The Logic Behind Supreme Court’s Anti-Bush Ruling

The Supreme Court of the United States of America yesterday ruled against President Bush’s plans to try Guantanamo inmates in military courts. This means President Bush has no alternative other than trying those suspects—of which only ten have been charged—in US civil courts. In this post I aim to explain the logic behind this decision.

The key controversy surrounding this case was whether or not to accept the Guantanamo inmates as prisoners of war; and, subsequently, whether or not to deal with them as per the provisions of the Geneva Convention. President Bush and company refused to deem them prisoners of war, and, therefore, refused to treat them according to the Geneva Convention. The judges, citing article 3 of the Convention, ruled that Al-Qaeda combatants are prisoners of war and that they deserve treatment according to the Geneva Convention.

Article 3 provides:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. 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, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.”

The military tribunals, carrying out the trials of the detainees, are authorized by President Bush to:

• Provide evidence acquired by torturing the defendants
• Assert pressure on the defendants’ attorneys otherwise not allowed in civilian courts
• Keep parts of the trial secret from the defendant.

However, all three of these authorities provided by President Bush are against the Geneva Convention. Again, according to the Convention:

… the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Hence, the judges ruled President Bush’s decision to try Guantanamo inmates in military tribunals illegal. However, it may reasonably be inferred, that the suspects kept at Abu Ghraib and Bagram (Afghanistan), may also have to be tried in civilian courts.

Links worth visiting:

• The Geneva Convention—United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR)
• By the Numbers: Findings of the Detainee Abuse and Accountability Project—Human Rights Watch
• Bagram Airbase—Wikipedia
• Bagram Torture and Prisoner Abuse—Wikipedia
• Guantanamo Suicides: an Act of War?—MyScribbles: Write-ups of an Afghan.

---

Tags: Bush Supreme+Court Guantanamo Al+QaedaSocialize: blogmarks | del.icio.us | Furl | kinja | Newsvine | Raw Sugar | reddit | Rojo | Simpy | Spurl | Tailrank | Technorati | Yahoo My Web

Disturbing News From Iran

This bit of news, depicting the maltreatment of Afghan refugees in Iran, has almost gone unnoticed.

HERAT CITY, June 18 (Pajhwok Afghan News): Bodies of seven Afghans, killed in the Iranian city of Shiraz, have arrived … The seven people, who were members of the same family, had gone to Iran to seek the hand of an Iranian girl for a boy named Noor Ali. However, father of the girl, in connivance with his associates, allegedly shot dead all the seven people, including the would be bridegroom, his mother, two brothers and three cousins. Read the rest of the story here.

 

Comments and analysis on this issue will be posted shortly.

Afghanistan’s Successful Tour of England

Afghanistan's nascent cricket team was on tour of England this June. It played against regional teams in England and displayed an impressive performance wining five out of the six matches played. It is a landmark victory for cricket in Afghanistan.

Earlier this year, two Afghan players, Mohammed Nabi and Hamid Hassan, had so much impressed England's Marylebone Cricket Club in a match in India that they were recruited to play for the team.

Afghanistan came into contact with cricket when millions of Afghan refugees crossed the border during the civil war to Pakistan, a cricket-crazy country. Cricket was also one of the very few sports allowed by the Taliban's Vice and Virtue Police.

Cricket is now believed to be the third largest participant sport in Afghanistan after Buzkashi, the national sport, and soccer. There around 22 registered provincial cricket clubs and around 12,000 registered players across Afghanistan. The Afghan cricket team is registered with ICC, cricket's international governing body.

Afghanistan seems to be making progress by leaps and bounds in sports. Earlier this year, Afghanistan won a four-nation soccer tournament beating teams from Pakistan, Tajikistan and Iran. Afghanistan also displayed impressive performance in tae kwon do in the South Asian Federation (SAF) Games held last year in Pakistan.

Related Links:
" Afghans Make England Tour Debut (BBC Sport)
" Afghan Cricket Federation in England (Lords.org)
" Cricket: Afghan Tour Yields Unlikely Success (The Observer)

---

Tags: Cricket, Afghan cricket, Sports

Socialize:

---

June 20: World Refugee Day

June 20 was the World Refugee Day. Did anyone notice it? Despite being an Afghan refugee and a member of the largest single refugee group in the world, I didn't notice it come and go. Although I do not believe in the symbolic efficacy of the day, I do believe that if such days are marked properly with awareness programs, a real change can be brought about in the lives of refugees.

I believe that in an overwhelming number of cases, people become refugees when the profits of a multinational corporation are at stake or when a number of immoral, corrupt leaders play dirty politics on the international arena. However, I also strongly believe in the power of the collaborative strength of the human beings as an agent for real change. Therefore, when a day such as this is used to educate the general public and urge them to take action, it can have a real impact on the lives of the refugee population of the world.

The people, especially those of the first world, must know that by donating money to charities and/or feeling sorry at the plight of destitute people shown on their TV screens, no significant change can be brought about. Begging cannot be finished by giving money to beggars; it doesn't fulfill the beggar's consistent need for money and facilities. As the old Chinese saying goes: "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”

Real change comes when the root causes are addressed. And when the root causes are corrupt politicians or corporate profits, the people must mobilize to fight them and strive to create an environment in which refugees are able to earn a subsistence.

No Radical Islam, Only Radicalized Muslims

All religions are open to more than one interpretation. This ambiguousness causes them to split into groups and sub-groups disguised as sects and sub-sects. Often militant-minded, extremist religious groups interpret religions to justify their actions. This means a religion in itself may not be radical, but the way it is interpreted makes it so. Christian Identity groups in Christianity and Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Hinduism are some groups which use religion to justify their extremist agendas.

The creation of Al-Qaeda by the United States was a step in the direction of creating one such group. Al-Qaeda not only interpreted Islam militantly, but also used it to radicalize and inspire many Muslims to join them.

The American war on terror strengthened Al-Qaeda's claims of being the only true representative of the Muslim world. From a Muslim perspective, America killed innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and no Muslim country spoke. The Koran was desecrated and no significant action was taken. Unfair trade and diplomatic double standards made the feeling worse. Poverty, lack of education and absence of basic amenities of life were some other factors which made life hard for these people.

This situation of frustration and chaos was exploited by Al-Qaeda, which, by releasing its inspirational videos and pamphlets, using its cogent mullahs in the neighborhood mosques, and, most importantly, taking retaliatory action in return to the 'subjugation', portrayed itself as the only ray of hope in the backdrop of silence from many Muslim governments. This means Al-Qaeda kept (and still keeps) getting the crucial supply of disillusioned, frustrated young Muslims who want to wage a 'holy war' against the Western 'oppression' and die as 'heroes' and 'martyrs'.

The scenario here indicates that a group of extremist Muslims and its radical interpretations of Islam, with support from America, turned international. The economic and political dynamics in the Muslim world, influenced by American policies, worked in their favor. An increasing number of simple desert dwellers, for which Islam was only a five-times-a-day of prayer, grew discontented and set out on a conquest to spread Islam all over the world and prove its supremacy. Hence, the followers of Islam were turned into radical beings by the political and economic circumstances of their countries. This radicalization causes Islam–a religion teaching its followers to be good Samaritans–to be interpreted as a radical religion.
Links worth visiting:

• The Vishwa Hindu Parishad Website
• Profile: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (BBC News South Asia)
• The Politics of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us? (Farid Zakaria)
• Christian Identity Movement (ReligiousTolerance.org)

---

Tags: Islam, Terrorism, War on terror, Religion, Politics, Koran

Socialize:       

---

Amazing!

It is an old Socialist maxim that everything is a reflection of economy. However, this was certainly not the case with the economically poor Ghanaians today as they beat the world number-two Czechs with a very convincing margin of 2-0 in the soccer world cup.

With a goal in the second minute of the match, the Ghanaians were super-charged as they launched attacks against the Czechs, who couldn't play as well as they were expected to and launched only a miniscule number of attacks.

A wrong tackle in the penalty area by the Czechs gave a chance to Asamoah, the Ghanaian striker, to score his second goal. However, he missed the penalty. Seven yellow cards and one red card–a sign of how roughly the game was played–were allotted to the players.

Ball possession was almost equal between the two teams, but the offensive Ghanaians had 10 off-sides compared to only four from their adversaries. A large number of missed chances from the Africans and a heroic display of goalkeeping by Petr Cech, the Czech goalie, saved his team from a greater agony.

The Czech team is comprised of experienced and aged players. The team also has played 9 times in the world cup. The Ghanaian team is playing its maiden world cup and is comprised of players mostly in their early 20s.

This upset is reminiscent of Senegal's one-nil victory over France in the '98 World Cup and a reminder of the fact that Africa can potentially be a hub of soccer in the future.

Why Frustrated Muslims are So Frustrated

If not already, you are likely to meet or hear some Muslims who think the West, particularly America, is waging a war against Islam. They believe the West is systematically waging a 'crusade' against their religion by defaming and demonizing it. They also think there is a program running to politically and economically isolate the Muslims and subjugate them to exploit their rich natural resources.

While to a person in the West this may seem too farfetched a conspiracy theory, a considerable number of Muslims, who are illiterate and somewhat indoctrinated, have some really 'good' reasons to believe so.

First, they say, the Americans created terrorist agencies like Al-Qaeda and strengthened them to wage a jihad against their ideological and political enemy-the Soviet Union-in Afghanistan. Then, when the Soviets were ousted, they left the country to plunge into chaos in the hands of the Jihadis and terrorists they had created.

Afterwards, they launched a number of attacks through these terrorists on embassies, important buildings, cities and commercial centers around the world. These attacks were justified through the terrorists to be Islamic in an attempt to portray Islam as a religion of intolerance and bloodshed.

Then, they desecrated Islam's religious texts to incite violence among ordinary Muslims, whose reactions were used to demonize Islam even more. To further incite violence and exploit it, they satirized the Prophet of Islam.

In the meantime, they also politically pressurized Islamic countries to further their own ends. They, for example, bombed critical pharmaceutical companies in Sudan, kept a strict check on Libya's military activities, subjugated Iraq, favored India over Pakistan, kept the Palestinians under censure, turned Kashmir into an arena for state-sponsored terrorism and whatnot. Additionally, Israel, which stands in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions, is aided and favored–despite its undeclared-nuclear-state status–over Iran. Additionally, Muslim countries like Pakistan, Kuwait, Egypt, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia have been turned into virtual military colonies.

There is no significant Islamic country with a voice in the world. Iran, which, tried to build a nuclear weapons program in the past (by America's own incentive) in a bid to assert itself, has been isolated and turned into a pariah.

All these factors and the anti-Islamic coverage of the media helped turn Islam into a highly abominable demon with its followers equalized to hatemongers, extremists, anti-West conspirators and a threat to world civilization and culture. In almost every country in the world, Muslims are harassed, mocked and socially segregated. A man with a beard and moustache is thought of as a terrorist linked with Al-Qaeda. Muslims are killed everyday in large numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan in return for bogus theoretical ideals such as 'freedom' and 'democracy'. What a humiliation.

Muslim youths are being deviated from the right path by the production and dissemination of immoral and alien books, magazines, CDs and movies. This has led to a growing trend of cultural alienation, which will subsequently lead to their cultural and civilizational demise.

The voices of the moderate Muslims are not heeded.

These problems, aided by poverty, low literacy rates, high unemployment, a sense of being powerless and humiliated, etc are making the Muslims very frustrated.

Disclaimer: This post may not completely represent the views of every Muslim individual, but it does, however, give a decent peek into an average Muslim's thoughts.

Tags: Islam, Muslims, Terrorism

Socialize:

---

Guantanamo Suicides ‘an Act of War’?

The US started to use its naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in 2002 to keep some of Al-Qaeda's suspected members. Since then, it has kept hundreds of suspected prisoners at the facility without any specific evidence against them and/or providing them a fair trial.

A few weeks ago, a group of inmates attempted suicide but were suppressed by brute force. Today again they attempted suicide after a spell of hunger strikes. This time, however, a Yemeni and two Saudis were successful in their attempts.

Quite preposterously, though, the Guantanamo commander called these suicides a 'PR move' and 'an act of war'.

Those inmates were Muslims. Therefore, this can't even be 'an act of war' as Islam doesn't allow suicide. It isn't even an act of war by terrorist standards: It didn't kill American soldiers. It didn't intimidate the (Iraqi and/or Afghan) public by killing a bunch of people in a busy market. Rather, the inmates have been so desperate and hopeless after years of detention that they found no way other than suicide-a religious taboo-to free themselves.

Likewise, considering the United States' history of defiance and disregard to the international law, one can assume that it was clearly not a 'PR move.' All the media attention and criticism over the years against the United States' mistreatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detention centers have yielded very little. Keeping this in mind, it seems preposterous for the inmates to use their lives as a 'PR move' to grab the attention of the international community.

It is, rather, an act of utter frustration and anxiety as a result of years of illegal detention, inhumane treatment, religious and personal humiliation, lack of access to legal counsel, isolation from their families, etc.

Tags: Terrorism, War on Terror, Bush, Al-Qaeda, Guantanamo

Holocaust Denial According to International Laws

First it was Ernst Zundel who was put behind bars for two years. Then it was David Irving who was sentenced to a three-year term in prison. Their crimes? Stating that less than six million Jews were killed by the Nazis in concentration camps during World War Two. While both the trials produced an uproar in the media, there was a greater hype about the various aspects of freedom of expression after the David Irving trial. Some equated his prison sentence to a blow to freedom of expression, while others praised Austria for imprisoning the “hatemonger”. However, even after all the hype, what didn’t happen was a clarification of the fact whether his imprisonment was really a blow to freedom of expression or not. This post attempts to explain this ambiguity in the context of international and European laws.

 

First, it is important to understand what Holocaust denial is. Wikipedia, one of the leading electronic encyclopedias, says:

Holocaust denial, or Holocaust revisionism … is the belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography. Key elements of this belief are the explicit or implicit rejection that, in the Holocaust:

• • The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting Jews, people of Jewish ancestry, and the Roma (also known as Gypsies) for extermination as a people;
  • Over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies.
  • Tools of efficient mass extermination, such as gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

However, this is a resolution not a treaty, which means it is not legally binding. Another covenant, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is legally binding on as many as 150 nations, guarantees freedom of expression by saying:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice,

However, there are some limitations to this freedom. These limitations, called “duties” or “responsibilities”, are for:

• The respect of the rights or reputations of others;

• The protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.

Granted these freedoms and limitations, it can be reasonably argued that, as defined by the definition cited above, Holocaust denial is not internationally illegal. Yet, as many as ten countries in Europe have laws prohibiting it.

A look at the European laws reveals that there are at least two legal codes—the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union—safeguarding freedom of expression. Nonetheless, none of these two is legally binding. The former, having been signed by all EU members, has the following restrictions to the freedom of expression:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Again, Holocaust denial (according to the above definition) doesn’t constitute an offense according to European laws. This can lead us to the conclusion that Holocaust denial– regardless of the verity of what is claimed–is completely in accordance to the international and European legal codes of conduct. And, any limitations restricting an individual from exercising the freedom of expression in shape of Holocaust revisionism, is an infringement of international law.

---

Tags: Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Freedom of Expression, David Irving, Ernst Zundel 

---

Arguments for Iran’s Nuclear Program

The US-Iran nuclear standoff is one of the hottest political issues of today. While for many the US stance is clear, that of Iran is little understood. This post tries to explain the Iranian stance on the issue.

---

America and Israel—two of the most outspoken proponents of dismantling the Iranian nuclear program—level the following charges against Iran:

1. Iran doesn’t need nuclear energy because it has vast oil reserves. This means, despite its claims, it is not acquiring the technology for civilian purposes. Rather, it is striving to make a bomb.
2. If it gets the bomb, it will destroy Israel, whose existence it doesn’t reconcile with.

The Iranians counter the arguments by the following points:

1. Iran needs nuclear fuel.
   • Its population has doubled over the last two decades leading to an increase in energy demand. This is coupled with a decrease in oil production. During the Shah, Iran produced 6 million barrels of oil per day, while it currently produces only 4 million barrels.
   • It regularly imports electricity due to shortages.
   • The excess capacity required to produce enough electricity to meet demands would cost Iran $40 billion excluding the cost of buying power plant equipments. Harnessing nuclear power costs a fraction of that amount, considering the fact that Iran has vast supplies of uranium ore.
   • Burning too much oil to produce electricity to meet demands will deplete Iranian atmosphere too drastically.
   • It wants to spend its precious oil reserves for other more beneficial purposes.
   • It wants to diversify its energy sources in the backdrop of its fast depleting oil reserves.
   • Even countries rich in oil like Britain and Russia rely on nuclear power
2. Iran is not pursuing a military nuclear program
   • Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, issued a fatwa (religious edict) forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005.
   • Currently Iran can only enrich uranium up to 3.5%, which is good enough for producing nuclear energy, not for bombs (Weapon-grade uranium has to be enriched up to 90%).
   • The IAEA inspectors have found no convincing proof that Iran is pursuing a program for military purposes. In fact, the US too has no convincing proof; It is only leveling allegations based on hypothetical assertions.
   • Iran’s former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, said on December 14, 2001: If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.
3. It is Iran’s right to have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes
   • Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which allows all signatories to build nuclear facilities and enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

It must be noted, however, that Iran's nuclear program was started in 1960s "under the auspices of the US within the framework of bilateral agreements between the two countries."

Further Reading:

• Iran's Nuclear Program. Part I: It's History
• Iran and Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Nuclear Weapons-Iran

---

Tags: Bush, Iran, Israel, Politics, US-Iran-nuclear-standoff

---