Online Journal Contributing Writer
Apr 27, 2010, 00:13
Courtesy Of "The Online Journal"
George Bush’s “war on terror” isn’t discussed much nowadays, which has enraged more than a few right-wing Republicans who accuse President Barack Obama of being soft on terrorism.
“Doesn’t he know we’re at war,” grumbled a furious guest on Fox News recently. It may have been given a lower profile but in reality, it’s still ongoing. Obama has reauthorized the USAPATRIOT Act until February next year, which means the American people are still vulnerable to telephone wiretaps and to having their records seized by authorities.
Moreover, for the first time ever, a US president has blessed “the targeted killing” of American terrorist suspects under a congressional act passed a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Currently in the CIA’s sights is Anwar Al-Awlaki, a US-born former imam of Yemeni extraction. Al-Awlaki, thought to be hiding in Yemen, is a “senior recruiter for Al-Qaeda and a spiritual motivator,” according to the FBI.
That may or may not be the case. But what happened to the US Constitution and the principles of democracy that entitle accused to their day in court no matter how heinous their alleged crimes may be? And how can Washington continue to stand on a moral pedestal when it is prepared to exterminate its own people without absolute proof or due process? Even the Israelis recoil from going that far; they limit their extrajudicial assassinations to noncitizens, although that is similarly reprehensible. It’s hardly surprising that the White House remained silent on the Mossad’s alleged assassination of a Hamas commander in Dubai when its own policy is just as unethical.
On the subject of torture, the president put on a good show. But that’s all it was. On Jan. 22, 2009, he signed an executive order entitled “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations.” However, the devil is in the detail. The executive order applies only to “armed conflicts” and not to counterterrorism operations. Another order signed on the same day related to the closure of the CIA’s secret detention centers with the exception of those “used only to hold people on a short-term or transitory basis,” but it did not define “short-term” nor did it exclude other government security agencies or private “contractors” from running such facilities
Obama has also failed to live up to his promise of closing Guantanamo Bay where 180 detainees are still being incarcerated without trial. And, what is worse, many are known to be entirely innocent. As of last month, there were still seven Chinese Uighurs languishing in that gulag despite the Pentagon having determined their innocence as long ago as 2005 by some reports; 2003 according to others.
The administration’s excuse for not releasing them was that no country will take them but instead of apologizing to these victims, they were purportedly still kept in leg irons. What’s more, it shouldn’t be left to other countries to take them in when it was the US that put them through hell and robbed them of so many years. They should be given US passports and compensated for their pain and humiliation to the tune of millions of dollars each.
The Uighurs are far from the only ones to have been wrongly abducted and imprisoned. Published transcripts of mlitary tribunals held in Guantanamo revealed that some were elderly goat herders and shopkeepers; others were children as young as 12 or13 years old; many had been plucked from the streets or their beds at random and sold to US forces. The question is why would the US detain such obviously innocent individuals in such a brutal fashion and for such a prolonged period of time? Col. Lawrence Wilkerson who was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff in the Bush administration may have the answer.
A declaration signed by Col. Wilkerson to support a lawsuit filed by a former Guantanamo detainee, a Sudanese, against George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and others has recently come to light and is said to be backed by Wilkerson’s ex-boss, Colin Powell. Wilkerson contends that many of the detainees “had been taken into custody without regard to whether they were enemy combatants, or in fact whether many of them were enemies at all.” He confirms that in some cases they were handed over by Pakistanis or Afghans for a bounty of $5,000 per head or by those out to settle scores. Likewise, he believes that “50-60 percent” of those imprisoned in Baghdad’s notorious Abu Ghraib were probably innocent. It seems to me that the US needed a physical manifestation of “the enemy” to get ordinary Americans on board and it didn’t matter which poor soul was picked to be terrorism’s face.
Wilkerson is certain that Bush and Rumsfeld were aware that most of the so-called “evildoers” at Guantanamo were victims of injustice but refused to release them to another country because “the Defense Department would be left without any plausible explanation to the American people . . .” Dick Cheney’s position was “the end justifies the means,” Wilkerson says. He says he felt obliged to come forward because serving with an administration that tortured and abused detainees was a low point in his career.
No one should diminish the impact of 9/11 on the American people and the world. It was one of the worst tragedies ever and, therefore, it’s understandable that the world embraced the “war on terror” with unprecedented vigor. But, in retrospect, it has been a terrible failure. Rather than bring terrorists to justice, it has cultivated anti-Western feeling and magnetized extremists disgruntled over the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that were waged under the war on terror’s banner.
On second thoughts, it may not be such a failure after all from Washington’s perspective.
Firstly, it enabled the US to greatly expand its military footprint and intelligence sharing as sympathetic nations queued up to assist. Secondly, it has facilitated governmental monitoring of the American people. Thirdly, if security in Afghanistan were to improve there would be no obstacle to long proposed oil gas pipelines from Turkmenistan to the subcontinent via Afghanistan. Thirdly, the US is set to retain permanent military bases in Iraq, while deals will bring the international oil companies back in force. Fifthly, it provided grist to the Israelis to crack down on “terrorist” Palestinian groups. And, last but not least, it remains America’s entry card to any “terrorist-sponsoring” country that refuses to bend to its will.
Osama Bin Laden was never smoked out of his cave and the one-eyed Taleban leader, Mullah Omar, is still, presumably, riding around the poppy fields on his bike . . . but compared to the big picture, is there anyone in Washington’s corridors of power who really cares?
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
No comments:
Post a Comment