Jewish Voice for Peace, Rachel Corrie's Mother and Mamdouh Habib

According to ISM Palestine, "The Ramallah municipality dedicated a street to Rachel Corrie on 16 March 2010.".



Rachel Corrie

Cindy Corrie
I received the letter below in my inbox from Jewish Voice for Peace and the mother of Rachel Corrie, a former native of Seattle who was runover by a bulldozer, and killed, as it attempted to demolish a Palestinian house. Also, I think it is worth remembering Tom Hurdnall who was actually shot dead by Israeli soldiers as he rescued two Palestinian children who were in the line of their fire (warning shots or something - the soldiers are notorious for firing their rifles for little or no reason). He also died at age 23. Brave people. The big difference in Hurdnall's case, was that, as the website dedicated to him says, ". . .[justice was achieved for]Tom through the unprecedented conviction of [an Israeli] soldier for killing a civilian."

Tom Hurdnall
The letter is as below. The governments of the States and the U.K. it seems have not followed up much on the murders of their citizens. Though there are some interesting questions from Joe Biden here, and this newspaper article in the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, entitled: Corrie’s sister to Haaretz: U.S. encouraged family to sue Israel. In the States a play was made of Rachel Corrie's emails, which are in my sidebar. There were, of course, many protests about the play. The letters are very eloquent, worth reading. Cindy Corrie's letter is as follows:

This month, a civil lawsuit in Israel in the case of our daughter Rachel Corrie will converge with the seven-year anniversary of her killing in Gaza. A human rights observer and activist, Rachel, 23, was crushed to death by an Israel Defense Force (IDF) Caterpillar D9R bulldozer as she tried nonviolently to offer protection for a Palestinian family whose home was threatened with demolition. This lawsuit is one piece of our family's seven-year effort to pursue accountability for Rachel while, also, challenging the Occupation that claimed her life.

On this day, when Rachel's presence is powerful for many of us, we're asking all of our friends to support Rachel's vision of freedom for Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip by participating in what we are calling the International Day of Conscience. Please join her struggle by calling the White House today - this link has all the information you need.

Seven years later, Rachel's memory is still vibrant. I'm writing to you from Israel where we are plaintiffs in a civil case against the state of Israel for its responsibility in her death. In addition to seeking accountability through the Israeli court system, we're asking all of our friends to support Rachel's vision of freedom for Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip by participating in a national call-in day to the White House.

I hope I can count on you to:

Call the White House at 202-456-1111
Urge Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell to visit Gaza and demand that the United States break the blockade of Gaza by providing immediate humanitarian aid and building materials.
Tell us about your call. Tracking your calls makes a difference.


You can also make the call tomorrow. Please forward this email to help spread the word.

Thank you,

Cindy Corrie

P.S. Click here to view the trial updates page on the Rachel Corrie Foundation website.

I am not in the States, but I urge anyone who is and who believes in human rights to at least think about complying with Cindy Corrie's requests.
______________________________________________________________

In other news, Mamdouh Habib, an Australian resident who was imprisoned in Guantanamo for five years, but never charged,has been granted permission to sue the Australian government, and also won a defamation case against the Daily Telegraph. Habib claims the Australian government were complicit with his arrest and consequential torture. I saw Habib speak in Perth in 2008 and I am glad that he has pushed to speak despite the government trying to silence him. His wife, dressed in the open faced abaya, also spoke and was possibly the more articulate of the two, but both were determined that justice be done. If that link above times-out, please leave me a comment. I have printed the article, and can provide the text.

David Hicks has been too scared to be sent back to Guantanamo, or imprisonment, I guess, and has complied with the order from the U.S. and the Australian government that he not talk about his experience in the prison, even though I think he is now free to. His American military attorney, Lieutenant colonel Michael Mori, is a great man, I feel, and did far more for David Hicks than any Australian government representative ever did.

On November 10, 2006 Mori attended the signing of the Fremantle Declaration by the attorneys-general of the states and territories of Australia. Federal Attorney General Philip Ruddock refused to attend. The declaration urges judicial fairness be applied in Hicks' case to protect the legal rights of Australians at home and abroad. Mori said "It's disheartening that federal ministers won't fight for an Australian citizen to have the same rights as an American."[5] (my emphasis).

Let's hope that Habib's attempts continue to come to something so that there might be some transparency and some accountability for the main players, in Australia, at least, during the Bush and Howard years where torture was promoted as a governmental right and a justified practice.

when is an autocrat not an autocrat? when he's a democrat

Something's rotten in the state of Denmark. The minute people and the governments some of them elect condone torture, imprisonment without trial, the whittling away of civil liberties and human rights, the further development of unfair systems of 'justice', the sooner the whole population is at risk of being victims of these very same methods, restrictions and systems. They may not end up being victims in their day-to-day insulated life, but you never know, and the imprisonment of people from other lands without trial is sure to cause some form of backlash; it is naive to think it won't and doesn't. If democracies think these are democratic principals, then new words and definitions are needed for autocracy and for those who uphold autocrats and the abuses that often accompany and fortify their rule.

The Queen's pronouncement -- "Sentence first -- verdict afterward" -- is a fine expression of Obama's approach here: these prisoners are decreed to be Dangerous and Guilty and are sentenced to prolonged, indefinite imprisonment and must not be released; now let's tailor a process for each of them to ensure that this verdict is produced. It's far better to dispense with the ludicrous facade, simply imprison everyone the President wants with no charges, and let the world and the citizenry see what we're really doing.

chaser chases yoo

I know it's not really nice to criticise other countries, but then, two Australians, Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, did end up at Guantanamo. Via Loewenstein and Common Dreams Org. is this skit, or actual attempted interview of John Yoo, by the Australian comedy team The Chaser's War on Everything. They were confronting, non-violently, Yoo, who was one of the authors of the Bush administration's torture policy. He is now a law professor at Berkley.

the more things change...

Glenn Greenwald on the mainstream media's (in this case, the New York Times) penchant for repeating hearsay as fact and thereby making it so. The article below, and also the article Greenwald is referencing are both worth reading.

So here we have an Afghan citizen, not captured on any battlefield, who naively thought that he would be given a "trial" before being locked in a cage indefinitely by the U.S. He obviously hadn't heard that the U.S. is a country-- because of people like this -- that knows "trials" are obsolete and insists that we can abduct anyone we want from around the world and lock them away forever without such bothersome procedures. Wakil surely knows that by now, which is why he fears -- quite reasonably -- that he'll be locked away again with no trial based on the Pentagon's anonymous accusations against him (and based on the current President's demand for the power to keep people imprisoned "preventively" -- i.e., with no charges or trials).

Also, from July 8th The Obama Justice System.

the dawning of a new era

Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo. Obama, Obama, Obama. The new era, any better than the last?



(That one ushered in Thatcher).

And how can one just walk away? It's impossible. From B'Tselem.

Testimony: Settlers throw rocks at ambulance transporting patient while soldiers stand idly by, Hebron, April '09
Mediha Abu Haikal, 70

Our house lies right next to the Tel Rumeida settlement. For years, I’ve had heart, diabetes, and blood pressure problems. Every day, I take eleven different kinds of medication. Because of my health, I go to medical clinics and hospitals a lot.

Last Wednesday [8 April], I had edema in my legs and they turned blue, because of the diabetes. A Red Crescent ambulance took me from my house to the government clinic. After I was examined there, the ambulance took me to Aliyah Hospital for further examination. The physician who usually treats me, Dr. Ibrahim al-Hur, wasn’t in the hospital, and I was told I could make an appointment to see him at his private clinic in the city. I made an appointment for 11 April. I preferred not to go back home in the meantime, because it’s so difficult to get in and out of the neighborhood and because of my health problems. I stayed at my nephew’s house.

On Saturday [11 April], at around 10:00 A.M., I went to the doctor’s office. He examined me, gave me new medications, and calmed me down. My daughter, Hanaa, went with me. After seeing the doctor, I decided to go home. I called the Red Cross, which called the Civil Administration to coordinate my return home by ambulance. Then my daughter and I went to the Red Crescent Medical Center, in H-1 [the part of Hebron under Palestinian control], to get into the ambulance that would take me home. The medical team was waiting, and Hanaa and I were told to get into the ambulance. The driver was Shaher Mujahed and the paramedic was Ahmad Makhamrah.

When we got to the checkpoint at Gross Square, the soldier at the checkpoint made a telephone call and then let us pass. The ambulance drove along a-Shuhada Street to get to our house. When we passed by the gate of the army base, a soldier stopped us and spoke with the driver. He asked him why he was riding on this road. The driver explained that we had coordinated the trip with the Red Cross, and that the soldier at Gross Square let us pass, but the soldier didn’t let us continue on our way. He looked angry and told the driver to turn around.



The rock that the child threw into the ambulance. Photo: Musa Abu Hashhash, 12 April ’09.

In the meantime, while the driver was preparing to turn around, I saw a child, who looked about twelve years old, and was dressed in white, was wearing a skullcap and had long, curly hair. He opened the door on the driver’s side and slammed it shut. Then he bent over and picked up a big rock. I was afraid he would throw it at us, and my daughter began to shout and asked the driver to get going quickly, before the child throws the rock at us. The soldier was still standing on the side of the ambulance, and put his hand on the window. Then the child threw the rock at the rear door of the ambulance, breaking the window, and it fell on the bed inside the ambulance. It weighed about three kilograms. Luckily, Hanaa and I were sitting on the seat and were not injured, but small pieces of glass scattered on my clothes. I began to shake in fear and to cry. I shouted and then I was just too overwhelmed to speak. My daughter and the paramedic tried to calm me. As they did that, another rock, a small one, flew into the ambulance, landing near the big rock. This one, too, didn't hit me. The soldier standing next to us did not stop the child from throwing the stones, and let him run away. He didn't do anything.

The driver immediately turned around and drove back to Gross Square. The soldier who had let us cross was still there. The driver told me that he asked why we had returned. While the soldier was speaking with the driver, I saw more than thirty children run toward the ambulance. The children began to throw stones at the ambulance and some of them hit it. My daughter identified, among the children, the child who had attacked us previously. I heard the soldier shout at the children, and the paramedic quickly got out of the ambulance, opened the gate, and we passed.

The ambulance returned to the medical center. I was in shock and didn't stop crying, even when we got there. The paramedics hooked me up to oxygen. Afterwards, my daughter took me to my nephew’s house, where I stayed until today. Because it was holiday, it was impossible to coordinate with the Red Cross to enable me to return home sooner. Today, a Red Crescent ambulance brought me home. A police patrol car and a Civil Administration patrol car accompanied us, and this time, settlers didn't attack us. I arrived home around 12:30 P.M. Just before reaching the house, we were kept waiting for half an hour because a tanker was bringing water to the army.

Since the incident, I haven’t been able to calm down. I am still frightened, and hear the sound of the window shattering. I don’t know if I’ll ever dare again to ride in an ambulance, I’m so afraid.

Mediha A'abeid Hamed Abu Haikal, 70, a widow with five children, is a homemaker and a resident of Tel Rumeida, Hebron. Her testimony was given to Musa Abu Hashhash at the witness's house on 14 April 2009.

is your ass covered?

I pulled this the other day, but Jon Stewart says it better than I ever could, and with more humour, so here it is again, with Mr. Stewart added. Thanks to Antony Loewenstein posting the clip, which was where I first saw it. The rest of the writing and quoting is mine, kinda (in that the quotes aren't mine, but I'm sure you get what I mean).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
A Brief History of Torture
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Glenn Greenwald, again. I really admire his writing, dedication and thoroughness. This is on President Obama's announcement last week

that he opposes prosecutions of CIA officials who tortured detainees in reliance on OLC [Offiice of Legal Counsel] memos purporting to legalize that conduct (a decision which is not Obama's to make),

'realisation' of which seems to be why he has changed his tune on the situation. Greenwald says

the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, announced that Obama's policy of immunizing CIA torturers violates international law and, specifically, the clear obligations of the U.S. under the Convention Against Torture (signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988)

This morning, I conducted a 20-minute interview with Nowak . . . regarding the specific legal obligations of the U.S. to provide accountability for crimes of torture; how Obama's invocation of the "state secrets privilege" to block torture victims from having a day in court independently violates the Convention; and the detrimental impact that will result for the U.N.'s ability to hold torturers around the world accountable (which is Nowak's prime mandate) if the U.S. announces to the world that its own political leaders who systematically ordered torture will be shielded from all accountability.

The above and final two paragraphs quoted in this post below, from the article, is true. The United Nations is definitely being undermined as seen by Jewish peace group, MuzzleWatch's reporting on the Durban II conference, and once we are without the Geneva Convention, without the United Nations, what do we have? I am not convinced that it is 'Islamic extremists' (though they do exist, along with a whole bevy of other extremists) who are steering us into another dark age. I don't know if the crimes carried out by the west will ever come home to roost in the constant and terrifying way in which we often seem to inflict them (not to say we are responsible for all the crime and terror around the world), but if torture is condoned (and not holding those who have committed torture, and even more so ordered its implementation, responsible is a form of condoning) then the very idea of being compassionate and democratic nations, with equal rights for all, is false. No big surprise there, really, though.

Greenwald cites International law professor, Kevin John Heller who provides an example of a

set of prosecutions by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, as part of The Ministries Case, in which German officials were prosecuted for doing nothing other than stating, when asked, that they had no objection to the deportation of 5,000 Jews from France. Those officials, who were convicted at Nuremberg, did not order the deportation or carry it out; rather, they merely failed, when asked, to object to the policy on the ground that it violated international law.

In harsh war times, when people are under draconian governments and military systems, and when they fear for their lives if they do not follow an order, I do not hold that they should automatically be held responsible for crimes that they have committed, particularly when the case is comply or yourself be subject to harsh punishment, or loss of life, by your own government or institution, but, though the destruction of the twin towers was and is a frightening act of terror, as were the other acts committed on that day, was the U.S. living under a similar, daily, constant cloud of actual violence all throughout Bush's two terms? Likewise, if a CIA official refused his or her orders to torture, would they themselves be subject to great punishment? I know a paper trail was being left (though I'm not sure if it was by the CIA, rather, maybe is was the FBI), as some were very uncomfortable with the acts they were being asked to carry out, and who knows in which ways the government and the CIA really interact?

According to an interview conducted in the 2005 PBS Torture Question documentary with anti-torture author Mark Danner on this actual paper trail, Colin Powell thought it was a

". . .mistake to withhold Geneva Conventions protection; [as it would] put American soldiers at risk." And it [would] also -- and he said this very prophetically -- lead to the degradation of good order and discipline within the American military. He wrote this; he said it. And you see the attitude coming back in the other memos from Alberto Gonzales, from the Department of Justice, essentially saying, "Look, this isn't what we're worried about right now; what we're worried about is getting rapid interrogations." They don't precisely say that, but fighting a new kind of war, a "new paradigm," as Gonzales said. ...

Later, the interviewer states So they become sort of cover-your-ass memos, and Danner concurs:

I think so. Well, there's something more than what might be called cover-your-ass memos. They're also developing a kind of legal justification that permeates throughout the government. You see, for example, in the torture memo, August 2002, huge chunks of that memo were incorporated in the working group on interrogation the following spring that Secretary of Defense [Donald] Rumsfeld organized within the Department of Defense ... so that you have the legal theory being developed and then being incorporated into the military's planning documents.

It's in some ways the miracle of the word processor. You see these things, and there they are, the same paragraphs. So they raced around the government, and you can find them in very many places, not just in the Department of Justice.

Whether these are the same memos or not, they definitely deal with the same moral concept, and with the legalisation of human rights abuses. The type of legal justification referred to above is what is being called on as a defense by the OLC lawyers as referred to by Greenwald below.

Obviously, with the most powerful military in the world, the U.S. has the power to declare itself exempt from international law and to refuse to adhere to its own treaty obligations. We have the power (as distinct from the right) to ignore what the U.N. says about what we do and to refuse to abide by the standards we impose on others. Indeed, that the U.S. can legalize the very same methods that we have long condemned as "torture" when used by other countries was exactly the core argument made by OLC lawyers to justify what they were doing.

But those who spent the last eight years criticizing the Bush administration for ignoring international conventions and legal obligations -- yet who now want to refrain from investigating Bush crimes -- should at least try to reconcile those past criticisms with their current unilateralist, exceptionalism-based arguments against holding our own criminals accountable (it's different when we do it). And if this is the mentality we're going to adopt -- that we're not bound by our own treaty obligations and need not pay any heed to U.N. positions -- then we probably shouldn't expect that we'll be taken very seriously when we point to international obligations and U.N. pronouncements as a means for claiming that other countries are acting wrongfully.

One has to say about the United States, though, and hopefully Australia, and many other western countries, too, that this information does become available, and that people may have their careers ruined writing about it, or may have their careers enhanced, but, by and large, they do not face the same degree of suppression that human rights activists in many countries in the world do. This, I think, is to be admired. And allowing other countries and people to choose their own governments, and to live their own lives, and to encourage freedom of speech and lifestyle choice and religious choice, is really the view I would prefer the rest of the world have of my country, rather than as it being a supporter of torture, and an actor and upholder in the denial of rights to others. And I know Australia is not the U.S., yet David Hicks was a long time in coming home, and Mamdouh Habib has said that ASIO were implicit in his arrest, detention and torture. Additionally, Rudd's relationship with the U.S. is little changed from Howard's. The greater world is far more aware of the west as influencing global events, than the general populous of the west is aware of how its governments affect the lives of others.

All of the links in the Greenwald quotes are in the original document.

Here is a link to the Office of Legal Counsel memos.