslims are prohibited from proselytizing or publicly worshiping! Individuals caught proselytizing can be imprisoned for up to ten years! I cannot do justice to all of these topics in the limited space that I have allotted here, but just touching on Qatar vis a vis GLBT rights/issues: homosexuality is illegal in Qatar. Visitors/non-citizens have been whipped, jailed and deported as punishment(s). The FIFA (Federation Internationale de Football Association) president has said, about the forthcoming World Cup in Qatar, “They [GLBT people] should refrain from any sexual activities.” And so just because that US Centcom is stationed in Qatar; I, for one, certainly hope that our dear Google will show some consistency in their “activism”. And indeed, I sincerely hope that they won’t give them (Qatar) a free pass whatsoever/at all!

Rachel Maddow defended the legally fuzzy bombardment of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Ethiopia, and other nations in an interview with Howard Stern. In Maddow’s words the drones, “don’t change the politics of it [war] that much.” In reality, however, the politics have changed markedly because of the US military’s use of their stable/panoply of death-inducing/mass immolating drones. And it is, moreover, exceedingly unclear what is meant by Maddow’s comments as, for example, families have embarked upon lawsuits against the US government for innocents, non-terrorists, and non-combatants — who have been unceremoniously snuffed out — by the legally hazy, and decidedly unmanned aerial drones.

Additionally and infamously, of course, whole wedding parties have been wiped out, by some detached and far-flung controller in the American Southwest or in Langley, VA. Is this what is meant by making war more and more “hospitable” and “sanitized”? I guess, in a sense, but not; of course, for those at the receiving end of the drone. Such questions, I think, force one to wonder about what Maddow thinks regarding the Constitution — vis a vis the war authorization for the US military conflict — in the so-called Afpak war zone.

Indeed, the aforementioned authorization for the war in Afghanistan, pertains to the US military’s actions in Afghanistan — and Afghanistan alone. Thus, of course, there is no constitutional basis for any sort of military, or even drone activities in the sovereign nation of Pakistan (or any of the other nations where they have been used). And furthermore, one wonders what Maddow’s position on the two American citizens — executed under unconstitutional bureaucratic fiat is — considering that this was not addressed in the Howard Stern interview. These Americans were, according to the Obama administration, guilty until proven innocent, but; of course, never received anything like their inalienable right to a trial, or the long-hallowed and (previously) integrally American jury of their peers.

International law scholar Richard Falk does believe that drones have changed the idea of war/military conflict seriously, and that their advent should be regarded with grave interest/concern. According to Falk the drones clearly raise questions about national sovereignty, and the parameters about presently held notions — of what are the currently permissible forms of war. Falk likens legal “rationalities” for the usage of the deathly — and indeed death-dealing — military drone technology, as analogous to John Yoo style torture memo-esque scrawlings of the George Bush Jr. administration/cabal. So, if some more mature, rational, and informed legal bases/doctrines, don’t arise regarding present and impending drone technology; Falk envisions a dystopian future scenario of rampant proliferation that will be imposed upon the world, by a small number of select, drone-armed, and exceedingly powerful elite states.

Falk posits that in our Machiavellian world, where a handful of nuclear countries have been able to cajole a vast majority of the world’s nations, into the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that a similar regime could come forward — regarding these still fairly nascent military drones. Falk sees no impediment to ridding the world of nuclear weapons, at present, and says that the same is essentially true of the drones. But the least evil (but still evil) route for the drones may; in fact, end similarly to nuclear armaments, in which the “great powers” — self-chosen — make elaborate and extensive use of their own specific unmanned aerial drones. And by that Falk means that some nations will use drones within their own territory, whilst more powerful international actors, will use them globally (and for attack purposes too).

Falk may be putting his realist hat on, and his spot-on theorizing may be of the Machiavellian reality/order of things, but in this humble observer’s opinion; the actually of the matter, is that the drones are totally (and utterly) illegal and unfair. Like a child in a candy shop, the military-industrial complex’s eyes have bulged out, at the advent of this facile way of grievously and insufferably slaughtering people — and so Falk’s analysis is, positively, very sound in this sense. But truth, facts, and reason, I think, must be defended also, even if they are ridiculed as utopian and overly idealistic, by the egregious, sly and unscrupulous actions — made by the technocrats, military, governmental and political elite officials — who rule our modern day Oceania-esque nation-state, and evermore integrated world.

One of the most prominent government officials of any position — or any stripe — to come out, and unequivocally attack the drones is Hina Rabbani Khar, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. Khar has said that, “Drones are not only completely illegal and unlawful and have no authorization to be used — within the domains of international law, but even more importantly, they are counterproductive to your objective of getting this region rid of militancy and terrorism and extremism. Furthermore she has stated that, “if one [drone] strike leads to getting you target number one, or target number three today; you are creating five more targets, or ten more targets — in the militancy that it breeds — in the fodder that it gives to the militants, to join their ranks.”

Earlier this year Amnesty International called upon the Obama administration to demonstrate the legal and factual basis of the lethal use of drones. Amnesty’s Asia-Pacific director — at the time — said that, “the US authorities must give a detailed explanation of how these strikes are lawful, and what is being done to monitor civilian casualties and ensure proper accountability.” And the director moreover asked, “What are the rules of engagement? What proper legal justification exists for these attacks? While the President’s confirmation of the use of drones in Pakistan, is a welcome first step towards transparency, these and other questions need to be answered.”

Thin and paltry “justifications” for the drone attacks have, in the past, been offered by US officials, and are “grounded” upon the spurious legal basis of a US global war on terrorism with Al-Qaeda — a concept that is not accepted or recognized, by international humanitarian or human rights law. Truthfully, the ultimate question is what law — if any — recognizes, or gives any credence to the deplorable bombardments, by these egregious, brutish, feral, and essentially barbaric (and deeply) inhuman drones?

International law scholar Philip Alston has said about the drones, “I’m particularly concerned that the United States seems oblivious to this fact when it asserts an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe….this strongly asserted but ill-defined license to kill without accountability is not an entitlement which the United States or other states can have without doing grave damage to the rules designed to protect the right to life and prevent extrajudicial executions.”

Alston, a former United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has proposed a summit by the “great” military powers to clarify the legal limits, and the boundaries on the extrajudicial attacks by the killer drones. If such a summit doesn’t take place, and define a fixed, immutable, firm, resolute, and unbending (drone) operational blueprint Alston says that, “This expansive and open-ended interpretation of the right to self-defense [used to attempt to legitimize the drone strikes] goes a long way towards destroying the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the [Charter of the UN].”

As made clear by Professor Richard Falk there is absolutely no reason whatsoever, to continue on with these savage, mass slaying, and annihilating — and indeed, authentically diabolical killer drones. Like the opening of Pandora’s box, though, these horrid, reprehensible, and unconscionable technological creations may be with us for good. Professor Falk is a more learned man than I, so sadly, if the forces of peace and justice can’t effectively resist, and potentially put an end to these stealthful mass-murderers — run by cowards who have never even envisaged any battlefields — then they will continue to amass great civilian murder, death, heinousness, invidiousness, and inordinate barbarity too. And this will more than likely be done by the nations, and regimes that trumpet human rights, democracy, liberty, transparency, openness, and unregulated; and unrestrained human thought, as articles that are necessary to their very basic foundational civic principles, and integral to their national essentia also.

For certain segments of the global population, the United States has, of course, virtually always represented little to nothing good. No doubt, however, many have given credence to the idea of liberal, and democratic notions that the United States is ostensibly about. Recent events, though, would seem to belie the notion that United States is about high-minded, and lofty ideals, but it is rather the entity with the biggest stick, who will carry out its bidding — and that of multi-national corporations — with concern for respect, scruples, and moral human dignity receiving extremely little care.

In Libya — love him or a hate him — a man who reinvested a good percentage of the oil wealth into his own people, has been unceremoniously ousted, and for what? It’s still unclear and stability has; of course, yet to return to that land. The oil rich eastern section of the nation is pushing for autonomy, and could put the long accepted (high) living standards, of the majority of the Libyan people very much in doubt. Taking the country back to the days when King Idris served, as a pliant tool of the world’s largest oil corporations.

Iran, has for some time now, been considered to be a villain celebre, yet a report was just put out stating that the CIA and Mossad do not believe that Iran has the bomb. Even with a supple US/NATO man at the head of the IAEA (Amano), an attack on that sovereign nation still — as of yet — does not appear to be on the verge. Though the US and Israel do not seem to put any stock, in the supreme leader’s long-held fatwa that he (and Iran as a whole) fundamentally reject the bomb.

Putin and Bashar al-Assad have also been under heavy scrutiny/attack, yet the autocracies/dictatorships that the US supports have been sparsely — if at all — reported upon in the pages of the mainstream press (Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, many more). A recent report of Qaddafi being a prime funder of Sarkozy’s previous election campaign, should show that any and all dictatorial governments, that are one day in grace with the US/the Western powers — ultimately, doesn’t necessarily add up to very much at all. And there are certainly no liberal, democratic, moral, or ethical standards when these American, British and continental European “deals with the devil” are made. The key ingredient, however, is a witting partner to go along with whatever the empire, and/or its associates should deign.

Unequivocally, it’s very rich for Susan Rice, and others in the Obama regime like her — to portray herself, and the administration that she is representing, as if they are holier than thou. After all many of the Frankensteinian creations, historically, that the United States has given rise to, have found themselves rotting at the bottom of a spider hole — or been at the receiving end — of a fate even worse! Perhaps some would wish that same deleterious impasse upon Madam Rice, but I think that an early retirement should be a sufficient enough castigation, for one of the shrillest, and most irascible voices in the Obama clique.

The house of cards, I think, is irretrievably falling. Forever, puncturing the notion, of a benevolent non-brusque global power, that is unalike the British — and others who have come before. Perhaps due to peak oil (the exigency of bringing as much of the world’s oil wealth under the American sphere), perhaps due to the inherent snowballing effect of beguiling (and tantalizing) hubris and greed; perhaps due to the lack of a check or moral force — like the non-existent peace/anti-war movement — that still presumably envisions Obama, as more authentically dovish and pacific than he postures, acts, threatens, augurs and maintains.

At least all signs point to OWS reemerging out of its winter respite/slumber. Taking the fight against the two oligarchical parties, to the streets once again. Exposing the faux rhetoric of democracy and human rights, that the United States proselytizes on to other nations and peoples, yet often showing the emperor (Obama) not to be wearing any clothes. And of course, as Obama sends the nation’s “finest” out to clamp down upon the mostly vernal, twenty-something youth, who are only exercising their God and constitutionally given civil liberties and rights; it’s become even questionable if these rights still exist any longer under President Obama’s charge — especially taking into account his signing of HR 347, and the extraordinarily egregious NDAA.

Perhaps notwithstanding, however, the fervor for dumping the exceedingly limited duopolistic, oligarchical power system of the ravenous, insatiable, and the avaricious 1% — can still readily gain a head of steam. To bring about an American Spring, to a nation — that has for far too long been led by a regime — which author and former economic hitman John Perkins, has aptly and effectively referred to as a corporatocracy.

Uganda is undoubtedly rife with resources for Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, et. al. to plunder, otherwise why would a viral film like Kony 2012 be popping up on YouTube? And the unwitting, or perhaps even duplicitously savvy shill’s film — and its Hollywood accomplices — are certainly making ample headlines. The ostensible end of the viral YouTube picture, would appear to be pressing for yet another “humanitarian” intervention. After all AFRICOM is still based in Stuttgart, Germany, so the US and its partners, are undoubtedly pining away for another place, to base their banefulness and multifarious tools of mass destruction.

The US/Western-backed dictator Yoweri Museveni is somehow never mentioned in the film. A man’s whose iron fist, and human rights violations have given rise, to a monstrous opposition movement like the Kony-led Lord’s Resistance Army. And Museveni has been involved in numerous atrocities, and crimes against humanity himself. And about 40% of the Ugandan people live in immense poverty under Museveni’s authority. Indeed, on Museveni’s inauguration day (over 25 years ago) he said that Africa’s problems, were largely caused by leaders who overstay their time in power: leading to impunity, the promotion of patronage, and corruption. Museveni — who the Congo received $10 billion from an International Court of Justice ruling because of his atrocities — should, undoubtedly, be brought to justice also.

The International Criminal Court (led by Luis Moreno Ocampo) is also highlighted in this film. A court that is already widely discredited in Africa. Since its inception in 2002 the ICC, has targeted solely African and other developing world leaders. Jean Ping, the head of the African Union, has said about the ICC and Ocampo, “We Africans and the African Union are not against the International Criminal Court. We are against Ocampo who is rendering justice with double standards.” The ICC has had many opportunities to indict Western war criminals/leaders — such as Bush, Blair, Olmert and Cheney — since it has come into being, and it has; of course, wholly failed to do so.

US militarism being promoted as a solution or panacea, is never an answer. American military advisers going into a nation is exceedingly rarely — if ever — good. And certainly not for the ostensible end of humanitarianism. The film and its campaigners, are certainly folks to continue, to keep a close eye on in my opinion. As suggested earlier, perhaps they are just well meaning dupes, but the film presents a very limited picture as to what ails the Central African nation of Uganda. And again to exuberantly support US militarism, as a goal against the Lord’s Resistance Army, is unequivocally highly suspect, to even downright reprehensible at the absolute very worst.

A deal was just confirmed to approve the sale of 29.4 billion dollars in aircraft to the vile, sinister, and iron-fisted Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The assistant U.S. secretary of state for political-military affairs said the deal was not solely directed towards Iran, but was for the purpose of meeting the needs of one of our “partners”.

Saudi Arabia is a United States partner? Anyone who is not in a coma, of course, knows that we have been in cahoots — for a long time — with this horrid and disreputable and ossified administration; but a United States partner? Other than one is Sunni (majority) and one is Shia; one is Arabic and one is Persian; one is run by a profoundly backward kingdom that pushes a conservative form of Islam on its people, and one essentially uses a dictatorship of fossilized clerics to do so; and both afford an extremely limited amount of freedoms to women (Saudi Arabia is probably the far worse of the two in this arena) — I fail to see much that is discernible or recognizable, that is a difference between the two of them!!?

Iran is currently being demonized for its ostensible pursuit of nuclear weapons, but Saudi Arabia recently announced that it should be acquiring them also! And even with our eyes fully wide open (knowing that US foreign policy is to promote so-called myopic US interests and not about anything having to do democracy, benevolent ideals, or highly unrealistic and fanciful notions), it just strikes me as bizarre, and exceedingly strange to be selling this level of military equipment to such a benighted, despotic, invidious and deleterious administration. (A government which has still fairly recently, aided in crushing a democratic uprising in Bahrain.)

But then again, under the guise of fighting “communism” — and now, of course, so-called terrorism — I guess that this is just the kind of thing has been going on for a long, long time. History is littered with thugs, and despots and authoritarians, armed and abetted — and given free rein to the teeth — to do their very worst, by the government of the United States of America! Pinochet, Mobutu, Somoza, Suharto… One doesn’t need to look, far or wide, to find a despot and mass killer (in the historical record), who has been supported by the “benevolent” hand of the good ole U.S. of A!

Archives