Category Archives: Security

History, Security

US secret prisons and twilight raids on immigrant homes

Leave a comment

I just read a news story about a recent early-morning raid by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICEA), often referred to as ICE.

Apparently unmarked vehicles showed up in residential neighborhoods and people wearing “Police” or civilian clothes knocked on doors in the early hours before sunrise. The ICEA had a list of names and addresses that they based the raid upon, but once inside the home they arrested anyone who could not immediately produce papers.

In one case, a family awoke to a knock on their door at 4 a.m. The agents identified themselves as police, and the residents let them in, Keegan said. The agents asked if a certain person was home, and the residents told them that that person didn’t live there.

Then the agents asked those present to provide proof that they were here legally. Two married couples were unable to provide the necessary documents, and the agents arrested the men, Keegan said.

When the agents were asked why they didn’t take arrest the women, they said that the women could stay to take care of their children, he said.

Those arrested were then moved to Fresno and deported out of the country within 24 hours, including a vast majority with no criminal record and some who were mothers of small children:

Several people had been arrested who would have been allowed to stay had they had an opportunity to show an immigration judge that they had dependents that would be left behind, Live Oak-based immigration attorney Alisa Thomas said after the meeting.

Among those ICE had already transported out of the country were a mother whose seven children were left in the care of their father, who works two jobs, she said. The youngest of the children, a 1 1/2 year old, went into convulsions and was hospitalized while the mother was being taken to Mexico, she said.

An immigration judge would likely have granted a stay in the mother’s case, she said.

“I could have shown them this U.S. citizen, this 1 1/2-year-old child is going to die,� Thomas said.

In another case, both parents of a 13-year-old and a 20-year-old were arrested, she said. In a third case, the working husband of a U.S. citizen housewife was arrested.

“I’ve never seen cases this heart wrenching, and so many of them together,� Thomas said.

There are many issues with this case, but most notable perhaps is that this action directly contradicts the message given by President Bush in his press conference yesterday:

And, finally, we’re going to have to treat people with dignity in this country. Ours is a nation of immigrants, and when Congress gets down to a comprehensive bill, I would just remind them, it’s virtually impossible to try to find 11 million folks who have been here, working hard — and, in some cases, raising families — and kick them out. It’s just not going to work.

Not going to work…

I just heard a radio program where the commentators suggested that the new ICEA policy has a disturbing shade of history to it: “first they came for the Muslims, then they came for the Chicanos…”. A comment on the article page carries a similar tone:

Of the 107 detained people, only 19 had criminal warrants. Kids were left without their parents, wives without their husbands, husbands without their wives, and we have racist idiots saying this is a good thing? Since August, the ICE has arrested 24,000 undocumented people nationwide, yet only 6,800 have been deported. Where are the rest?

24,000 people in a little over a month’s time is quite a number, and has not been on the front page of any news I’ve seen. In this particular case only 19 had warrants so it is conceivable the rest could have kept their door closed and sent the agents away, unless of course the police determined that forced entry was allowable under the new rules of engagement. The article also provides an ICEA perspective:

[ICEA representative Lori Haley] also noted that the agency had merely carried out its duties under the law. Anyone disagreeing with the agencies actions should call on their political representatives to change the law.

This seems to be consistent with the Bush Administration. Their position has been that they can violate the Geneva convention under their law, they can violate international human rights principles under their law, they can even violate the constitution under the law. Oh, did I say “violate”? I meant interpret. Interpretation of the law is a long and expensive process that means they will act with self-inspired “clarity” until vague concepts of ethics and rights can be resolved later (after they control the courts). Mr. Bush had this to say in yesterday’s press conference:

We’re trying to clarify law. We’re trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.

And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don’t have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they’re not going to. They — let me finish, please — they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is — and the American people have got to understand this — that this program won’t go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it’s just not going to go forward. You can’t ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.

In other words, Mr. Bush would like to operate above the law, but if that is not acceptable then he will declare them ambiguous until he can re-write them. In his recent interview with Matt Lauer, Bush had this exchange in response to questions about the need for secret CIA facilities:

President Bush: So what? Why is that not within the law?

Matt Lauer: The head of Amnesty International says secret sites are against international law.

President Bush: Well, we just disagree with him.

Does he have a hard time understanding what it means when Article III of the Geneva Convnetion says “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely”? No seriously, Bush appeared to suggest in his press conference that the best and brightest working under him could not be expected to understand Article III:

THE PRESIDENT: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court’s ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It’s very vague. What does that mean, “outrages upon human dignity”? That’s a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I’m proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. You know, it’s — and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.

[…]

Now, the Court said that you’ve got to live under Article III of the Geneva Convention, and the standards are so vague that our professionals won’t be able to carry forward the program, because they don’t want to be tried as war criminals. They don’t want to break the law.

I feel I must point out that Mr. Bush did not mention that the phrase is actually written:

outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment

Does the rest of the phrase clarify? Surely he left it out for a reason, such as “humiliating and degrading treatment” is something he disagrees with, or that Albert “I refuse to answer clearly” Gonzales told him to disagree with? Perhaps he believe it ties the hands of the “professionals” he is ultimately responsible for, such as those caught humiliating detainees in Abu Ghraib?

As a matter of fact, the key findings by the Army investigation of the Abu Ghraib abuse actually contradict Bush’s statements to the press:

Soldiers knew they were violating approved techniques and procedures.

[…]

Abuse would not have occured if Army doctrine had been followed and mission training conducted.

[…]

Factors contributing to abuses include:

  • Individual criminal propensities
  • Safety and security conditions
  • Multiple agencies and organizations involved in interrogation
  • Failure to screen and integrate contractor interrogators
  • Lack of understanding of military police and military intelligence roles
  • Dysfunctional relationships among commanders

Hmmm. I do not see “ambiguity of Geneva convention” on that list.

As you can see, Mr. Bush clearly suggested that it is the fault of the terms of the Geneva convention that limits the ability of the interrogators, but the Army disagrees. While they say existing “detention doctrine needs to be updated and refined” the key points really suggest leadership and management are the most flawed and in need of improvement in order to enable law-abiding interrogation.

The plan of the Bush Administration thus appears to be: First ignore reports, fire dissenters and misquote international law, declaring it an ambiguous and thus uninforceable standard. Cherry-pick terms and show how they have no meaning when isolated. Use phrases like “our hands are tied and we are in danger”. Then propose a new domestic law heavily biased in favor of a particular view (as opposed to blind justice for everyone) and paint anyone who objects with that view as a sympathizer with the enemy. Say something like “We are righteous in our cause, unlike those who are soft” and “We can and will only do good with our powers, they can only do evil”. Then declare the new law as a “more enforceable” standard that will be righteous and good, more relevant than international treaties. Again threaten anyone who objects as a weakling or an obstructionist to justice. Finally, show a short tempered approach to negotiation and that everyone else in the world should adopt their new unilateral interpretation of law or prepare to succumb to your righteousness.

Let me be clear about this. Mr. Bush was asked whether other countries should be able to write laws that the US finds objectionable. Mr. Bush’s answer, which was not really an answer but more of a threat, was that other countries should adopt his law:

Q Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit — as they see fit — you’re saying that you’d be okay with that?

THE PRESIDENT: I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite.

Strong, clear, definite. No room for interpretation by someone else. I don’t think Joseph Stalin could have said it any better. Actually, Stalin said:

Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?

Scary parallels, no? For a true contrast, consider what Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, said in March 2006 as he launched the new UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office strategy:

At the heart of any foreign policy must lie a set of fundamental values. For this Government, the values that we promote abroad are those that guide our actions at home. We seek a world in which freedom, justice and opportunity thrive, in which governments are accountable to the people, protect their rights and guarantee their security and basic needs. We do so because these are the values we believe to be right. And because such a world is the best guarantee of the security and prosperity of the people of the United Kingdom.

Security

Wolfowitz causes UK to back away from World Bank

Leave a comment

The BBC ends their story about the current situation with a telling example of what happens when you put an American neo-conservative in charge of a global organization:

Oxfam and other campaigners such as Christian Aid say the World Bank’s current policies often leave people in developing countries worse off than before.

“Imagine what life would be like if you had to run every decision you made by your bank manager and if he or she didn’t like it, you would have to change it,” Christian Aid policy manager Anna Thomas said.

“That is the reality for many poor countries and they can’t just switch accounts.”

Christian Aid points to the example of Ghana where the World Bank’s demand for a ban on tariffs and subsidies for the poultry market has led to an influx of cheap European imports and seen many thousands of Ghanaians lose their jobs and livelihoods.

I remember Senator Bob Dole saying to me once that any country that does not allow American investors to own land is no country that deserves support. In other words, like the mob, we are the most powerful player and so if we help you we should own you. Or, even more pointedly, why would a bank help you unless it gave them control over your livelihood? Default on that loan, good-bye farm. Wolfowitz has taken this torch to the extreme at the World Bank. His aim clearly is to wrestle control of markets away from locals in order to enable foreign investment to move in on developing countries. He calls this a program to “tackle corruption”.

Do you get the irony? The American neo-conservatives label their opposition as corrupt because they sense that the playing field is stacked in a direction they dislike. So they change the rules in order to privilege themselves and their friends. In other words, they perform a forceful takeover in order to shift “corruption” heavily to their favor.

Opposition to this nonsense comes from more intelligent and humantiarian men like UK International Development Secretary Hilary Benn:

“But on other issues, particularly economic policy, developing countries ought to take their own decisions and I do believe that this is one of the ways that we can increase the voice of the poorest countries of the world,” he added.

I say “more intelligent” because Wolfowitz is undermining US long-term security and its image abroad for short-term gain by a select few who are already well-to-do. He foolishly believes that developing nations will be eternally grateful if you transfer respect and equity away from them in return for cheap goods made overseas.

Turnabout is fair play, as they say, so let us imagine for a minute that the World Bank was led by a Chinese economist. Now imagine that that person required countries to abide by their particular view of market rules (e.g. Communism or even Socialism) before they would allow money to be loaned for humanitarian aid and reconstruction. The US would howl with protests and claim unfair control was putting lives at risk and destroying the independence and freedom of a sovereign state. Or, perhaps, they would characterize the growth of Asian trade relations with Africa as yet another reason why Africans should surrender domestic control of their markets, as evidenced in this BBC story?

Written by World Bank Africa Region Economic Advisor Harry Broadman, the study further calls for Africa to reform its economies to better “unleash competitive market forces, strengthen its basic market institutions, and improve governance”.

It also wants to see African countries improve their infrastructure and customs arrangements.

Taken together it said such changes were “not only in the best interests of Africa’s economic development, but in China’s and India’s own economic fortunes”.

I seriously doubt Wolfowitz would want to see Chinese expansion in influence, especially over African oil, given his work on the Project for a New American Century along side Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Jeb Bush. On the other hand, Wolfowitz seems to act on ten year old information like pushing for the 1991 invasion of Iraq which he had formulated as a plan in 1976, and then pushing again for the 2003 invasion. So perhaps this former US State Department Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs is still under the impression that China and India desperately need US assistance against Russia or some other threat.

With regard to the point made by Anna Thomas at the start of this entry, imagine that a bank told you that they would not loan you money to fix your plumbing or solve a health/safety issue unless you agreed to their code of conduct. They would further say that due to a low credit rating they see potential for corruption (you might pay your brother or neighbor to fix your plumbing, or you might not be able to repay the loan) and so they require you to accept their own company to perform the improvents. This company would be a large and influential entity of its own that you could not hold accountable and that you had no power to control or guide once they were working on the project — the company would report to the bank, not you. So if they decide to re-route all of your plumbing to your neighbor and then take the profits as “repayment”, what could you do about it? You took the money, the terms said you had to allow this company to set your policy for you, and the company begins to operate in a manner harmful to your best interests. Now what? Corruption is a relative term, in other words, and there does not seem to be much transparency or universal standard to Wolfowitz’s position. The natural result is a further decline in respect for the US and its policy-makers. Why should any country, developed or not, trust someone like Wolfowitz?

And finally, even if you are a fan of Wolfowitz and believe in his mission against corruption I challenge you to apply his standard universally. The US economist needs to take a long hard look in the mirror before s/he says that no country should be given loans unless they can eliminate corruption. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was not a coincidence. Abramoff is not an exception, he is part of the new rule. And so a man who came to power through a system rife with corruption is on shaky moral ground when he points a finger abroad and tells others to clean up their act or forget humanitarian assistance. That is why I believe that his motive is actually to feed contracts to his preferred companies, and not eliminate corruption universally. Anti-corruption is just a catchy marketing phrase that Wolfowitz will use to attack his opponents with, as in “If you do not support my policy, you must be pro-corruption”. We can only hope, like the director who broke the HP board scandal, the world will have the courage and moral strength to stand up to a leader with questionable ethics.

And now for the lighter side of this story, the Onion reports that the US has announced it will dedicate $64 billion to undermine the Gates Foundation efforts:

“If they want to use this money to purify a well, we will be there to fill it in with bacteria-infested soil before they get the chance,” Negroponte said. “If they want to ensure that millions of children receive immunity shots for typhoid, whooping cough, or diphtheria, we will ensure that country’s medicine is never received.”

[…]

A CIA statement outlined phase one of the initiative, dubbed “Freeze And Punish,” to be spearheaded by the new counter-philanthropy unit. It will “focus on disrupting the Gates Foundation’s international support network by freezing the accounts of countries that attempt to use the financial aid, and then providing small arms to violent rebel movements to fight them.” This, combined with the release of over 10 million parasitic Guinea worms into their drinking water, is expected to severely impede Gates’ impact on Africa and the rest of the developing world.

Energy, Security

Campaign Consumption in CA

Leave a comment

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is on the campaign trail. Actually, he has a giant 40-foot recreational vehicle (RV) on the campaign trail that he is using to offer photo opportunities. His campaign stands for three things, as far as I can tell from the website:

  1. Fame
  2. Protection
  3. Consumption

I do not say this lightly, I am just trying to point out what the marketing effect is of a giant inefficient engine driving around the state and a website that says “Protecting…” on every page.

1) The fame message is obvious. Can’t underestimate the effect of a famous actor with a pleasant persona offering folks a photo-opportunity.

2) I have to admit from a security perspective the overwhelming use of a “protection” theme is a little disturbing. Is the idea to promote a message like “Anything you are afraid of, Arnold can protect you”? Seems plausable, given the image he has cultivated from the type of movies he has appeared in and the roles he usually plays (e.g. other than the ones opposite DeVito). Wonder if he will step down off the bus carrying a giant broad-sword or a 50 caliber machine-gun? “I will protect your dream!”

3) Seriously, though, with regard to consumption a quick review of the vehicle he is promoting led me to the rvforsaleguide.com site, which really puts Arnold’s campaign style in perspective:

most expensive per lineal foot of the factory built choices. Many new ones get less than 7 mpg, and 10+ year old units may not even get 5 mpg.

Surely he is driving a new one. Perhaps compared to a fleet of Hummers a single 40-foot RV is economical, but less than 7 mpg still seems rather crude as a campaign message given the bitter history of electric cars and alternative fuel in California. The bus is green, but is it green, if you know what I mean? Maybe it was painted green as a deliberate snub to environmentalists or to give it the appearance of concern about the environment without need for reality.

Arnold’s campaign says his aim is “Protecting the California Dream”, but to me this RV represents more of a late 1990s Texas or Detroit dream. Where is the hybrid technology or alternative fuel source? In other words if the dream is to build giant heavy buses that consume excessive amounts of petroleum then I am sure Ford, Firestone and companies like Bayoil have some campaign contributions headed his way.

Shame the JoinArnold campaign did not have the foresight to run the bus on alternative energy, since that might show some vision or more consistency with the “dream” theme. Instead, they are just pushing more hype and hypocricy, and that is hardly the stuff dreams are really made of.

Incidentally, Arnold’s RV is also a rather sad contrast to the famous green bus of the late US Senator Paul Wellstone. And that bus is apparently still being used, according to Wellstone Action:

The vintage green school bus, long a campaign fixture for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, becomes training tool for progressive action Saturday in Bemidji.

History, Poetry, Security

Kuito, a child’s map of war and infinity

Leave a comment

by Ana Paula Tavares in Lisbon, Angola

These children live free, while the clocks, jammed by bullets, are destined to repeat time, just as the to and fro of bells sounds the cycle of birth and death. They tame the silence, sowing laughter into the folds of day. There is still milk in their laughter, fermenting the hopes of an afternoon. Beyond the doors of houses, the children are exploring the labyrinthine walls. They have a key for everything–even to the stairs that they climb up to reach the sky, bared by a missing roof. They sleep on the ground, parched by bullets, under a sheet of stars that slowly descends until the light is eclipsed and night ushered in.

Interesting contrast. On the one hand I sense boundaries and depleted value in infrastructure, which succumbed to violent disagreement, while on the other a playful adaptiveness and growth that seeks to renew. Confinement versus access.