The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo

marjorie says...



Today is one of those times when I wish I had HBO. Tonight's HBO documentary by Lisa Jackson, herself a survivor of a brutal gang rape, will be hard to watch I'm sure, but rape as a weapon of war is something more people need to understand. From the HBO website :

As many of the interviewees attest, systematic rape is an effective way to destroy the fabric of society. Yet those in power, as well as powerful nations like the U.S., are doing little to prevent this outrage. "Is there something about sexual violence that makes us all turn away?" asks Jackson. "In what inhuman context does rape become intentional, programmatic, a weapon of choice? Where are the voices of the women themselves? If they tell their stories, will others listen?"

Ho Hum Generation

Mikaela says:
I'm guilty of the apathy the media accuses our generation of having.

I heard about the most recent memo to come out that Bush's Justice Department wrote to outline what kind of torture would legally be allowed in Iraq, thereby shielding those who authorized it. I didn't follow the story. It was just one more outrage, one more example of what our White House, our government, our military was willing to unleash on another country because it is not "First World," not "Free" like we supposedly are, not Democratic enough to escape the torture of its citizens by our hands.

If we look back at the Holocaust and blame the German people for not standing up for the wholesale slaughter of its fellow Jewish citizens -- and we blame Americans at the time for not doing more to save a people we knew were dying by the thousands every day -- should we not blame ourselves right now for not doing more to insist that our government, and our military, 1) stop torturing Iraqi citizens and imprisoning innocent people and 2) investigate and prosecute the military and government officials who okayed what can only be illegal activity by our soldiers?

It is not enough to blame our relative comfort for our blindness and complacency. This human travesty is being conducted in our names by those we allow to represent us. It must end. Waiting for a new President will not be soon enough.

From Dan Froomkin's White House Watch:

The Abu Ghraib Memo

More fallout from what I'm calling the Abu Ghraib Memo.

The New York Times editorial board writes: "It is must reading for anyone who still doubts whether the abuse of prisoners were rogue acts rather than calculated policy. . . .

"When the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public, we were told these were the depraved actions of a few soldiers. The Yoo memo makes it chillingly apparent that senior officials authorized unspeakable acts and went to great lengths to shield themselves from prosecution."

Tom Dickinson blogs for Rolling Stone: "The administration wanted to give itself the permission to commit felonies and war crimes. And it listed them. . . .

"This is premeditation of high crimes . . . forget misdemeanors."

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had law professor Jonathan Turley talk about the memo on his show last night.

Olbermann: "It was written for the Pentagon the month the U.S. invaded Iraq. A year after, the kind of torture that the memo authorizes comes to light in Iraq. Does that chain of sequence blow the administration's 'it was a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib' argument out of the water?"

Turley: "It does. . . . It destroys the idea that these were just hicks with sticks . . . What they were doing is strangely similar to what is laid out carefully in these memos."

Olbermann mentions the new Vanity Fair story suggesting that White House lawyers, including David S. Addington, gave interrogators at Guantanamo a "green light" for torture.

Turley: "Right. It is really amazing, because Congress, including the Democrats, have avoided any type of investigation into torture, because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes. But evidence keeps on coming out. The only thing we don't have is a group picture with a detainee attached to electrical wires. Every time we see more evidence; we have more and more high ranking people at the scene of this crime.

"What you get from this is that this was a premeditated and carefully orchestrated torture program. Not torture, but a torture program."

Tom Teepen writes in his Austin American-Statesman opinion column: "In another era -- Nixon's, not so distant to those of us in Generation Ex -- a memo declassified just the other day would have been accounted a 'smoking gun' and the nation would have been abuzz with speculation about whose heads would roll and how far.

"Nowadays, ho hum."

Why Was It Classified?

Steven Aftergood of the Project on Government Secrecy wrote on Wednesday that the government's ability to keep the memo secret for five years "exemplifies the political abuse of classification authority."

Now, Aftergood writes that J. William Leonard, the nation's top classification oversight official from 2002-2007, agrees with him.

"'The disappointment I feel with respect to the abuse of the classification system in this instance is profound,' said Mr. Leonard, who recently retired as director of the Information Security Oversight Office, which reports to the President on classification and declassification policy.

"'The document in question is purely a legal analysis,' he said, and it contains 'nothing which would justify classification.' . . .

"'There is no information contained in this document which gives an advantage to the enemy,' he said. 'The only possible rationale for making it secret was to keep it from the American people.'"

The Other Memo

Dan Eggen and Josh White write in The Washington Post with more about a still-secret memo mentioned in a footnote of the Abu Ghraib memo: "The Justice Department concluded in October 2001 that military operations combating terrorism inside the United States are not limited by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. . . .

"Administration officials declined to detail what domestic military operations were being contemplated at the time, and the legal status of the secret memo is now unclear. Although the memo has not been formally withdrawn, the Justice Department yesterday repudiated the idea that there are no constitutional limits to military searches and seizures in a time of war, saying it depends on 'the particular context and circumstances of the search,' according to a statement."

Albuquerque Anti-War March Pictures, March 17, 2007

marjorie says...

Here are some of my favorite signs from today’s anti-war march and rally. There were about 1000 people there. For a more comprehensive look at the day, see Jo Ann's pictures on SWOPblogger--they're great.

Civility is Over Rated

Marjorie says…

I enjoyed our classic approach to the State of the Union tonight…Mikaela gave her angry shout-outs, Lisa shook her head in appalled disbelief, and I just rolled my eyes and snickered. Leading off with an acknowledgement of the first female speaker of the house, Bush appealed to a thing that strikes most of us deeply…our desire for equality regardless of our gender, race, or class. It would be remiss to not point out that the real path to power in terms of political office in this country, as limited as it continues to be, clearly lies with the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat, and the 2008 Democratic contenders include an African American, a Latino, a Woman, and a liberal Anglo man. I like this evolvement of the Democrats, even though I find them hopeless much of the time, and even though their path to power continues to be an entrenched individual one rather than an attack on the seemingly unsolvable problem of poverty and its profound intersection with race and gender. If it were solvable, wouldn’t we have done it already? Yes, sometimes even I have these resigned, fatalistic attitudes. Tonight I am particularly feeling that way for some reason. Perhaps I should just call it the Bush effect. Please…DEMOCRATS! I want to shout…stand up and give this guy the boot! Boo him! But I know that isn’t going to happen...our parties simply aren’t that far apart. What is required in this country lies outside of the party system. As ever, let me remind my dear m-pyre readers of one of my favorite maxims: electoral politics are only one aspect of our political lives. On that note, if you’re in Albuquerque I encourage you all to join the anti-war march this Saturday. George W. doesn’t think public opinion matters, but it’s important to show the world that there are many American people who disagree with his policies.

Anti-War March Saturday, January 27th in Albuquerque

NO MORE WAR!

Albuquerque March and Rally
Saturday, January 27th 2007

11:00: Meet at 2nd and Copper (Galleria) for a march to three congressional offices
12:30: Rally at Robinson Park with the Raging Grannies (8th and Central)

Atomic Reality

Mikaela says:
They've got me thinking about all things nuclear.

Democracy Now reports that an insider has come forward with information that Cheney's office is asking intelligence agencies to cook the books about Iran's nuclear capabilities much like they did in order to justify invading Iraq for WMDs in the complete absence of evidence for WMDs.

That and the controversy over the inequitable treatment of Israel's nuclear capability vs. other Middle Eastern countries.

And our focus on nuclear energy as a viable option, coupled w/ news that researchers have found a way to speed the half-life of certain radioactive metals, so that instead of taking 10,000 years to become "safe," it takes 5,000. Not really a "solution" but clearly will be used to increase the optimism of human control over radiation. [Heard on Living on Earth, October 27]

The reality on the ground for those working with these materials is often overlooked. This poem, written by Jeffrey Hillard, from Atomic Ghost: Poets Respond to the Nuclear Age, sums up for me the working man's perspective on the risk we ask him to take.

The Message

I want the sign to read, never come back again.

Instead, it reads, Safety Is A Man’s Best Friend.

I know each one: Alert! above the utility room.

Know Your Goggles near the loading docks.

I have partners who can’t spell half the words,

each orange letter a directive that keeps our

sleeves buttoned and hard-hats within reach.

A mishmash of phrases that exalt our lungs

above any skill; words bold as hot metal,

composed in some super’s office, under a cool fan.

They’ll never convince me that I’d burn myself

or remove my gloves near a blasting furnace

or breathe the fumes from a lead vat

rimmed with sulfuric acid.

I don’t need signs to echo my flaws.

A Careless Employee Is A Disaster In Uniform.

I already load sludge and leave my body

to the eyes of a detector scanner.

Since I drive a forklift, I look ahead,

not above. Today, something is different.

I imagine the tar-black walls swelling,

tiers of sludge frothing over the catwalks,

my lead shield coming apart, dust floating past.

I salvage my thoughts, especially after lunch.

I know it’s dangerous, but I’ll steer the lift

near a pit and join a crew for a cigarette.

We take three puffs, crush them on our hard-hats

and drop them in a shirt pocket. Safe, not sorry.

I’m not yet relieved. I imagine another sign

saying, All bodily cells replaced here,

but the wisdom I receive is Shower Thoroughly.

I find a blessing in each thump of the time-clock,

in the exit gate, in the sign whose broken letters

remind us to dump uniforms in the black barrel.

I say to no on in particular I do, I do.

I think, what else can I give? What else

do they want from a man whose name is duty

and paycheck, a man who sheds these clothes

like they’re footprints to be mopped and forgotten.

Did Bush try to suspend the election?

Mikaela ponders:
Is it just me, or does this point to the fact that Bush contemplated -- or at least asked about -- not allowing the election, since we're "at war"?

Mikaela reposts courtesy Democracy Now:

Bush: Nation Should Be Proud Elections Were Held in Time of War
Over the weekend President Bush gave his first weekly radio address since the mid-term elections. He said the country should be proud that the elections were held even though the county is in a war.

• President Bush: "One freedom that defines our way of life is the freedom to choose our leaders at the ballot box. We saw that freedom earlier this week, when millions of Americans went to the polls to cast their votes for a new Congress. Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war."

Not news for us?

Maggie says:
(Thanks to Counterspin for the tip-off.)

In a move I can only hope is understood by the masses, Newsweek is running two different magazine covers around the world this week. That's not at all uncommon, but the content of the cover stories this time around is cause for concern. Let's take a look:


On the left is the cover appearing in Europe, Latin American, and Asia. The cover story, "Losing Afghanistan," describes the "harsh truth" of Afghanistan, a place given up for lost by a superpower more focused on "fighting terror" in some other place instead.

"One year ago we couldn't have had such a meeting at midnight," says [Taliban fighter] Sabir, who is in his mid-40s and looks forward to living out his life as an anti-American jihadist. "Now we gather in broad daylight. The people know we are returning to power."

The problem, according to the article, is not enough manpower or direction.

In the countryside over the past year, Taliban guerrillas have filled a power vacuum that had been created by the relatively light NATO and U.S. military footprint of some 40,000 soldiers, and by the weakness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai's administration.

Meanwhile in the U.S., subscribers and (most importantly, in this case) checkout line customers are titallated by Annie Leibovitz, a talented photographer who touches us with her tales of celebrity.

"I talked with Angelina [Jolie] before the shoot," says Leibovitz, who's famous for her preparation. "She felt like she was coming back from having the baby and she felt very sexy and ready to go."

Which is the most important story here? Sure, celebrity infotainment regularly trumps hard news for its sex appeal. But the hard-hitting headline "Losing Afghanistan" is something that Middle America needs to see. And let's make no mistake: most of them won't see it unless it's splashed across the cover of a magazine.

Magazine covers speak to us for a reason. They tell us what's most important, most pressing, most exciting. A photographer playing with her kids doesn't exactly match up to a reminder of what we've done in a country that we have no intention of "fixing."

While the rest of the world gets the real story, Americans get fluff. As if we're not the ones who most need to face the repercussions of our actions. What makes the rest of the world more likely to hear this than us? And how can that dichotomy ever change if magazines like Newsweek don't start telling us the same news they tell the rest of the world, just as loudly?

Mayor Marty on Democracy Now -- Really!

Mikaela says:
Listening now... More to come, but here's the link if you want to listen yourself:

Click here for the article.

Click here for the audio file.

I'm just at the beginning, but so far he sounds really reasonable, and Albuquerque comes off as this haven for Green Building and sustainability vision. Ahem.

And then there's this little gem about the March 17, 2003 war protest:

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you, on the issue of dissent in this time of war, I know mayors around the country are dealing with protests, since the invasion, around that time. In Albuquerque, there was a protest right at the time of the invasion.

MAYOR MARTIN CHAVEZ: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: And the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Albuquerque Police Department for treatment of the Albuquerque protesters. Among the issues they were concerned about were protesters being beaten, protesters been arrested. And in the lawsuit, the ACLU deposed a detective, a detective named Gregory Gene Cunningham, and they asked him about the APD, the Albuquerque Police Department's surveillance of antiwar groups. And he went on to talk about being undercover, going to a restaurant where an antiwar protest preparation meeting was taking place, identifying himself, I think it was, as Gilbert Martinez, and sitting in among the group, saying he was an antiwar protester, as well, or interested in the protest. What kind of activity is the police department involved in in surveillance of protesters?

MAYOR MARTIN CHAVEZ: Well, understand, Amy, I come from the Vietnam generation, and I participated in antiwar protests on the exact same streets that were involved with these demonstrations. And we had a handful, a very small handful, unfortunately, of folks come in from out of state that were bent on mischief, pure and simple. And so, I think our police acted entirely appropriately, particularly the first night, and then I got -- because we had these folks in wearing masks, and we had incendiary devices thrown at the police lines, which was entirely inconsistent with what 99% of the folks out there were there for, and that was simply to express their opinions on the war.

And so, what we’ve done -- and I’ve had the ACLU into the office -- we totally revamped all of our ordinances and established a new protocol when there is a planned demonstration. Obviously, sometimes you have demonstrations that are not planned, and these issues can be so emotional and the passions can rise so high. So I think we're doing very well in that regard, respecting the tradition -- and it’s a great American tradition -- of civil disobedience, but also ensuring public safety.

AMY GOODMAN: Are police going undercover and infiltrating peace groups?

MAYOR MARTIN CHAVEZ: If -- no peace groups, but if we have people coming to Albuquerque from elsewhere that are bent on violence, our police will be there, absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: And is the Joint Terrorism Task Force also involved with this at the federal level?

MAYOR MARTIN CHAVEZ: You know, I have very little interaction with those folks. I was one of the first mayors in the country, when Homeland Security wanted us to do random stops at our airport without reasonable grounds, probable cause, to say “No, we’re not going to do that.” And as a result, they revamped that policy. And so, it’s unfortunate, Amy, you have a real dichotomy between federal policy and what most mayors and governors know is the right thing to do. And so, we walk a very -- it’s a very delicate balance we have to strike daily.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, are federal authorities working with the APD, the Albuquerque Police Department, in monitoring and surveiling peace activists?

MAYOR MARTIN CHAVEZ: Oh, I wouldn’t be aware of anything like that, but I am sure and I would hope that there’s good communication between the federal authorities, local public safety authorities. That’s important for keeping our neighborhoods safe.

Right, Marty. Keep it positive! Revisionist history and unbelievable claims of ignorance from our lovable Mayor.

Here was my memory of the March 17, 2003 protest when peaceful protestors were arrested and tear-gassed, including a woman doing nothing wrong, featured here:

Albuquerque, March 17, 2003

By midnight
the streets were clear and quiet
rain softly drumming on tear-gas canisters
tapping on placards now wilting in the bushes
dissolving horseshit piled up in the streets.

The echo of flashing lights
remained glowing in the puddles
but the sirens now warn of the coming new order
in other corners of the city
to other crooks for other crimes.

One barrette lay open and glistening
in the intersection
between opposite lanes of traffic
at the base of a light
now free to turn green.

She will ask for it at police custody
her release the only thing they can hand her
in the absence of peace
apologies not yet forced from the mayor
by the headlines

her arrest still signaling
just their job
just another protest
just one more voice
shoved face-down to asphalt and rain.