US’ New “Abu Ghraib” in Afghanistan
by Julius Cavendish
Frontlines of Revolutionary Struggle
The US Army has been forced into an acutely embarrassing apology after photographs emerged of American soldiers posing with the corpses of Afghan civilians in scenes reminiscent of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal during the Iraq war. In one picture, a US soldier grins wolfishly for the camera while gripping a corpse’s hair, pulling back its head like a hunting trophy, in what could become an enduring image of how the West lost its way in Afghanistan. The picture, one of three published by the German news weekly Der Spiegel, has forced the US Army into a rare public apology and attempts to distance itself from a handful of rogue troops who are charged with killing Afghan civilians for fun. The photographs depict “actions repugnant to us as human beings and contrary to the standards and values of the United States Army”, it said in a statement yesterday. “We apologise for the distress these photos cause.” The US military had tried to suppress the photos, which are part of the evidence seized in a case against 12 US soldiers accused of crimes ranging from murder to hoarding body parts as trophies, and which it believes could incite riots and attacks on its personnel in Afghanistan.
But the magazine, which says it obtained access to about 4,000 pictures and videos pertaining to the case, argued that it was important to publish a “tiny” number of them in order to document a war in which all sides had “lost sight” of their original objectives. The case has drawn parallels with the Abu Ghraib scandal, in which US military police, CIA officers and private contractors abused, tortured and in one instance killed prisoners in their care. In both cases the perpetrators recorded their crimes on camera. The Abu Ghraib incident led to a furious public reaction in Iraq. In the Afghanistan case, that anger has yet to materialise.
To Read the Rest of the Report and to Access the Pictures
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Nick Fielding/Iain Cobain: US spy operation that manipulates social media: Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities
Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media: Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda
Nick Fielding and Iain Cobain
Guardian
The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.
A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.
The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries".
Centcom spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said: "The technology supports classified blogging activities on foreign-language websites to enable Centcom to counter violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the US."
He said none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology, and any English-language use of social media by Centcom was always clearly attributed. The languages in which the interventions are conducted include Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto.
Centcom said it was not targeting any US-based web sites, in English or any other language, and specifically said it was not targeting Facebook or Twitter.
Once developed, the software could allow US service personnel, working around the clock in one location, to respond to emerging online conversations with any number of co-ordinated messages, blogposts, chatroom posts and other interventions. Details of the contract suggest this location would be MacDill air force base near Tampa, Florida, home of US Special Operations Command.
Centcom's contract requires for each controller the provision of one "virtual private server" located in the United States and others appearing to be outside the US to give the impression the fake personas are real people located in different parts of the world.
It also calls for "traffic mixing", blending the persona controllers' internet usage with the usage of people outside Centcom in a manner that must offer "excellent cover and powerful deniability".
The multiple persona contract is thought to have been awarded as part of a programme called Operation Earnest Voice (OEV), which was first developed in Iraq as a psychological warfare weapon against the online presence of al-Qaida supporters and others ranged against coalition forces. Since then, OEV is reported to have expanded into a $200m programme and is thought to have been used against jihadists across Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East.
To Read the Rest of the Article
Nick Fielding and Iain Cobain
Guardian
The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.
A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an "online persona management service" that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.
The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as "sock puppets" – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.
The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries".
Centcom spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said: "The technology supports classified blogging activities on foreign-language websites to enable Centcom to counter violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the US."
He said none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology, and any English-language use of social media by Centcom was always clearly attributed. The languages in which the interventions are conducted include Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto.
Centcom said it was not targeting any US-based web sites, in English or any other language, and specifically said it was not targeting Facebook or Twitter.
Once developed, the software could allow US service personnel, working around the clock in one location, to respond to emerging online conversations with any number of co-ordinated messages, blogposts, chatroom posts and other interventions. Details of the contract suggest this location would be MacDill air force base near Tampa, Florida, home of US Special Operations Command.
Centcom's contract requires for each controller the provision of one "virtual private server" located in the United States and others appearing to be outside the US to give the impression the fake personas are real people located in different parts of the world.
It also calls for "traffic mixing", blending the persona controllers' internet usage with the usage of people outside Centcom in a manner that must offer "excellent cover and powerful deniability".
The multiple persona contract is thought to have been awarded as part of a programme called Operation Earnest Voice (OEV), which was first developed in Iraq as a psychological warfare weapon against the online presence of al-Qaida supporters and others ranged against coalition forces. Since then, OEV is reported to have expanded into a $200m programme and is thought to have been used against jihadists across Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Middle East.
To Read the Rest of the Article
To the Best of Our Knowledge: Espirit de Corps
Espirit de Corps
To the Best of Our Knowledge (Wisconsin Public Radio)
SEGMENT 1:
Toby Nunn was a Sergeant First Class who served two tours in Iraq. Home now, he's finding it hard to adjust to civilian life, but as he told Steve Paulson, he's still taking care of the men in his platoon. Nunn currently works for the nonprofit group Soldiers' Angels. Also, Tyler Boudreau is a twelve year veteran on the Marine Corps. He resigned his commission over reservations about the legitimacy of the Iraq War. He's the author of "Packing Inferno: The Unmaking of a Marine." He discusses his experiences and his decision with Anne Strainchamps. And, John Wrobleski, Sr. Tells Anne Strainchamps about the day he got the news that his son, Marine 2nd Lt. John "JT" Wrobleski, Jr. Was killed in Iraq.
SEGMENT 2:
We hear a bit of the band Drowning Pool, typical of the music favored by troops in Iraq. Jonathon Pieslak, author of "Sound Targets: American Soldiers and the Music in the Iraq War," talks with Jim Fleming about how U.S. forces use music and who they listen to. Helen Benedict is the author of "The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq." The words of Air Force Sergeant Marti Ribeiro as quoted in the book are voiced by actress Carrie Coon. Benedict tells Anne Strainchamps the shocking truth about the heavy toll sexual harassment and abuse take on our female warriors.
SEGMENT 3:
Brian Turner was an average young American who volunteered for military service in Iraq. At night he wrote poetry by flashlight. When his tour ended, he collected his poems into a book called "Here, Bullet." Turner talked about his work, especially the title poem, with Anne Strainchamps.
To Listen to the the Episode
To the Best of Our Knowledge (Wisconsin Public Radio)
SEGMENT 1:
Toby Nunn was a Sergeant First Class who served two tours in Iraq. Home now, he's finding it hard to adjust to civilian life, but as he told Steve Paulson, he's still taking care of the men in his platoon. Nunn currently works for the nonprofit group Soldiers' Angels. Also, Tyler Boudreau is a twelve year veteran on the Marine Corps. He resigned his commission over reservations about the legitimacy of the Iraq War. He's the author of "Packing Inferno: The Unmaking of a Marine." He discusses his experiences and his decision with Anne Strainchamps. And, John Wrobleski, Sr. Tells Anne Strainchamps about the day he got the news that his son, Marine 2nd Lt. John "JT" Wrobleski, Jr. Was killed in Iraq.
SEGMENT 2:
We hear a bit of the band Drowning Pool, typical of the music favored by troops in Iraq. Jonathon Pieslak, author of "Sound Targets: American Soldiers and the Music in the Iraq War," talks with Jim Fleming about how U.S. forces use music and who they listen to. Helen Benedict is the author of "The Lonely Soldier: The Private War of Women Serving in Iraq." The words of Air Force Sergeant Marti Ribeiro as quoted in the book are voiced by actress Carrie Coon. Benedict tells Anne Strainchamps the shocking truth about the heavy toll sexual harassment and abuse take on our female warriors.
SEGMENT 3:
Brian Turner was an average young American who volunteered for military service in Iraq. At night he wrote poetry by flashlight. When his tour ended, he collected his poems into a book called "Here, Bullet." Turner talked about his work, especially the title poem, with Anne Strainchamps.
To Listen to the the Episode
Project Censored's Top 25 Censored News Stories of 2011: #23. Afghan War -- Largest Military Coalition in History
23. Afghan War: Largest Military Coalition in History
Project Censored
Student Researcher: Dani Wright (Sonoma State University)
Faculty Evaluator: Peter Phillips (Sonoma State University)
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has become history’s first global army. Never before have soldiers from so many states served in the same war theater, much less the same country. At the [tenth] anniversary of the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan, the world is witness to a twenty-first-century armed conflict waged by the largest military coalition in history.
With recent announcements that troops from such diverse nations as Colombia, Mongolia, Armenia, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, and Montenegro are to join those of some forty-five other countries serving under the command of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), there will soon be military personnel from fifty nations and five continents serving under a unified command structure.
NATO’s fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington DC in 1999 welcomed the first expansion of the world’s only military bloc in the post–cold war era, absorbing former Warsaw Pact members such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Two years later, after the 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington DC, NATO activated Article 5—in which the “Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”
The main purpose of invoking NATO’s mutual military assistance clause was to rally the then nineteen-member military bloc for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and the stationing of troops, warplanes, and bases throughout South and Central Asia, including Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Flyover rights were also arranged with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and newly acquired airbases in Bulgaria and Romania have since been used for the transit of troops and weapons to the Afghan war zone.
The 1999 war against Yugoslavia was NATO’s first “out of area” operation—that is, outside of North America and those parts of Europe in the alliance. The war in Afghanistan, however, marked NATO’s transformation into a global war fighting machine. NATO officials now employ such terms as global, expeditionary, and twenty-first century to describe NATO and its operations.
NATO members who have deployed troops to Afghanistan include Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, as well as ten European nations that had never before been part of a military bloc—Austria, Bosnia, Finland, the Republic of Ireland, Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Serbia, Sweden, and Switzerland. The twenty-eight full original NATO members all have troops there as well.
All of the new members were prepared for full NATO accession under the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, which demands weapons interoperability (scrapping contemporary Russian and old Warsaw Pact arms in favor of Western ones); increasing future members’ military spending to 2 percent of their national budget no matter how hard-hit that nation is economically; purging of “politically unreliable” personnel from military, defense, and security posts; training abroad in NATO military academies; hosting US Alliance military exercises; and instructing the officer corps in a common language—English—for joint overseas operations.
In calendar year nine of the war in Afghanistan, and now with the expansion into Pakistan, NATO has built upon previous and current joint military deployments in Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Sudan, and off the coast of Somalia. In Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, NATO has conducted maritime surveillance and boarding operations, and in the autumn of 2009, NATO deployed its first naval task force off the coast of Somalia.
To Read the Rest of the Article
Project Censored
Student Researcher: Dani Wright (Sonoma State University)
Faculty Evaluator: Peter Phillips (Sonoma State University)
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has become history’s first global army. Never before have soldiers from so many states served in the same war theater, much less the same country. At the [tenth] anniversary of the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan, the world is witness to a twenty-first-century armed conflict waged by the largest military coalition in history.
With recent announcements that troops from such diverse nations as Colombia, Mongolia, Armenia, Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, and Montenegro are to join those of some forty-five other countries serving under the command of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), there will soon be military personnel from fifty nations and five continents serving under a unified command structure.
NATO’s fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington DC in 1999 welcomed the first expansion of the world’s only military bloc in the post–cold war era, absorbing former Warsaw Pact members such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. Two years later, after the 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington DC, NATO activated Article 5—in which the “Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.”
The main purpose of invoking NATO’s mutual military assistance clause was to rally the then nineteen-member military bloc for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and the stationing of troops, warplanes, and bases throughout South and Central Asia, including Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Flyover rights were also arranged with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, and newly acquired airbases in Bulgaria and Romania have since been used for the transit of troops and weapons to the Afghan war zone.
The 1999 war against Yugoslavia was NATO’s first “out of area” operation—that is, outside of North America and those parts of Europe in the alliance. The war in Afghanistan, however, marked NATO’s transformation into a global war fighting machine. NATO officials now employ such terms as global, expeditionary, and twenty-first century to describe NATO and its operations.
NATO members who have deployed troops to Afghanistan include Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, as well as ten European nations that had never before been part of a military bloc—Austria, Bosnia, Finland, the Republic of Ireland, Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Serbia, Sweden, and Switzerland. The twenty-eight full original NATO members all have troops there as well.
All of the new members were prepared for full NATO accession under the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program, which demands weapons interoperability (scrapping contemporary Russian and old Warsaw Pact arms in favor of Western ones); increasing future members’ military spending to 2 percent of their national budget no matter how hard-hit that nation is economically; purging of “politically unreliable” personnel from military, defense, and security posts; training abroad in NATO military academies; hosting US Alliance military exercises; and instructing the officer corps in a common language—English—for joint overseas operations.
In calendar year nine of the war in Afghanistan, and now with the expansion into Pakistan, NATO has built upon previous and current joint military deployments in Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Sudan, and off the coast of Somalia. In Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, NATO has conducted maritime surveillance and boarding operations, and in the autumn of 2009, NATO deployed its first naval task force off the coast of Somalia.
To Read the Rest of the Article
Project Censored Top 25 of 2011: #24 War Crimes of General Stanley McChrystal
24. War Crimes of General Stanley McChrystal
Project Censored (Sonoma State University)
Student Researcher: Cristina Risso (Sonoma State University)
Faculty Evaluator: Elaine Wellin (Sonoma State University)
A little more than a year before he was fired on June 23, 2010, for making potentially insubordinate remarks in a Rolling Stone profile, General Stanley McChrystal was appointed by President Barack Obama as commander in charge of the war in Afghanistan. He had been formerly in charge of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) headed by former Vice President Dick Cheney. Most of what General McChrystal has done over a thirty-three-year career remains classified, including service between 2003 and 2008 as commander of the JSOC, a special black operations commando unit of the Navy Seals and Delta Force so clandestine that the Pentagon for years refused to acknowledge its existence.
Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Seymour Hersh claims that the Bush administration ran an executive assassination ring that reported directly to former Vice President Dick Cheney, and that Congress had no oversight of it whatsoever. The JSOC team would go into countries, without talking to the ambassador or to the CIA station chief, find people on a to-be-killed list, execute them, and leave. There was an ongoing list of targeted people, cleared by Vice President Cheney’s office, who had committed acts of war or were suspected of planning operations of war against the United States. Hersh asserts that there have been assassinations in a dozen countries in the Middle East and Latin America. “There’s an executive order, signed by President Ford, in the ’70s, forbidding such action. It’s not only contrary—it’s illegal, it’s immoral, it’s counterproductive,” he added.
JSOC was also involved in war crimes, including the torture of prisoners in secret “ghost” detention sites. Camp Nama in Iraq was one such “ghost” facility hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the international body charged under international law with monitoring compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and given the right to inspect all facilities where people are detained in a country that is at war or under military occupation. On July 22, 2006, Human Rights Watch issued a report, titled “No Blood, No Foul,” about American torture practices at three facilities in Iraq. One of them was Camp Nama, accused of some of the worst acts of torture, and operated by JSOC, under the direction of McChrystal. McChrystal, then a Major General, was officially based at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, but he was a frequent visitor to Camp Nama and other bases in Iraq and Afghanistan under his command.
To Read the Rest of the Report and Access Sources
Project Censored (Sonoma State University)
Student Researcher: Cristina Risso (Sonoma State University)
Faculty Evaluator: Elaine Wellin (Sonoma State University)
A little more than a year before he was fired on June 23, 2010, for making potentially insubordinate remarks in a Rolling Stone profile, General Stanley McChrystal was appointed by President Barack Obama as commander in charge of the war in Afghanistan. He had been formerly in charge of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) headed by former Vice President Dick Cheney. Most of what General McChrystal has done over a thirty-three-year career remains classified, including service between 2003 and 2008 as commander of the JSOC, a special black operations commando unit of the Navy Seals and Delta Force so clandestine that the Pentagon for years refused to acknowledge its existence.
Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Seymour Hersh claims that the Bush administration ran an executive assassination ring that reported directly to former Vice President Dick Cheney, and that Congress had no oversight of it whatsoever. The JSOC team would go into countries, without talking to the ambassador or to the CIA station chief, find people on a to-be-killed list, execute them, and leave. There was an ongoing list of targeted people, cleared by Vice President Cheney’s office, who had committed acts of war or were suspected of planning operations of war against the United States. Hersh asserts that there have been assassinations in a dozen countries in the Middle East and Latin America. “There’s an executive order, signed by President Ford, in the ’70s, forbidding such action. It’s not only contrary—it’s illegal, it’s immoral, it’s counterproductive,” he added.
JSOC was also involved in war crimes, including the torture of prisoners in secret “ghost” detention sites. Camp Nama in Iraq was one such “ghost” facility hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the international body charged under international law with monitoring compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and given the right to inspect all facilities where people are detained in a country that is at war or under military occupation. On July 22, 2006, Human Rights Watch issued a report, titled “No Blood, No Foul,” about American torture practices at three facilities in Iraq. One of them was Camp Nama, accused of some of the worst acts of torture, and operated by JSOC, under the direction of McChrystal. McChrystal, then a Major General, was officially based at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, but he was a frequent visitor to Camp Nama and other bases in Iraq and Afghanistan under his command.
To Read the Rest of the Report and Access Sources
To the Best of Our Knowledge: Architects of War
Architects of War
To The Best of Our Knowledge (Wisconsin Public Radio)
On March 20, 2003, the US invaded Iraq. More than 6 years later we're still there. What happened? Were we prepared? In this hour of To the Best of Our Knowledge, we'll talk with the planners of the war in Iraq. From Neoconservatives, to Department of Defense officials. From members of the Iraqi government to military personnel. Will their preparations lead us to peace or … more war?
SEGMENT 1:
After a quick look back at Neo-conservative Richard Perle's 2003 justification for war with Iraq, Steve Paulson talks with Douglas Feith about decision-making in the wake of 9/ll. Feith is a leading neo-conservative intellectual, who was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under Donald Rumsfeld, and one of the architects of the Bush Administration's war on terrorism. He is the author of "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism." Also, Colonel David Lapan is Director of Public Affairs for the U.S. Marine Corps and was one of the architects of the Defense Department's Embedded Media Program. Jim Fleming caught up with him one hectic day at the Pentagon and they talked about the merits of the embed program.
SEGMENT 2:
David Kilcullen is the author of "The Accidental Guerilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One." Kilcullen was a top military advisor to General Petraeus during the troop surge in Iraq. He tells Anne Strainchamps that most counter-insurgency efforts fail because foreign armies usually galvanize opposition from local people. Also, Ali Allawi was Minister of Trade and Minister of Defense in the Interim Iraqi Governing Council in 2003 and 2004. He resigned his position as Minister of Finance in the Iraqi Transitional Government because he was frustrated by the political infighting. Allawi recalls his experiences and reflects on the present situation during this conversation with Steve Paulson. Allawi's book is called "The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War: Losing the Peace."
SEGMENT 3:
Journalist Thomas Ricks writes for The Washington Post and has won two Pulitzer Prizes. He's also the author of books called "Fiasco" and "The Gamble," both about the war in Iraq. He talks with Jim Fleming about how close the U.S. came to losing the war in Iraq on November 19, 2004 in a town called Haditha, 150 miles north of Baghdad.
To Listen to the Episode
To The Best of Our Knowledge (Wisconsin Public Radio)
On March 20, 2003, the US invaded Iraq. More than 6 years later we're still there. What happened? Were we prepared? In this hour of To the Best of Our Knowledge, we'll talk with the planners of the war in Iraq. From Neoconservatives, to Department of Defense officials. From members of the Iraqi government to military personnel. Will their preparations lead us to peace or … more war?
SEGMENT 1:
After a quick look back at Neo-conservative Richard Perle's 2003 justification for war with Iraq, Steve Paulson talks with Douglas Feith about decision-making in the wake of 9/ll. Feith is a leading neo-conservative intellectual, who was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under Donald Rumsfeld, and one of the architects of the Bush Administration's war on terrorism. He is the author of "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism." Also, Colonel David Lapan is Director of Public Affairs for the U.S. Marine Corps and was one of the architects of the Defense Department's Embedded Media Program. Jim Fleming caught up with him one hectic day at the Pentagon and they talked about the merits of the embed program.
SEGMENT 2:
David Kilcullen is the author of "The Accidental Guerilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One." Kilcullen was a top military advisor to General Petraeus during the troop surge in Iraq. He tells Anne Strainchamps that most counter-insurgency efforts fail because foreign armies usually galvanize opposition from local people. Also, Ali Allawi was Minister of Trade and Minister of Defense in the Interim Iraqi Governing Council in 2003 and 2004. He resigned his position as Minister of Finance in the Iraqi Transitional Government because he was frustrated by the political infighting. Allawi recalls his experiences and reflects on the present situation during this conversation with Steve Paulson. Allawi's book is called "The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War: Losing the Peace."
SEGMENT 3:
Journalist Thomas Ricks writes for The Washington Post and has won two Pulitzer Prizes. He's also the author of books called "Fiasco" and "The Gamble," both about the war in Iraq. He talks with Jim Fleming about how close the U.S. came to losing the war in Iraq on November 19, 2004 in a town called Haditha, 150 miles north of Baghdad.
To Listen to the Episode
Project Censored Top 25 of 2011: #25 Prisoners Still Brutalized at Guantánamo
25. Prisoners Still Brutalized at Gitmo
by Scott Macky and Peter Phillips
Project Censored
In Guantánamo, the notorious but seldom-discussed thug squad, officially known as the Immediate Reaction Force (IRF), deployed by the US military remains very much active. Inside the walls of Guantánamo, the prisoners know the squad as the Extreme Repression Force.
In reality, IRF is an extrajudicial terror squad, the existence of which has been documented since the early days of Guantánamo. IRF has rarely been mentioned in the United States media or in congressional inquiries into torture. On paper, IRF teams are made up of five military police officers who are on constant standby to respond to emergencies. “The IRF team is intended to be used primarily as a forced-extraction team, specializing in the extraction of a detainee who is combative, resistive, or if [there is] the possibility of a weapon . . . in the cell at the time of the extraction,” according to a declassified copy of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Camp Delta at Guantánamo. The document was signed on March 27, 2003, by Major General Geoffrey Miller, the man credited with eventually “Gitmoizing” Abu Ghraib and other US-run prisons.
When an IRF team is called in, its members are dressed in full riot gear, which some prisoners and their attorneys have compared to “Darth Vader” suits. Each officer is assigned a body part of the prisoner to restrain: head, right arm, left arm, left leg, right leg. According to the SOP document, the teams are to give verbal warnings to prisoners before storming the cell: “Prior to the use of the IRF team, an interpreter will be used to tell the detainee of the discipline measures to be taken against him and ask whether he intends to resist. Regardless of his answer, his recent behavior and demeanor should be taken into account in determining the validity of his answer.” The IRF team is authorized to spray the detainee in the face with mace twice before entering the cell.
To Read the Rest ofthe Report
by Scott Macky and Peter Phillips
Project Censored
In Guantánamo, the notorious but seldom-discussed thug squad, officially known as the Immediate Reaction Force (IRF), deployed by the US military remains very much active. Inside the walls of Guantánamo, the prisoners know the squad as the Extreme Repression Force.
In reality, IRF is an extrajudicial terror squad, the existence of which has been documented since the early days of Guantánamo. IRF has rarely been mentioned in the United States media or in congressional inquiries into torture. On paper, IRF teams are made up of five military police officers who are on constant standby to respond to emergencies. “The IRF team is intended to be used primarily as a forced-extraction team, specializing in the extraction of a detainee who is combative, resistive, or if [there is] the possibility of a weapon . . . in the cell at the time of the extraction,” according to a declassified copy of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Camp Delta at Guantánamo. The document was signed on March 27, 2003, by Major General Geoffrey Miller, the man credited with eventually “Gitmoizing” Abu Ghraib and other US-run prisons.
When an IRF team is called in, its members are dressed in full riot gear, which some prisoners and their attorneys have compared to “Darth Vader” suits. Each officer is assigned a body part of the prisoner to restrain: head, right arm, left arm, left leg, right leg. According to the SOP document, the teams are to give verbal warnings to prisoners before storming the cell: “Prior to the use of the IRF team, an interpreter will be used to tell the detainee of the discipline measures to be taken against him and ask whether he intends to resist. Regardless of his answer, his recent behavior and demeanor should be taken into account in determining the validity of his answer.” The IRF team is authorized to spray the detainee in the face with mace twice before entering the cell.
To Read the Rest ofthe Report
Human Terrain: War Becomes Academic
Please join us for a showing of the acclaimed, award-winning documentary, Human Terrain, on Friday, March 11th in the central UK Student amphitheater at 2:30pm. Sponsored by the UK Department of Anthropology, this film critically interrogates the use of social scientists to collect "cultural intelligence" for the counterinsurgency campaigns in the Iraq and Afghanistan. The film is directed by James Der Derian (International Relations, Brown University) and David and Michael Udris.
Website: http://humanterrainmovie.com/
Synopsis: ‘Human Terrain’ is two stories in one. The first exposes a new Pentagon effort to enlist the best and the brightest in a struggle for hearts and minds. Facing long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military initiates ‘Human Terrain Systems’, a controversial program that seeks to make cultural awareness the centerpiece of the new counterinsurgency strategy. Designed to embed social scientists with combat troops, the program swiftly comes under attack as a misguided and unethical effort to gather intelligence and target enemies. Gaining rare access to wargames in the Mojave Desert and training exercises at Quantico and Fort Leavenworth, ‘Human Terrain’ takes the viewer into the heart of the war machine and a shadowy collaboration between American academics and the military.
The other story is about a brilliant young scholar who leaves the university to join a Human Terrain team. After working as a humanitarian activist in the Western Sahara, Balkans, East Timor and elsewhere, and winning a Marshall Scholarship to study at Oxford, Michael Bhatia returns to Brown University to take up a visiting fellowship. In the course of conducting research on military cultural awareness, he is recruited by the Human Terrain program and eventually embeds with the 82nd Airborne in eastern Afghanistan. On the way to mediate an intertribal dispute, Bhatia is killed when his humvee hits a roadside bomb.
War becomes academic, academics go to war, and the personal tragically merges with the political, raising new questions about the ethics, effectiveness, and high costs of counterinsurgency.See More
ABC News: Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd says it is unacceptable that nine young Afghan boys were gunned down by US helicopters
[From Oliver Belcher by way of Marshall Wilkinson, "A no-fly zone over Libya is a great idea, but maybe put one over Afghanistan too so that the US can stop killing children. 76 civilians killed by US bombs in 10 days, including 9 boys gathering wood on Monday."]
ABC News: Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd says it is unacceptable that nine young Afghan boys [under the age of 12] were gunned down by US helicopters while collecting firewood.
ABC News: Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd says it is unacceptable that nine young Afghan boys [under the age of 12] were gunned down by US helicopters while collecting firewood.
In Their Words
From Feministing
"The words from this video were taken directly from the legal complaint against the Pentagon over their failure to respond to the sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape that the 15 plantiffs (and so many more) experienced while in the military."
"The words from this video were taken directly from the legal complaint against the Pentagon over their failure to respond to the sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape that the 15 plantiffs (and so many more) experienced while in the military."
Government Report: U.S. Has Wasted Tens Of Billions Of Dollars On Contractors In Iraq And Afghanistan
Report: U.S. Has Wasted Tens Of Billions Of Dollars On Contractors In Iraq And Afghanistan
by Susan Crabtree
Talking Points Memo
A new report from a bipartisan commission set up to scrutinize the unprecedented use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan concludes that the United States has wasted tens of billions of the nearly $177 billion that has been spent on those contracts and grants since 2002.
The report, titled "At What Risk? Correcting Over-reliance on Contractors in Contingency Operations," said its estimate may even understate the problem because it may not take into full account ill-conceived projects, poor planning and oversight by the U.S. government, as well as criminal behavior and blatant corruption by both government and contractor employees.
"For many years," the report says, "the government has abdicated its contracting responsibilities - too often using contractors as the default mechanism ... without consideration for the resources needed to manage them."
The commission, chaired by Michael Thibault, former deputy director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and former Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) holds a hearing Monday to review the new report's findings.
About 200,000 contractor employees are working in Iraq and Afghanistan -- a number roughly equal to the American military forces deployed there, according to the report. Their work includes guarding bases, building facilities, providing food and laundry services, escorting supply and personnel movements, and translating local languages.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
by Susan Crabtree
Talking Points Memo
A new report from a bipartisan commission set up to scrutinize the unprecedented use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan concludes that the United States has wasted tens of billions of the nearly $177 billion that has been spent on those contracts and grants since 2002.
The report, titled "At What Risk? Correcting Over-reliance on Contractors in Contingency Operations," said its estimate may even understate the problem because it may not take into full account ill-conceived projects, poor planning and oversight by the U.S. government, as well as criminal behavior and blatant corruption by both government and contractor employees.
"For many years," the report says, "the government has abdicated its contracting responsibilities - too often using contractors as the default mechanism ... without consideration for the resources needed to manage them."
The commission, chaired by Michael Thibault, former deputy director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and former Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) holds a hearing Monday to review the new report's findings.
About 200,000 contractor employees are working in Iraq and Afghanistan -- a number roughly equal to the American military forces deployed there, according to the report. Their work includes guarding bases, building facilities, providing food and laundry services, escorting supply and personnel movements, and translating local languages.
To Read the Rest of the Essay
Michael Hastings: Another Runaway General -- Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators
Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators
By Michael Hastings
Rolling Stone
The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in "psychological operations" to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.
The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.
"My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line."
The list of targeted visitors was long, according to interviews with members of the IO team and internal documents obtained by Rolling Stone. Those singled out in the campaign included senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin; Rep. Steve Israel of the House Appropriations Committee; Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Czech ambassador to Afghanistan; the German interior minister, and a host of influential think-tank analysts.
The incident offers an indication of just how desperate the U.S. command in Afghanistan is to spin American civilian leaders into supporting an increasingly unpopular war. According to the Defense Department’s own definition, psy-ops – the use of propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors – are supposed to be used exclusively on "hostile foreign groups." Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a "propaganda rider" that also prohibits such manipulation. "Everyone in the psy-ops, intel, and IO community knows you’re not supposed to target Americans," says a veteran member of another psy-ops team who has run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It’s what you learn on day one."
When Holmes and his four-man team arrived in Afghanistan in November 2009, their mission was to assess the effects of U.S. propaganda on the Taliban and the local Afghan population. But the following month, Holmes began receiving orders from Caldwell’s staff to direct his expertise on a new target: visiting Americans. At first, the orders were administered verbally. According to Holmes, who attended at least a dozen meetings with Caldwell to discuss the operation, the general wanted the IO unit to do the kind of seemingly innocuous work usually delegated to the two dozen members of his public affairs staff: compiling detailed profiles of the VIPs, including their voting records, their likes and dislikes, and their "hot-button issues." In one email to Holmes, Caldwell’s staff also wanted to know how to shape the general’s presentations to the visiting dignitaries, and how best to "refine our messaging."
To Read the Rest of the Essay
By Michael Hastings
Rolling Stone
The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in "psychological operations" to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.
The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.
"My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line."
The list of targeted visitors was long, according to interviews with members of the IO team and internal documents obtained by Rolling Stone. Those singled out in the campaign included senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Jack Reed, Al Franken and Carl Levin; Rep. Steve Israel of the House Appropriations Committee; Adm. Mike Mullen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Czech ambassador to Afghanistan; the German interior minister, and a host of influential think-tank analysts.
The incident offers an indication of just how desperate the U.S. command in Afghanistan is to spin American civilian leaders into supporting an increasingly unpopular war. According to the Defense Department’s own definition, psy-ops – the use of propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors – are supposed to be used exclusively on "hostile foreign groups." Federal law forbids the military from practicing psy-ops on Americans, and each defense authorization bill comes with a "propaganda rider" that also prohibits such manipulation. "Everyone in the psy-ops, intel, and IO community knows you’re not supposed to target Americans," says a veteran member of another psy-ops team who has run operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "It’s what you learn on day one."
When Holmes and his four-man team arrived in Afghanistan in November 2009, their mission was to assess the effects of U.S. propaganda on the Taliban and the local Afghan population. But the following month, Holmes began receiving orders from Caldwell’s staff to direct his expertise on a new target: visiting Americans. At first, the orders were administered verbally. According to Holmes, who attended at least a dozen meetings with Caldwell to discuss the operation, the general wanted the IO unit to do the kind of seemingly innocuous work usually delegated to the two dozen members of his public affairs staff: compiling detailed profiles of the VIPs, including their voting records, their likes and dislikes, and their "hot-button issues." In one email to Holmes, Caldwell’s staff also wanted to know how to shape the general’s presentations to the visiting dignitaries, and how best to "refine our messaging."
To Read the Rest of the Essay
Empire: Hollywood and the War Machine
Hollywood and the war machine: Empire examines the symbiotic relationship between the movie industry and the military-industrial complex.
Empire (Al Jazeera)
War is hell, but for Hollywood it has been a Godsend, providing the perfect dramatic setting against which courageous heroes win the hearts and minds of the movie going public.
The Pentagon recognises the power of these celluloid dreams and encourages Hollywood to create heroic myths; to rewrite history to suit its own strategy and as a recruiting tool to provide a steady flow of willing young patriots for its wars.
What does Hollywood get out of this 'deal with the devil'? Access to billions of dollars worth of military kit, from helicopters to aircraft carriers, enabling filmmakers to make bigger and more spectacular battle scenes, which in turn generate more box office revenue. Providing they accept the Pentagon's advice, even toe the party line and show the US military in a positive light.
So is it a case of art imitating life, or a sinister force using art to influence life and death - and the public perception of both?
Empire will examine Hollywood, the Pentagon, and war.
Joining us as guests: Oliver Stone, the eight times Academy Award-winning filmmaker; Michael Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker; and Christopher Hedges, an author and the former Middle East bureau chief of the New York Times.
Our interviewees this week are: Phil Strub, US Department of Defense Film Liaison Unit; Julian Barnes, Pentagon correspondent, LA Times; David Robb, the author of Operation Hollywood; Prof Klaus Dodds, the author of Screening Terror; Matthew Alford, the author of Reel Power; Prof Melani McAlister, the author of Culture, Media, and US Interests in the Middle East.
To Watch the Documentary
Empire (Al Jazeera)
War is hell, but for Hollywood it has been a Godsend, providing the perfect dramatic setting against which courageous heroes win the hearts and minds of the movie going public.
The Pentagon recognises the power of these celluloid dreams and encourages Hollywood to create heroic myths; to rewrite history to suit its own strategy and as a recruiting tool to provide a steady flow of willing young patriots for its wars.
What does Hollywood get out of this 'deal with the devil'? Access to billions of dollars worth of military kit, from helicopters to aircraft carriers, enabling filmmakers to make bigger and more spectacular battle scenes, which in turn generate more box office revenue. Providing they accept the Pentagon's advice, even toe the party line and show the US military in a positive light.
So is it a case of art imitating life, or a sinister force using art to influence life and death - and the public perception of both?
Empire will examine Hollywood, the Pentagon, and war.
Joining us as guests: Oliver Stone, the eight times Academy Award-winning filmmaker; Michael Moore, the Academy Award-winning filmmaker; and Christopher Hedges, an author and the former Middle East bureau chief of the New York Times.
Our interviewees this week are: Phil Strub, US Department of Defense Film Liaison Unit; Julian Barnes, Pentagon correspondent, LA Times; David Robb, the author of Operation Hollywood; Prof Klaus Dodds, the author of Screening Terror; Matthew Alford, the author of Reel Power; Prof Melani McAlister, the author of Culture, Media, and US Interests in the Middle East.
To Watch the Documentary
Camillo Bica: Rich Man's War and a Poor Man's Fight
"Rich Man's War and a Poor Man's Fight."
by Camillo "Mac" Bica
TruthOut
...
Despite the deep recession, not all segments of American society are suffering economically. Banking and corporate executives, for example, continue to enjoy lucrative salaries and bonuses. Under the war economy, Main Street struggles, Wall Street thrives and America suffers the largest income gap between its richest and poorest citizens in recorded history. Consequently, although the draft with its exemption clause may be gone, little has changed since the Civil War. The children of the privileged and the wealthy, uncoerced by economic need, feel no compunction to place their physical and mental well-being in jeopardy by enlisting in the military. As a result of this extreme economic inequity and the AVF's economic incentives, the modern equivalent of the substitution fee, once again the burden of fighting and dying falls upon the poor and working classes. Consequently, the AVF, not unlike the draft-military of 1873, smacks of classism and remains unrepresentative of American society. In fact, it may be even more insidious. During the Civil War, draft dodgers like Carnegie were at least required to pay the commutation or substitution fee out of their own pockets. In the AVF, it is paid for by the taxpayers. Ironically, given the system of taxation in this country that provides lucrative corporate tax loopholes and tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, these economic incentives to military service (i.e., the pay raises, enlistment bonuses, GI Bill etc.) are paid for, not by those who are spared (i.e., the privileged and the wealthy), but rather by those who are required, by economic need, to make the sacrifice, enlist in the military and risk injury and death in war - the poor and the working class.
...
One final point, given war's extreme profitability for the privileged and the wealthy (the corporatists, bankers, politicians - the military-industrial, Congressional complex) and the fact that with the AVF, they and/or their children will never step onto the battlefield and suffer war's deleterious effects, it is not surprising, therefore, that our nation is embroiled in a quagmire with the longest and most expensive war in American history. As the wars and occupations continue virtually ignored except by the small percentage of Americans who are directly impacted by the killing and dying - members of the military and their families - voices from both ends of the political spectrum are calling for the reinstatement of the draft as a means of sharing the burden of military service, or to "reinvigorate" the peace movement. I have always opposed the draft as immoral and unconstitutional, but as the situation in this country has grown dire, drastic measures are required. Consequently, as much as it pains me to say, I think that the most plausible solution to what can only be described as war profiteering and a violation of the principle of universal obligation and shared sacrifice, is to reinstate the draft, but with a stipulation. Unless and until these gross economic inequities are remedied and educational and employment opportunities are made available to all, only those young men and women whose families earn an annual income exceeding $250,000 will be subject to mandatory military service with few if any exemptions other than REAL, documented and severe medical impairment. This "Fairness Draft," will accomplish three important goals. First, it helps furnish the manpower necessary to sustain the AVF and ensure the national defense. Second, it satisfies both the intent of the social contract and the principle of distributive justice by ensuring that the burden of military service is shared equally by all segments of the population, regardless of economic status. Lastly and. perhaps most importantly, as the cost-benefit analysis changes, that is, should the lives and well-being of the children of the privileged and the wealthy - the progeny of bankers, corporate executives, politicians etc. - be placed at risk, the frequency and number of wars will decrease significantly. By providing a fair distribution of sacrifice, with fewer unnecessary and immoral wars, and the eventual educational and employment opportunity for all, the Fairness Draft is a good first step toward creating a more perfect union and ensuring that the alleged struggle to end terrorism no longer remains a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight."
To Read the Entire Essay
by Camillo "Mac" Bica
TruthOut
...
Despite the deep recession, not all segments of American society are suffering economically. Banking and corporate executives, for example, continue to enjoy lucrative salaries and bonuses. Under the war economy, Main Street struggles, Wall Street thrives and America suffers the largest income gap between its richest and poorest citizens in recorded history. Consequently, although the draft with its exemption clause may be gone, little has changed since the Civil War. The children of the privileged and the wealthy, uncoerced by economic need, feel no compunction to place their physical and mental well-being in jeopardy by enlisting in the military. As a result of this extreme economic inequity and the AVF's economic incentives, the modern equivalent of the substitution fee, once again the burden of fighting and dying falls upon the poor and working classes. Consequently, the AVF, not unlike the draft-military of 1873, smacks of classism and remains unrepresentative of American society. In fact, it may be even more insidious. During the Civil War, draft dodgers like Carnegie were at least required to pay the commutation or substitution fee out of their own pockets. In the AVF, it is paid for by the taxpayers. Ironically, given the system of taxation in this country that provides lucrative corporate tax loopholes and tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, these economic incentives to military service (i.e., the pay raises, enlistment bonuses, GI Bill etc.) are paid for, not by those who are spared (i.e., the privileged and the wealthy), but rather by those who are required, by economic need, to make the sacrifice, enlist in the military and risk injury and death in war - the poor and the working class.
...
One final point, given war's extreme profitability for the privileged and the wealthy (the corporatists, bankers, politicians - the military-industrial, Congressional complex) and the fact that with the AVF, they and/or their children will never step onto the battlefield and suffer war's deleterious effects, it is not surprising, therefore, that our nation is embroiled in a quagmire with the longest and most expensive war in American history. As the wars and occupations continue virtually ignored except by the small percentage of Americans who are directly impacted by the killing and dying - members of the military and their families - voices from both ends of the political spectrum are calling for the reinstatement of the draft as a means of sharing the burden of military service, or to "reinvigorate" the peace movement. I have always opposed the draft as immoral and unconstitutional, but as the situation in this country has grown dire, drastic measures are required. Consequently, as much as it pains me to say, I think that the most plausible solution to what can only be described as war profiteering and a violation of the principle of universal obligation and shared sacrifice, is to reinstate the draft, but with a stipulation. Unless and until these gross economic inequities are remedied and educational and employment opportunities are made available to all, only those young men and women whose families earn an annual income exceeding $250,000 will be subject to mandatory military service with few if any exemptions other than REAL, documented and severe medical impairment. This "Fairness Draft," will accomplish three important goals. First, it helps furnish the manpower necessary to sustain the AVF and ensure the national defense. Second, it satisfies both the intent of the social contract and the principle of distributive justice by ensuring that the burden of military service is shared equally by all segments of the population, regardless of economic status. Lastly and. perhaps most importantly, as the cost-benefit analysis changes, that is, should the lives and well-being of the children of the privileged and the wealthy - the progeny of bankers, corporate executives, politicians etc. - be placed at risk, the frequency and number of wars will decrease significantly. By providing a fair distribution of sacrifice, with fewer unnecessary and immoral wars, and the eventual educational and employment opportunity for all, the Fairness Draft is a good first step toward creating a more perfect union and ensuring that the alleged struggle to end terrorism no longer remains a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight."
To Read the Entire Essay
Guardian February 13th Live Feed on Reports from the Egyptian Revolution
Egypt in transition - Sunday 13 February• Military leaders dissolve parliament and suspend constitution
• Protesters scuffle with soldiers attempting to move them on
• Tutankhamun relics stolen from Egyptian museum
• Read the latest summary of the day's events
Guardian
...
Reuters has an interesting round up of reaction to the military's announcement that it is dissolving parliament and suspending the constitution.
AYMAN NOUR, OPPOSITION ACTIVIST
"It is a victory for the revolution. I think this will satisfy the protesters. This resolution satisfies the Egyptian street, especially the part related to dissolving the parliament and shura council, and I think we are facing a new situation starting from today. We must have dialogue with the military council about putting a temporary, constitutional document to manage affairs in the transitional period."
HASSAN ABU TALEB, AL-AHRAM CENTRE FOR POLITICAL AND STRATEGIC STUDIES
"The army has started using 'revolutionary legitimacy' as a basis for its actions. The army's commitment to a civilian and freely elected government, parliament, and an open space for political parties is a good sign. But there are many questions still. Who will be in this committee and what kind of role will the military play in drafting the new constitution? Will their role in the new constitution give them roles as ones given to the military in Turkey? There are still a lot of grey areas but it is clear that these decisions are opening the door for an entirely new system to come to order."
ABDULLAH HELMY, OF THE "YOUTH REVOLUTION UNION"
"The people have won. The youth of the revolution would like to thank the armed forced for their speedy response to our demands. The system has fallen and now we will get ready for reform."
HISHAM KASSEM, RIGHTS ACTIVIST AND PUBLISHER
"It seems to be the only way out. It might not be very political in the sense that I worry about the outcome of an election. The pattern is that the most powerful families always win the elections. The National Democratic Party (NDP) made sure their members were in it. These same families will win again with new faces, but via what political groups? The NDP has completely collapsed, no one will run on that platform. The party will completely collapse soon. (Six months) could be tough, and it's not easy to draft a constitution."
MAHMOUD NASSAR, PROTESTER IN TAHRIR SQUARE
"The army has moved far along to meet the people's demands and we urge it to release all political prisoners who were taken before and after the January 25 revolution. Only then will we call off the protests."
CROWDS IN TAHRIR SQUARE
"Victory! Victory."
SAMY SAYYID, ACTIVIST AND PROTESTER IN TAHRIR SQUARE
"The immediate release of political prisoners is needed. They must be freed! We will only be safe when they are out."
AHMED ABDEL AZIZ, 39, PROTESTER IN TAHRIR SQUARE
"The coward is a coward and the brave are brave. We stuck to the last day and we won and watch out for more victories to the brave people of Egypt."
To Read the Live News Feed
• Protesters scuffle with soldiers attempting to move them on
• Tutankhamun relics stolen from Egyptian museum
• Read the latest summary of the day's events
Guardian
...
Reuters has an interesting round up of reaction to the military's announcement that it is dissolving parliament and suspending the constitution.
AYMAN NOUR, OPPOSITION ACTIVIST
"It is a victory for the revolution. I think this will satisfy the protesters. This resolution satisfies the Egyptian street, especially the part related to dissolving the parliament and shura council, and I think we are facing a new situation starting from today. We must have dialogue with the military council about putting a temporary, constitutional document to manage affairs in the transitional period."
HASSAN ABU TALEB, AL-AHRAM CENTRE FOR POLITICAL AND STRATEGIC STUDIES
"The army has started using 'revolutionary legitimacy' as a basis for its actions. The army's commitment to a civilian and freely elected government, parliament, and an open space for political parties is a good sign. But there are many questions still. Who will be in this committee and what kind of role will the military play in drafting the new constitution? Will their role in the new constitution give them roles as ones given to the military in Turkey? There are still a lot of grey areas but it is clear that these decisions are opening the door for an entirely new system to come to order."
ABDULLAH HELMY, OF THE "YOUTH REVOLUTION UNION"
"The people have won. The youth of the revolution would like to thank the armed forced for their speedy response to our demands. The system has fallen and now we will get ready for reform."
HISHAM KASSEM, RIGHTS ACTIVIST AND PUBLISHER
"It seems to be the only way out. It might not be very political in the sense that I worry about the outcome of an election. The pattern is that the most powerful families always win the elections. The National Democratic Party (NDP) made sure their members were in it. These same families will win again with new faces, but via what political groups? The NDP has completely collapsed, no one will run on that platform. The party will completely collapse soon. (Six months) could be tough, and it's not easy to draft a constitution."
MAHMOUD NASSAR, PROTESTER IN TAHRIR SQUARE
"The army has moved far along to meet the people's demands and we urge it to release all political prisoners who were taken before and after the January 25 revolution. Only then will we call off the protests."
CROWDS IN TAHRIR SQUARE
"Victory! Victory."
SAMY SAYYID, ACTIVIST AND PROTESTER IN TAHRIR SQUARE
"The immediate release of political prisoners is needed. They must be freed! We will only be safe when they are out."
AHMED ABDEL AZIZ, 39, PROTESTER IN TAHRIR SQUARE
"The coward is a coward and the brave are brave. We stuck to the last day and we won and watch out for more victories to the brave people of Egypt."
To Read the Live News Feed
Facing South: U.S. defense contractors with the most at stake in Egypt
(via Sue Sturgis and Herb Reid)
U.S. defense contractors with the most at stake in Egypt
Facing South (Institute for Southern Studies)
Facing South reviewed the Department of Defense contract database over the past two years to see what deals are already in place, and discovered many contracts with connections to the South. The following are the 10 biggest contracts involving aid to Egypt in that period.
1. Lockheed Martin -- Fort Worth, Texas and Orlando, Fla. Last March, the aerospace giant won a $213 million Air Force contract to provide Egypt with 20 F-16 fighter jets. The following month, its Lockheed Martin Missiles subsidiary in Orlando, Fla. got a $46 million Army contract to provide night vision sensor systems for Apache helicopters.
2. DRS C3 and Aviation -- Horsham, Pa. In December 2010, this subsidiary of the Italian company Finmeccanica received a $46.1 million Army contract to provide vehicles, hardware and services for Egypt's border surveillance program. That same month DRS landed another $19.6 million Army contract to provide surveillance hardware and services for the Egyptian government.
3. L-3 Communication Ocean Systems -- Sylmar, Calif. and Garland, Texas. The company's Sylmar operations completed a $24.7 million deal with the Navy last August to provide a sonar system for the Egyptian Navy. And in April 2009, L-3's EOS Division in Garland, Texas got a $6.6 million Army contract to provide Egypt with military imaging equipment.
4. Deloitte Consulting -- Arlington, Va. The professional services firm won a $28.1 million Navy contract in December 2009 to provide planning and other support for Egyptian aircraft programs.
5. Boeing -- Mesa, Ariz. and St. Louis. Last May, the aerospace firm landed a $22.5 million Army contract to provide Egypt with 10 Apache helicopters. The month before that, the company's St. Louis operations won a $5.8 million Navy contract to provide logistics support for other governments, with $262,530 of that designated for assistance to Egypt.
6. Raytheon -- Tucson, Ariz. and Andover, Mass. The weapons and electronics firm received a $26 million Navy contract in June 2009 to provide 178 Stinger missiles to both Egypt and Turkey. This past December, it finalized a $5.6 million Army contract to provide Hawk missile system technical assistance to the Egyptian government.
7. AgustaWestland -- Reston, Va. In November 2009, the Navy made definite a previously awarded $17.3 million contract for the company -- a subsidiary of Italy's Finmeccanica -- to provide helicopter maintenance for the Egyptian government.
8. US Motor Works -- Cerritos, Calif. and Grand Prairie, Texas. The company got a $14.5 million Army contract in June 2009 to provide engines, components and spare parts for vehicles acquired for the Egyptian Armament Authority, with most of that work to be done in Texas.
9. Goodrich Corp. --- Chelmsford, Mass. In October 2010, Goodrich landed a $10.8 million Air Force deal to procure and deploy reconnaissance systems for use on the F-16 fighter jets purchased by the Egyptian Air Force.
10. Columbia Group -- Washington, D.C. In June 2009, the defense contractor completed a $10.6 million contract with the Navy to provide remotely operated vehicle systems as well as technical support and training to the Egyptian Navy, with most of the work to be performed out of the company's Panama City, Fla. operations.
Many other companies with recent deals related to Egypt have operations in the South as well. They include Michelin Aircraft Tire of Greenville, S.C.; Wyle Laboratories, Camber Corp. and Summa Technology, all of Huntsville, Ala.; WRSystems Ltd. of Fairfax, Va.; TASC of Chantilly, Va.; and Clayton International of Peachtree City, Ga.
To Read the Rest of the Report and Access Hyperlinked Resources
U.S. defense contractors with the most at stake in Egypt
Facing South (Institute for Southern Studies)
Facing South reviewed the Department of Defense contract database over the past two years to see what deals are already in place, and discovered many contracts with connections to the South. The following are the 10 biggest contracts involving aid to Egypt in that period.
1. Lockheed Martin -- Fort Worth, Texas and Orlando, Fla. Last March, the aerospace giant won a $213 million Air Force contract to provide Egypt with 20 F-16 fighter jets. The following month, its Lockheed Martin Missiles subsidiary in Orlando, Fla. got a $46 million Army contract to provide night vision sensor systems for Apache helicopters.
2. DRS C3 and Aviation -- Horsham, Pa. In December 2010, this subsidiary of the Italian company Finmeccanica received a $46.1 million Army contract to provide vehicles, hardware and services for Egypt's border surveillance program. That same month DRS landed another $19.6 million Army contract to provide surveillance hardware and services for the Egyptian government.
3. L-3 Communication Ocean Systems -- Sylmar, Calif. and Garland, Texas. The company's Sylmar operations completed a $24.7 million deal with the Navy last August to provide a sonar system for the Egyptian Navy. And in April 2009, L-3's EOS Division in Garland, Texas got a $6.6 million Army contract to provide Egypt with military imaging equipment.
4. Deloitte Consulting -- Arlington, Va. The professional services firm won a $28.1 million Navy contract in December 2009 to provide planning and other support for Egyptian aircraft programs.
5. Boeing -- Mesa, Ariz. and St. Louis. Last May, the aerospace firm landed a $22.5 million Army contract to provide Egypt with 10 Apache helicopters. The month before that, the company's St. Louis operations won a $5.8 million Navy contract to provide logistics support for other governments, with $262,530 of that designated for assistance to Egypt.
6. Raytheon -- Tucson, Ariz. and Andover, Mass. The weapons and electronics firm received a $26 million Navy contract in June 2009 to provide 178 Stinger missiles to both Egypt and Turkey. This past December, it finalized a $5.6 million Army contract to provide Hawk missile system technical assistance to the Egyptian government.
7. AgustaWestland -- Reston, Va. In November 2009, the Navy made definite a previously awarded $17.3 million contract for the company -- a subsidiary of Italy's Finmeccanica -- to provide helicopter maintenance for the Egyptian government.
8. US Motor Works -- Cerritos, Calif. and Grand Prairie, Texas. The company got a $14.5 million Army contract in June 2009 to provide engines, components and spare parts for vehicles acquired for the Egyptian Armament Authority, with most of that work to be done in Texas.
9. Goodrich Corp. --- Chelmsford, Mass. In October 2010, Goodrich landed a $10.8 million Air Force deal to procure and deploy reconnaissance systems for use on the F-16 fighter jets purchased by the Egyptian Air Force.
10. Columbia Group -- Washington, D.C. In June 2009, the defense contractor completed a $10.6 million contract with the Navy to provide remotely operated vehicle systems as well as technical support and training to the Egyptian Navy, with most of the work to be performed out of the company's Panama City, Fla. operations.
Many other companies with recent deals related to Egypt have operations in the South as well. They include Michelin Aircraft Tire of Greenville, S.C.; Wyle Laboratories, Camber Corp. and Summa Technology, all of Huntsville, Ala.; WRSystems Ltd. of Fairfax, Va.; TASC of Chantilly, Va.; and Clayton International of Peachtree City, Ga.
To Read the Rest of the Report and Access Hyperlinked Resources
Democracy Now Reports on Egyptian Uprising: February 7th and 8th
February 8th
“People Are Determined to Stay Until Mubarak Leaves”: Democracy Now!’s Sharif Abdel Kouddous Reports in Cairo on Day 15 of the Egyptian Pro-Democracy Protests
The pro-democracy protests in Egypt have entered their third week as demonstrators are holding another massive protest in Tahrir Square. While Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is refusing to resign, the German magazine Der Spiegel is reporting that preparations are underway for him to possibly leave Egypt and visit Germany for an "extended medical check-up." Human Rights Watch is reporting 297 people have died over the past two weeks of protests, an estimate far higher than the Egyptian government has acknowledged.
Asmaa Mahfouz & the YouTube Video that Helped Spark the Egyptian Uprising
Three weeks ago today, 26-year-old Egyptian activist Asmaa Mahfouz posted a video online urging people to protest the “corrupt government” of Hosni Mubarak by rallying in Tahrir Square on January 25. Her moving call ultimately helped inspire Egypt’s uprising. "I, a girl, am going down to Tahrir Square, and I will stand alone. And I’ll hold up a banner. Perhaps people will show some honor,” Mahfouz said. "Don’t think you can be safe anymore. None of us are. Come down with us and demand your rights, my rights, your family’s rights. I am going down on January 25th and will say no to corruption, no to this regime." [includes rush transcript]
“The Heroes are the Ones in the Street”: Google Exec and Facebook Activist Wael Ghonim on His Release After 12 Days in Egyptian Jail
Twelve days after being snatched from the streets of Cairo, Wael Ghonim was released Monday from secret detention. He is being hailed as a hero by the pro-democracy movement for administrating a Facebook page key to organizing Egypt’s unprecedented pro-democracy uprising. In his first interview after being released, Ghonim told Egyptian TV, “I never put my live in danger while I was typing away on the internet. The heroes are the ones in the streets. This revolution belongs to the internet youth.”
Shooting the Messenger: Egyptian Journalist Shot Dead by Sniper While Covering Cairo Protests
The only journalist known to have been killed during the Egyptian uprising was honored Monday in Cairo. Ahmed Mohamed Mahmoud was a reporter for the state-owned newspaper Al Ta’awun. He was shot on January 28 when he tried to use his phone to film riot police as they fired tear gas canisters at protesters. He spent a week in the hospital before he died on February 4. On Monday, journalists, family and friends held a symbolic funeral in Cairo, marching from the Journalists’ Syndicate to Tahrir Square holding an empty coffin. We speak to Al Jazeera English producer and writer Laila Al-Arian, who has just returned from Cairo, where she interviewed Mahmoud’s widow.
Detained Al Jazeera Journalist: '[The Military] Viewed So Many of Us as Prisoners of War. Our Hands were Tied Behind Our Back with Cables. Our Eyes were Blindfolded.'
Ayman Mohyeldin, the Cairo bureau chief for Al Jazeera English, was detained by Egyptian police and held for seven hours. Inside the jail, Mohyeldin witnessed rampant police abuse. "We saw the military slap detainees, we saw them kick detainees, we saw them punch them," Mohyeldin said. "One of the soldiers that I was observing had with him a small Taser gun." He also talks about how the Mubarak regime has attempted to silence Al Jazeera. Despite its journalists being arrested and threatened, its offices set on fire and its satellite system cut off, Al Jazeera’s news coverage of the popular uprising has been unchallenged by other news outlets and is battling Egypt’s pro-Mubarak TV outlets for delivering truth to Egyptians. “I think Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English have something important to offer. They’re offering the viewers around the world a context that may sometimes be missing from a lot of Western and foreign media,” Mohyeldin says, who was detained by security forces for questioning on Sunday. “More importantly, they’re offering the viewers a view of this country that I think is very hard to get in the absence of less and less media. So, if they were to take Al Jazeera off the air and silence us completely, it would be a great disservice to humanity, and particularly to information.”
February 7th
Protests Demanding Mubarak’s Resignation Grow Stronger, Despite Some Government Concessions
Newly-appointed Egyptian vice president Omar Suleiman held talks on Sunday with opposition groups in Cairo in an attempt to stem the anti-government protests that continue across the country. Suleiman agreed to several major concessions, including ending the country’s decades-old emergency laws (he did not say when), allowing a free press (even as another Al Jazeera reporter was arrested), and creating a constitutional reform committee. The top demand of demonstrators--the immediate removal of President Hosni Mubarak-was not addressed. Protests continue today across Egypt, and tens of thousands of demonstrators have held their ground in Tahrir Square amidst a heavy military presence. We go to Cairo to speak with Democracy Now! senior producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Hossam Bahgat, an Egyptian human rights activist.
"The Empire’s Bagman:" Obama Egypt Envoy Frank Wisner Says Mubarak Should Stay
The official U.S. response to events unfolding in Egypt remains mixed. Over the weekend, the Obama administration distanced itself from U.S. “crisis envoy” to Egypt Frank Wisner after he issued a statement in support of President Hosni Mubarak. Revealing a possible conflict of interest, British journalist Robert Fisk recently reported Wisner works for the law firm Patton Boggs, which openly boasts that it advises "the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and has handled arbitrations and litigation on the [Mubarak] government’s behalf in Europe and the U.S." We are joined by Trinity College Professor Vijay Prashad, who has written about Wisner’s history with the U.S. Department of State and his close relationship with Mubarak.
Media Crackdown: Democracy Now!’s Sharif Abdel Kouddous Reports from Tahrir Square on the Systematic Targeting of Journalists in Egypt
Reporting on the Egyptian uprising has been not only difficult, but even dangerous for many domestic and foreign journalists. Tactics used against media workers include cutting phone lines, repeated arrests and detention, harassment, the seizure of equipment and intimidation. The first fatality of a journalist was also reported last week. Democracy Now! senior producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous speaks with journalists in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. He also visits a media tent set up by activists to collect reports from people on the streets.
“People Are Determined to Stay Until Mubarak Leaves”: Democracy Now!’s Sharif Abdel Kouddous Reports in Cairo on Day 15 of the Egyptian Pro-Democracy Protests
The pro-democracy protests in Egypt have entered their third week as demonstrators are holding another massive protest in Tahrir Square. While Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is refusing to resign, the German magazine Der Spiegel is reporting that preparations are underway for him to possibly leave Egypt and visit Germany for an "extended medical check-up." Human Rights Watch is reporting 297 people have died over the past two weeks of protests, an estimate far higher than the Egyptian government has acknowledged.
Asmaa Mahfouz & the YouTube Video that Helped Spark the Egyptian Uprising
Three weeks ago today, 26-year-old Egyptian activist Asmaa Mahfouz posted a video online urging people to protest the “corrupt government” of Hosni Mubarak by rallying in Tahrir Square on January 25. Her moving call ultimately helped inspire Egypt’s uprising. "I, a girl, am going down to Tahrir Square, and I will stand alone. And I’ll hold up a banner. Perhaps people will show some honor,” Mahfouz said. "Don’t think you can be safe anymore. None of us are. Come down with us and demand your rights, my rights, your family’s rights. I am going down on January 25th and will say no to corruption, no to this regime." [includes rush transcript]
“The Heroes are the Ones in the Street”: Google Exec and Facebook Activist Wael Ghonim on His Release After 12 Days in Egyptian Jail
Twelve days after being snatched from the streets of Cairo, Wael Ghonim was released Monday from secret detention. He is being hailed as a hero by the pro-democracy movement for administrating a Facebook page key to organizing Egypt’s unprecedented pro-democracy uprising. In his first interview after being released, Ghonim told Egyptian TV, “I never put my live in danger while I was typing away on the internet. The heroes are the ones in the streets. This revolution belongs to the internet youth.”
Shooting the Messenger: Egyptian Journalist Shot Dead by Sniper While Covering Cairo Protests
The only journalist known to have been killed during the Egyptian uprising was honored Monday in Cairo. Ahmed Mohamed Mahmoud was a reporter for the state-owned newspaper Al Ta’awun. He was shot on January 28 when he tried to use his phone to film riot police as they fired tear gas canisters at protesters. He spent a week in the hospital before he died on February 4. On Monday, journalists, family and friends held a symbolic funeral in Cairo, marching from the Journalists’ Syndicate to Tahrir Square holding an empty coffin. We speak to Al Jazeera English producer and writer Laila Al-Arian, who has just returned from Cairo, where she interviewed Mahmoud’s widow.
Detained Al Jazeera Journalist: '[The Military] Viewed So Many of Us as Prisoners of War. Our Hands were Tied Behind Our Back with Cables. Our Eyes were Blindfolded.'
Ayman Mohyeldin, the Cairo bureau chief for Al Jazeera English, was detained by Egyptian police and held for seven hours. Inside the jail, Mohyeldin witnessed rampant police abuse. "We saw the military slap detainees, we saw them kick detainees, we saw them punch them," Mohyeldin said. "One of the soldiers that I was observing had with him a small Taser gun." He also talks about how the Mubarak regime has attempted to silence Al Jazeera. Despite its journalists being arrested and threatened, its offices set on fire and its satellite system cut off, Al Jazeera’s news coverage of the popular uprising has been unchallenged by other news outlets and is battling Egypt’s pro-Mubarak TV outlets for delivering truth to Egyptians. “I think Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English have something important to offer. They’re offering the viewers around the world a context that may sometimes be missing from a lot of Western and foreign media,” Mohyeldin says, who was detained by security forces for questioning on Sunday. “More importantly, they’re offering the viewers a view of this country that I think is very hard to get in the absence of less and less media. So, if they were to take Al Jazeera off the air and silence us completely, it would be a great disservice to humanity, and particularly to information.”
February 7th
Protests Demanding Mubarak’s Resignation Grow Stronger, Despite Some Government Concessions
Newly-appointed Egyptian vice president Omar Suleiman held talks on Sunday with opposition groups in Cairo in an attempt to stem the anti-government protests that continue across the country. Suleiman agreed to several major concessions, including ending the country’s decades-old emergency laws (he did not say when), allowing a free press (even as another Al Jazeera reporter was arrested), and creating a constitutional reform committee. The top demand of demonstrators--the immediate removal of President Hosni Mubarak-was not addressed. Protests continue today across Egypt, and tens of thousands of demonstrators have held their ground in Tahrir Square amidst a heavy military presence. We go to Cairo to speak with Democracy Now! senior producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Hossam Bahgat, an Egyptian human rights activist.
"The Empire’s Bagman:" Obama Egypt Envoy Frank Wisner Says Mubarak Should Stay
The official U.S. response to events unfolding in Egypt remains mixed. Over the weekend, the Obama administration distanced itself from U.S. “crisis envoy” to Egypt Frank Wisner after he issued a statement in support of President Hosni Mubarak. Revealing a possible conflict of interest, British journalist Robert Fisk recently reported Wisner works for the law firm Patton Boggs, which openly boasts that it advises "the Egyptian military, the Egyptian Economic Development Agency, and has handled arbitrations and litigation on the [Mubarak] government’s behalf in Europe and the U.S." We are joined by Trinity College Professor Vijay Prashad, who has written about Wisner’s history with the U.S. Department of State and his close relationship with Mubarak.
Media Crackdown: Democracy Now!’s Sharif Abdel Kouddous Reports from Tahrir Square on the Systematic Targeting of Journalists in Egypt
Reporting on the Egyptian uprising has been not only difficult, but even dangerous for many domestic and foreign journalists. Tactics used against media workers include cutting phone lines, repeated arrests and detention, harassment, the seizure of equipment and intimidation. The first fatality of a journalist was also reported last week. Democracy Now! senior producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous speaks with journalists in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. He also visits a media tent set up by activists to collect reports from people on the streets.
Squad Mekhennet and Nicholas Kulish: 2 Detained Reporters Saw Egytpian Police’s Methods
2 Detained Reporters Saw Police’s Methods
By SOUAD MEKHENNET and NICHOLAS KULISH
The New York Times
CAIRO — We had been detained by Egyptian authorities, handed over to the country’s dreaded Mukhabarat, the secret police, and interrogated. They left us all night in a cold room, on hard orange plastic stools, under fluorescent lights.
But our discomfort paled in comparison to the dull whacks and the screams of pain by Egyptian people that broke the stillness of the night. In one instance, between the cries of suffering, an officer said in Arabic, “You are talking to journalists? You are talking badly about your country?”
A voice, also in Arabic, answered: “You are committing a sin. You are committing a sin.”
We — Souad Mekhennet, Nicholas Kulish and a driver, who is not a journalist and was not involved in the demonstrations — were detained Thursday afternoon while driving into Cairo. We were stopped at a checkpoint and thus began a 24-hour journey through Egyptian detention, ending with — we were told by the soldiers who delivered us there — the secret police. When asked, they declined to identify themselves.
Captivity was terrible. We felt powerless — uncertain about where and how long we would be held. But the worst part had nothing to do with our treatment. It was seeing — and in particular hearing through the walls of this dreadful facility — the abuse of Egyptians at the hands of their own government.
For one day, we were trapped in the brutal maze where Egyptians are lost for months or even years. Our detainment threw into haunting relief the abuses of security services, the police, the secret police and the intelligence service, and explained why they were at the forefront of complaints made by the protesters.
Many journalists shared this experience, and many were kept in worse conditions — some suffering from injuries as well.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, over the period we were held there were 30 detentions of journalists, 26 assaults and 8 instances of equipment being seized. We saw a journalist with his head bandaged and others brought in with jackets thrown over their heads as they were led by armed men.
In the morning, we could hear the strained voice of a man with a French accent calling out in English: “Where am I? What is happening to me? Answer me. Answer me.”
This prompted us into action — pressing to be released with more urgency, and indeed fear, than before. A plainclothes officer who said his name was Marwan gestured to us. “Come to the door,” he said, “and look out.”
We saw more than 20 people, Westerners and Egyptians, blindfolded and handcuffed. The room had been empty when we arrived the evening before.
“We could be treating you a lot worse,” he said in a flat tone, the facts speaking for themselves. Marwan said Egyptians were being held in the thousands. During the night we heard them being beaten, screaming after every blow.
We were on our way back to Cairo after reporting about the demonstrations from Alexandria for The Times. We were traveling with journalists from the German public television station ZDF, a normal practice in such conditions — safety in numbers.
At the outskirts of Cairo, we were stopped at what looked like a civilian checkpoint.
We had been through many checkpoints without problems, but after the driver opened our trunk a tremendous uproar began. They saw a large black bag with an orange ZDF microphone poking out. In the tense environment, television crews had been attacked and accused of creating anti-Egyptian propaganda. We had been in the middle of a near-riot with the same crew the day before.
The crowd shouted and banged on the car, pulling the doors open. The ZDF crew in the other car managed to drive off, while we were stuck. Instead of dragging us out as we expected, two men pushed their way into the backseat. We were relieved that they were taking us from the crowd, until one pulled out his police identification. Rather than helping us escape, he was now detaining us.
The officer gave the driver directions to an impromptu police station in the Sharabiya district of Cairo, on the roof of a lumber warehouse. The officer in charge there, who identified himself as Ehab, said they were the secret police.
They searched the ZDF bags and found much more than just a camera. “We have a woman with a German passport of Arab origin and an American in a car with camera, satellite equipment and $10,000,” he said. “This is very suspicious. I think they need to be checked.”
Anxiety turned to anticipation when we were driven to a military base. The military had been the closest thing Egypt had to a guarantor of stability and we thought once we explained who we were and provided documentation we would be allowed to go to our hotel.
In a strange exchange that only made sense later, Ms. Mekhennet asked a soldier, “Where are you taking us?” The soldier answered: “My heart goes out to you. I’m sorry.”
To Read the Rest of the Report
By SOUAD MEKHENNET and NICHOLAS KULISH
The New York Times
CAIRO — We had been detained by Egyptian authorities, handed over to the country’s dreaded Mukhabarat, the secret police, and interrogated. They left us all night in a cold room, on hard orange plastic stools, under fluorescent lights.
But our discomfort paled in comparison to the dull whacks and the screams of pain by Egyptian people that broke the stillness of the night. In one instance, between the cries of suffering, an officer said in Arabic, “You are talking to journalists? You are talking badly about your country?”
A voice, also in Arabic, answered: “You are committing a sin. You are committing a sin.”
We — Souad Mekhennet, Nicholas Kulish and a driver, who is not a journalist and was not involved in the demonstrations — were detained Thursday afternoon while driving into Cairo. We were stopped at a checkpoint and thus began a 24-hour journey through Egyptian detention, ending with — we were told by the soldiers who delivered us there — the secret police. When asked, they declined to identify themselves.
Captivity was terrible. We felt powerless — uncertain about where and how long we would be held. But the worst part had nothing to do with our treatment. It was seeing — and in particular hearing through the walls of this dreadful facility — the abuse of Egyptians at the hands of their own government.
For one day, we were trapped in the brutal maze where Egyptians are lost for months or even years. Our detainment threw into haunting relief the abuses of security services, the police, the secret police and the intelligence service, and explained why they were at the forefront of complaints made by the protesters.
Many journalists shared this experience, and many were kept in worse conditions — some suffering from injuries as well.
According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, over the period we were held there were 30 detentions of journalists, 26 assaults and 8 instances of equipment being seized. We saw a journalist with his head bandaged and others brought in with jackets thrown over their heads as they were led by armed men.
In the morning, we could hear the strained voice of a man with a French accent calling out in English: “Where am I? What is happening to me? Answer me. Answer me.”
This prompted us into action — pressing to be released with more urgency, and indeed fear, than before. A plainclothes officer who said his name was Marwan gestured to us. “Come to the door,” he said, “and look out.”
We saw more than 20 people, Westerners and Egyptians, blindfolded and handcuffed. The room had been empty when we arrived the evening before.
“We could be treating you a lot worse,” he said in a flat tone, the facts speaking for themselves. Marwan said Egyptians were being held in the thousands. During the night we heard them being beaten, screaming after every blow.
We were on our way back to Cairo after reporting about the demonstrations from Alexandria for The Times. We were traveling with journalists from the German public television station ZDF, a normal practice in such conditions — safety in numbers.
At the outskirts of Cairo, we were stopped at what looked like a civilian checkpoint.
We had been through many checkpoints without problems, but after the driver opened our trunk a tremendous uproar began. They saw a large black bag with an orange ZDF microphone poking out. In the tense environment, television crews had been attacked and accused of creating anti-Egyptian propaganda. We had been in the middle of a near-riot with the same crew the day before.
The crowd shouted and banged on the car, pulling the doors open. The ZDF crew in the other car managed to drive off, while we were stuck. Instead of dragging us out as we expected, two men pushed their way into the backseat. We were relieved that they were taking us from the crowd, until one pulled out his police identification. Rather than helping us escape, he was now detaining us.
The officer gave the driver directions to an impromptu police station in the Sharabiya district of Cairo, on the roof of a lumber warehouse. The officer in charge there, who identified himself as Ehab, said they were the secret police.
They searched the ZDF bags and found much more than just a camera. “We have a woman with a German passport of Arab origin and an American in a car with camera, satellite equipment and $10,000,” he said. “This is very suspicious. I think they need to be checked.”
Anxiety turned to anticipation when we were driven to a military base. The military had been the closest thing Egypt had to a guarantor of stability and we thought once we explained who we were and provided documentation we would be allowed to go to our hotel.
In a strange exchange that only made sense later, Ms. Mekhennet asked a soldier, “Where are you taking us?” The soldier answered: “My heart goes out to you. I’m sorry.”
To Read the Rest of the Report
US Soldier Throws Puppy off Cliff (Video)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)