Inside Morocco's largest prison
7:22 AM
No comments
Friday, December 28, 2007
Politics of Appearances: Religion, Law, and the Press in Morocco
12:37 PM
No comments
Politics of Appearances: Religion, Law, and the Press in Morocco
Abstract
Since the last several years of the life of King Hassan II, Morocco slowly moved from authoritarian rule to a managed democracy. As a result of this gradual political liberalization, religious groups as well as secular ones formed political parties. Islamists have already won seats in the parliament and they are expected to gain nearly half the number of seats in the coming elections. Equally significant is the increased presence of human rights and non-government organizations and the emergence of independent and party-affiliated newspapers and other media outlets. In this article, I focus on the prospects of seeing a free press emerging in Morocco given the pressures exerted by official and non-official authorities. I argue that government interventions stifle freedom of expression and weaken civil society. This study focuses exclusively on Moroccan Arabic and French language print media.Recommended Citation
A E. Souaiaia (2007) "Politics of Appearances: Religion, Law, and the Press in Morocco," Muslim World Journal of Human Rights: Vol. 4 : Iss. 2, Article 5.Available at: http://www.bepress.com/mwjhr/vol4/iss2/art5
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Helping Orphans or Modern Day Trade with Human Beings
8:32 AM
No comments
Members of a charity and three Spanish air crew being held in Chad on child kidnapping charges have appeared in court.
Their appearance came as a French journalist who had been with the group before he was released on Sunday said his former fellow detainees had displayed "dramatic amateurishness" and lied about their plans.
Marc Garmirian, one of three French reporters released on Sunday, interviewed members of the group during the operation and filmed them putting bandages on children to make them appear injured before their planned flight to France.
"I realised rather quickly that in what you could call the investigation, or the interviews they conducted with the children or the people who brought them the children, they displayed a dramatic amateurishness," he told TF1 television.
Fake injuries
Six of the 10 Europeans still in custody are members of the organisation Zoe's Ark, which has said it intended to place orphans from Darfur with European families for foster care and that it had the right to do so under international law.
But UN and Chadian officials say most of the 103 children, who are between one and 10-years-old, have at least one living parent and came from the violent Chad-Sudan border area.
On Sunday Garmirian's employer, the French news agency Capa, released television footage that showed members of Zoe's Ark putting bandages on children and pouring dark liquid on them to make it seem as though they were injured.
The head of Zoe's Ark, Eric Breteau, said in the footage that he knew he might be arrested over the operation.
"If I am thrown in prison for saving children from Darfur ... I think that after all I would be proud to go to prison for that," Breteau said.
Garmirian, who left Chad on the jet of Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, along with the two other reporters and four Spanish flight attendants, said Zoe's Ark workers failed to tell Chadians they dealt with that they planned to take the children to France.
"They lied to all the Chadians," he told Reuters Television.
Release request
"According to them it was an essential condition of the operation's success.
"They worked for a month and a half with around 100 people - accountants, nannies who looked after the children, cooks, drivers - to all these people their message was, 'We are opening an orphanage in Abeche'," Garmirian said.
Abeche is a city in Chad near the border with Sudan.
Members of Zoe's Ark and the three remaining Spanish air crew appeared in court in Chad's capital N'Djamena on Monday.
Abdou Lamian, a lawyer for Zoe's Ark, said: "People have been sensationalising this affair, pronouncing they are guilty even before the judge has tried them."
Jean-Bernard Padare, a Chadian lawyer defending the Spanish detainees, said he would file a request on Tuesday for their provisional release.
"There is no reason to keep them in detention," he said.
La Tunisie des illusions perdues
7:08 AM
No comments
"On y a tous cru. Ben Ali, c'était le sauveur. Le 7 novembre 1987, je me suis dit : "Quel que soit le régime à venir, on va respirer !" On n'en pouvait plus de trente ans de bourguibisme. L'arrivée de Ben Ali, ça a constitué un formidable espoir !" Il s'arrête, fouille dans ses souvenirs, puis reprend : "On a assez vite déchanté. La réalité ne collait pas avec les engagements. Au début, on s'est rassurés en se disant qu'il y avait des tiraillements au sein du pouvoir. Puis il y a eu les arrestations des islamistes. Puis le musellement de la gauche, puis de tous les démocrates. Et ça n'a jamais cessé..."
Les propos de Lotfi, pharmacien dans un village proche de Monastir, on les entend à l'infini en Tunisie, en ce 20e anniversaire de l'arrivée au pouvoir de Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali. Le 7 novembre 1987, celui qui est à l'époque premier ministre évince en douceur le vieux chef de l'Etat, Habib Bourguiba, devenu sénile. Pas une goutte de sang. La population n'en a alors que plus de gratitude pour le nouveau venu qui promet la démocratie et déclare : "On ne saurait être président à vie."
Vingt ans plus tard, les propos sont amers. Si les Tunisiens admettent, du bout des lèvres, que le pays s'est développé et que le niveau de vie a augmenté, ils expriment, pour la plupart, mal-être et frustration. La Tunisie d'aujourd'hui, c'est le pays des illusions perdues. Coupés de la population, les touristes qui se bronzent sur les plages de Mahdia et Monastir sont loin de pouvoir l'imaginer.
Les droits de l'homme ? Ici, au Sahel, à quelque 250 kilomètres au sud de Tunis, on s'en préoccupe peu. "C'est un luxe, pour nous", disent les habitants. Leur souci majeur, ce n'est pas tant le pouvoir autoritaire du président Ben Ali que leur situation socio-économique. "Le miracle tunisien ? Parlez plutôt de mirage ! Les données macroéconomiques sont peut-être bonnes, mais notre vie quotidienne, elle, va de mal en pis !", grogne Salah, enseignant et père de trois enfants, qui croule sous les dettes comme la quasi-totalité de ses compatriotes.
"Le problème fondamental, en Tunisie, ce n'est pas la création de la richesse - il y en a - c'est la répartition de cette richesse", souligne Hassine Dimassi, professeur d'économie à l'université de Sousse. Si les Tunisiens sont mécontents, c'est, dit-il, parce qu'ils se sentent "globalement lésés", même quand leur situation n'est pas, objectivement, catastrophique.
En Tunisie, plus encore que dans les autres pays du Maghreb, le fléau des "diplômés chômeurs" ronge la société. Il explique en partie les jacqueries qui surviennent ici et là, comme à Bizerte, il y a quelques mois, où une cohorte de jeunes ont brûlé des voitures et tout pillé sur leur passage à la sortie d'un match de football. Dans chaque famille, on compte un diplômé chômeur, voire deux ou trois. Pour les parents, qui ont fait des sacrifices considérables pour payer des études à leurs enfants, c'est intolérable, et le ressentiment à l'égard du pouvoir est énorme. Chaque année, le nombre des diplômés (60 000) dépasse de deux fois la capacité d'absorption de l'économie du pays, selon le professeur Dimassi, qui accuse les autorités d'utiliser le système éducatif comme "un outil de gouvernance démagogique" depuis près de vingt ans et de délivrer des diplômes "à des quasi-analphabètes".
Quitter la Tunisie pour trouver du travail et échapper, dans le meilleur des cas, à un emploi précaire et mal payé, c'est l'idée fixe de la plupart des jeunes, encouragés par leurs parents. Si le cas de Nejib sort de l'ordinaire, il est révélateur du degré de désespoir de certains. Depuis 2000, ce jeune de 29 ans a tenté à quatre reprises de quitter la Tunisie pour rejoindre l'Italie à bord d'embarcations de fortune. Les trois premières fois, il avait payé un passeur. La dernière fois, c'était lui le passeur. A chaque fois, en raison de la vigilance des gardes-côtes ou d'avaries, il a échoué.
Grand, mince, nerveux, Nejib s'exprime avec une rage butée : "Je veux aller vivre en Europe, et j'y arriverai ! En Tunisie, l'homme n'a pas de valeur. On est des esclaves modernes." A-t-il conscience qu'il risque sa vie chaque fois qu'il prend la mer ? "Ici, je suis déjà mort !", répond-il, laconique. Lui et ses copains disent n'avoir qu'une devise : "Chacun pour soi !"
Beaucoup s'inquiètent de cet abandon du combat collectif. Hamida Dridi, médecin à Monastir, très engagée dans des mouvements de défense des libertés, raconte que l'un de ses fils lui dit souvent : "Tu as un travail et un salaire. De quoi te plains-tu ? Moi, je ne fait pas de politique. Le prix à payer est trop élevé. Je veux vivre. Le reste, je m'en fous !"
Cette dépolitisation affecte l'ensemble de la population. Pourtant, les actes de résistance individuels se multiplient, y compris dans les coins les plus reculés de Tunisie. Tel professeur de philosophie ou d'arabe ouvre régulièrement des discussions, en classe, avec ses élèves, et les incite à réfléchir. "Dans mon école, il y en a trois comme lui. Ils n'hésitent pas, par exemple, à qualifier les élections en Tunisie de mascarade", raconte un élève de terminale.
A Ksiebet, village perché réputé pour son esprit frondeur, Rafik et Abderahmane, enseignants, et Mohammed, agriculteur, se battent pour faire vivre leur petite association, Les Amis du livre et de la liberté, et réclament inlassablement la réouverture de la Ligue tunisienne des droits de l'homme, interdite d'activité dans tout le pays depuis plus de deux ans.
Si la peur recule au fur et à mesure que le mécontentement grandit, la prudence reste la règle. On se méfie toujours du voisin et des innombrables indicateurs. La population est de plus en plus caustique à l'égard du clan au pouvoir - en particulier la famille Trabelsi, du nom de l'épouse du chef de l'Etat, accusée de piller le pays -, mais elle est paralysée par un sentiment d'impuissance. "On en a tous marre ! Mais que peut-on faire ?", soupirent les gens, accablés par ce qui se prépare.
"Ben Ali pour l'éternité" ! Ce n'est pas de la science-fiction. Le slogan a fait son apparition, il y a quelques mois, sur une banderole déployée sur la façade d'une entreprise publique, à l'initiative du tout-puissant parti au pouvoir, le Rassemblement pour la Constitution et la démocratie. Chaque jour, la presse publique vante "l'image rayonnante de la Tunisie, fruit de la pensée clairvoyante de Ben Ali". Personne n'est dupe. Pas même ceux qui chantent la gloire du président et le "supplient", dans une surenchère burlesque, de briguer un nouveau mandat en 2009.
Aujourd'hui comme hier, certains se satisfont de la situation. Ils sont de plus en plus rares. D'autres s'en désespèrent. D'autres encore, estimant stérile d'entrer dans une confrontation directe avec le pouvoir, luttent de l'intérieur pour faire bouger les choses. Le président Ben Ali ne pourra pas toujours rester arc-bouté sur le statu quo, font-ils valoir. Il sera contraint, tôt ou tard, de desserrer la vis pour que la Tunisie aille de l'avant. Mais la grande force de ce régime, n'est-ce pas, en fin de compte, son extraordinaire capacité à entretenir l'illusion ? Chaque 7 novembre, les Tunisiens reprennent espoir. Ils se remettent à rêver : l'annonce d'une ouverture démocratique, une amnistie générale, un miracle... Voilà vingt ans qu'ils attendent.
Source: http://www.lemonde.fr/web/imprimer_element/0,40-0@2-3212,50-975067,0.html
Sunday, November 4, 2007
حقوق الإنسان بتونس
12:32 PM
No comments
ليبراليون ويساريون وإسلاميون يدعون لإصلاحات بتونس
طالب معارضون تونسيون بإصلاحات سياسية ودستورية جوهرية لتحقيق ما أسموه "نظام جمهوري ديمقراطي" يكفل الحرية وسيادة القانون والفصل بين السلطات، والتداول الديمقراطي على الحكم.
ودعوا في ندوة جماهيرية حاشدة حضرها ممثلون عن أحزاب ليبرالية وشيوعية وإسلامية بمناسبة الذكرى الخمسين لإعلان الجمهورية -الذي يصادف الخامس والعشرين من الجاري- إلى تحديد ولاية رئيس الجمهورية بدورتين، والحد من سلطاته وإقرار مبدأ مساءلته أمام هيئة يضبطها القانون.
كما طالب المجتمعون بإعادة الاعتبار للدور التشريعي لمجلس النواب واستقلال السّلطة القضائية، وإرساء محكمة دستورية تراقب ملائمة القوانين لأحكام الدستور ويحق للمواطنين التظلم لديها.
وانبثق عن الندوة التي رعتها هيئة 18 أكتوبر للحقوق والحريات (ائتلاف تيارات سياسية وهيئات مدنية) "إعلان تونس من أجل نظام جمهوري ديمقراطي" تضمن علاوة على المطالب المذكورة المطالبة بسن عفو تشريعي عام، ورفع الحظر عن تأسيس الأحزاب والجمعيات وتكريس الحريات الإعلامية.
وقال المنظمون إن مبررات دعوتهم إلى الإصلاحات التي وصفوها بالعاجلة اعتماد النظام السياسي التونسي لخمسين سنة على قوانين واختيارات حرمت المواطنين من حريات التعبير والصحافة والإعلام وحق التجمّع وتأسيس الأحزاب والجمعيات، فيما أخضعت سائر هذه الحريات لوصاية وزير الداخلية.
كما أخضعت للوزير نفسه العملية الانتخابية في كل مراحلها مما وصفوه بالتزييف وتكرّس احتكار الحياة السياسية والعامّة، رغم كلّ الأصوات التي ارتفعت للاحتجاج والمطالبة بالتعددية والديمقراطية.
انتقاد أوضاع حقوق الإنسان بتونس
وجهت منظمة "هيومن رايتس ووتش" انتقادات جديدة لأوضاع حقوق الإنسان في تونس، وطالبت الرئيس زين العابدين بن علي بالإفراج الفوري عن الناشط السياسي دانيال زروق الذي تقول إنه أدين بشكل غير قانوني مرات عدة بنفس الاتهامات.
وقالت المنظمة إن زروق أودع السجن في عام 1992 ومنذ القبض عليه أدين أربع مرات بالانتماء لحركة النهضة الإسلامية المحظورة في تونس.
وفي رسالة إلى بن علي دعت "هيومن رايتس ووتش" أيضا إلى مراجعة جميع قضايا السجناء الذين يقضون أحكاما متعددة بالسجن عن مخالفة واحدة وهو ما قالت إنه انتهاك للقوانين الدولية والمحلية.
وأشارت إلى أن المحاكم التونسية أصدرت أحكاما بالسجن يصل مجموعها إلى أكثر من 20 عاما على زروق بتهمة الانتماء إلى حركة النهضة وتهم أخرى، وقالت المنظمة إنها على علم بأن الأحكام على زروق خففت وإنه من المنتظر أن يطلق سراحه في 2009.
وفي نوفمبر/تشرين الثاني أفرجت السلطات التونسية عن 55 سجينا سياسيا بمقتضى عفو سنوي في ذكرى تولي بن علي الحكم, لكن منظمة العفو الدولية قالت إن مائة سجين على الأقل من أعضاء حركة النهضة كانت صدرت عليهم أيضا أحكام بالسجن بعد محاكمات "غير عادلة" في أوائل عقد التسعينيات، لم يطلق سراحهم.
في المقابل تقول الحكومة التونسية إنها ملتزمة بتعزيز الديمقراطية واحترام حقوق الإنسان، وتصر على أن منتقدي سجلها لحقوق الإنسان منحازون ويعبرون عن آراء أقلية تسعى إلى تشويه صورة البلاد في الخارج. كما تنفي تونس بشكل قاطع استخدام التعذيب وتقول إنه لا يوجد لديها أي سجناء سياسيين.
ودعوا في ندوة جماهيرية حاشدة حضرها ممثلون عن أحزاب ليبرالية وشيوعية وإسلامية بمناسبة الذكرى الخمسين لإعلان الجمهورية -الذي يصادف الخامس والعشرين من الجاري- إلى تحديد ولاية رئيس الجمهورية بدورتين، والحد من سلطاته وإقرار مبدأ مساءلته أمام هيئة يضبطها القانون.
كما طالب المجتمعون بإعادة الاعتبار للدور التشريعي لمجلس النواب واستقلال السّلطة القضائية، وإرساء محكمة دستورية تراقب ملائمة القوانين لأحكام الدستور ويحق للمواطنين التظلم لديها.
وانبثق عن الندوة التي رعتها هيئة 18 أكتوبر للحقوق والحريات (ائتلاف تيارات سياسية وهيئات مدنية) "إعلان تونس من أجل نظام جمهوري ديمقراطي" تضمن علاوة على المطالب المذكورة المطالبة بسن عفو تشريعي عام، ورفع الحظر عن تأسيس الأحزاب والجمعيات وتكريس الحريات الإعلامية.
وقال المنظمون إن مبررات دعوتهم إلى الإصلاحات التي وصفوها بالعاجلة اعتماد النظام السياسي التونسي لخمسين سنة على قوانين واختيارات حرمت المواطنين من حريات التعبير والصحافة والإعلام وحق التجمّع وتأسيس الأحزاب والجمعيات، فيما أخضعت سائر هذه الحريات لوصاية وزير الداخلية.
كما أخضعت للوزير نفسه العملية الانتخابية في كل مراحلها مما وصفوه بالتزييف وتكرّس احتكار الحياة السياسية والعامّة، رغم كلّ الأصوات التي ارتفعت للاحتجاج والمطالبة بالتعددية والديمقراطية.
انتقاد أوضاع حقوق الإنسان بتونس
وجهت منظمة "هيومن رايتس ووتش" انتقادات جديدة لأوضاع حقوق الإنسان في تونس، وطالبت الرئيس زين العابدين بن علي بالإفراج الفوري عن الناشط السياسي دانيال زروق الذي تقول إنه أدين بشكل غير قانوني مرات عدة بنفس الاتهامات.
وقالت المنظمة إن زروق أودع السجن في عام 1992 ومنذ القبض عليه أدين أربع مرات بالانتماء لحركة النهضة الإسلامية المحظورة في تونس.
وفي رسالة إلى بن علي دعت "هيومن رايتس ووتش" أيضا إلى مراجعة جميع قضايا السجناء الذين يقضون أحكاما متعددة بالسجن عن مخالفة واحدة وهو ما قالت إنه انتهاك للقوانين الدولية والمحلية.
وأشارت إلى أن المحاكم التونسية أصدرت أحكاما بالسجن يصل مجموعها إلى أكثر من 20 عاما على زروق بتهمة الانتماء إلى حركة النهضة وتهم أخرى، وقالت المنظمة إنها على علم بأن الأحكام على زروق خففت وإنه من المنتظر أن يطلق سراحه في 2009.
وفي نوفمبر/تشرين الثاني أفرجت السلطات التونسية عن 55 سجينا سياسيا بمقتضى عفو سنوي في ذكرى تولي بن علي الحكم, لكن منظمة العفو الدولية قالت إن مائة سجين على الأقل من أعضاء حركة النهضة كانت صدرت عليهم أيضا أحكام بالسجن بعد محاكمات "غير عادلة" في أوائل عقد التسعينيات، لم يطلق سراحهم.
في المقابل تقول الحكومة التونسية إنها ملتزمة بتعزيز الديمقراطية واحترام حقوق الإنسان، وتصر على أن منتقدي سجلها لحقوق الإنسان منحازون ويعبرون عن آراء أقلية تسعى إلى تشويه صورة البلاد في الخارج. كما تنفي تونس بشكل قاطع استخدام التعذيب وتقول إنه لا يوجد لديها أي سجناء سياسيين.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Lt. Ehren Watada Refusal to Serve in Iraq: Iraq War Illegal
6:28 AM
No comments
The double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution ensures that no American can be tried twice for the same offense. But at a time when our civil liberties are rapidly eroding, a drama is unfolding in Washington State over whether that constitutional protection applies to a US soldier.
After his February court-martial ended in a mistrial, Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse to serve in Iraq, seemed certain to face a second court-martial on October 9 at Fort Lewis, an Army base near Tacoma. Three military courts had rejected Watada's claim of double jeopardy, finding no abuse of discretion by the military judge in declaring a mistrial. But in an unusual civilian intervention in a military legal process, US District Court Judge Benjamin Settle issued a last-minute stay October 5 in Tacoma, temporarily blocking the trial.
Settle will hear Watada's double jeopardy claim October 19. Nationwide Iraq Moratorium protests are scheduled for that day, many of which will feature Watada's case and his stand against the war.
Watada has consistently maintained that the Iraq War is illegal under international law and the US Constitution, and that to participate in it would make him guilty of a war crime. At the video press conference on June 7, 2006, in which he first announced his refusal to go to Iraq, he explained, "It is my conclusion as an officer of the armed forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law."
Watada was tried in a military court in February for failing to deploy and conduct unbecoming an officer for his statements opposing the war. After the prosecution had completed its case, the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, intervened, declared a mistrial and ordered Watada to be retried.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no person shall be "subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." As the Supreme Court explained in a seminal 1978 double jeopardy case, United States v. Scott, "The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offence."
Like the erosion of the right to habeas corpus, the denial of the protection against double jeopardy represents one more Bush-era encroachment of the all-powerful state on basic human rights and the rule of law.
While the legal arguments about double jeopardy are quite complicated, Watada's lawyers are convinced their arguments are strong. They wrote in their emergency motion, "This is a remarkably clear case of an egregious violation of the double-jeopardy clause." Judge Settle's opinion states, "The Court has not been presented any evidence showing that Petitioner's double jeopardy claim lacks merit. On the contrary, the record indicates that Petitioner's double jeopardy claim is meritorious."
Growing Support
Watada's term of military service was scheduled to expire on December 4, 2006. He has not been discharged, however, because of the pending court-martial charges against him. If convicted, he could face up to six years in prison.
In an October 4 editorial, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer declared, "However the defense appeals turn out, we think there is a case for letting Watada leave the Army without further ado."
There's no evidence yet that the Army is listening. But Judge Settle's ruling has energized Watada's supporters. They have formed a new national steering committee with representatives from regions around the country. Michael Wong, a military resister during the Vietnam era who took much of the initiative to mobilize the current wave of support, explained in an interview, "We have three demands. The first is to bar the Army from trying Ehren Watada again. The second is to drop all charges against him. The third is to let him leave with an honorable discharge."
Wong asks peace groups to incorporate Watada's defense in local and national demonstrations and encourages individuals to write letters to the editor and articles to educate the public about the case. "They had a chance to try him once. They blew it. The prosecution's case was so weak that declaring a mistrial may have been the only way that Judge Head could save the Army from humiliation and defeat," he said. "They should just drop the charges and let him go."
San Francisco organizer and lawyer Bill Simpich has been active in both the Iraq Moratorium and the Watada defense. He is working to make Watada's stand against the war a central theme of the monthly Iraq Moratorium Day October 19. "The Iraq Moratorium and the Watada Support Campaign are moving tightly with plans to get the word out to stop the war now so soldiers like Lieutenant Watada aren't forced to choose between supporting the Constitution and going to prison," he said.
Simpich said the signature event of the Iraq Moratorium Day in the Bay Area will be a dramatic end-of-workday event outside the downtown office of Senator Dianne Feinstein, co-sponsored by the Iraq Moratorium and the Watada Support Committee. Community events and leafleting at transportation hubs such as BART and CalTrain will also link the Moratorium and the Watada case.
In Washington, activists plan demonstrations and a counterrecruiting effort outside a Seattle-area recruitment center.
"The US government and military is waging two illegal wars and is actively planning for a third," said organizer Gerry Condon, referring to increasing hostilities between the United States and Iran. "It is more important than ever that we support GIs who follow their own consciences and obey international law."
The Watada case is also drawing international attention. Amnesty International issued a statement October 5 warning that a guilty verdict would make Watada "a prisoner of conscience who should be immediately and unconditionally released."
Watada's case is different from typical conscientious objector cases because the US military recognizes as conscientious objectors only those who oppose war in any form. Watada did not apply for conscientious objector status because he said as a soldier he would be willing to fight in a war--unlike Iraq--that was necessary, legal and just.
Amnesty International argues in its statement that the right to refuse to perform military service for reasons of conscience, thought or religion is protected under international human rights standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)--treaties that have been ratified by the United States.
Watada's Impact
The Watada case has presented a serious challenge to the military. As Daniel Ellsberg put it, "Lt. Ehren Watada--who still faces trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq, which he correctly perceives to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war--is the single officer in the United States armed services who is taking seriously...his oath."
Despite strong traditions in the military against publicly criticizing the government, more than twenty retired US generals have criticized the Commander in Chief about Iraq or spoken out against the war. In 2005, five retired military panelists discussed the war at Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia. Retired Brig. Gen. John Johns told the San Diego Union-Tribune, "Four out of five of us retired military panelists there said it was a moral duty for us to speak out in a democracy against policies which you think are unwise." One of the participants, retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, said, "When you feel the country--to its extreme detriment--is going in the wrong direction, and that your views might have some impact, you have a duty to speak out."
In a video press conference announcing his refusal to deploy to Iraq, Watada noted, "Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I am forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal. As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."
While evidence of the war's illegality was barred in Watada's court-martial, his position is grounded in military law and doctrine. At a National Press Club luncheon February 17, 2006, just a year before Watada's court-martial, Gen. Peter Pace, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked, "Should people in the US military disobey orders they believe are illegal?"
Pace's response: "It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral."
The Army wants to sentence Ehren Watada to six years in the brig for the crime of trying to fulfill that absolute responsibility.
Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071029/brecher_smith
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
President Ahmadinejad Delivers Remarks at Columbia University - washingtonpost.com
6:56 AM
No comments
President Ahmadinejad Delivers Remarks at Columbia University - washingtonpost.com
President Ahmadinejad Delivers Remarks at Columbia University
CQ Transcripts Wire
Monday, September 24, 2007; 4:25 PM
SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
SPEAKER: IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD
[*]
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful...
TRANSLATOR: The president is reciting verses from the holy Koran in Arabic.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness.
Distinguished Dean, dear professors and students, ladies and gentlemen, at the outset I would like to extend my greetings to all of you. I am grateful to the almighty God for providing me with the opportunity to be in an academic environment, those seeking truth and striving for the promotion of science and knowledge.
At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims...
(APPLAUSE)
... and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.
I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.
Certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak, and that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that's given to us in this country.
Many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media, and the political, sort of, mainstream line that you read here that goes against the very grain of the need for peace and stability in the world around us.
Nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment. I will tell you what I have to say, and then the questions he can raise and I'll be happy to provide answers. But as for one of the issues that he did raise, I most certainly would need to elaborate further so that we, for ourselves, can see how things fundamentally work.
It was my decision in this valuable forum and meeting to speak with you about the importance of knowledge, of information, of education. Academics and religious scholars are shining torches who shed light in order to remove darkness. And the ambiguities around us in guiding humanity out of ignorance and perplexity.
The key to the understanding of the realities around us rests in the hands of the researchers, those who seek to discover areas that are hidden, the unknown sciences, the windows of realities that they can open is done only through efforts of the scholars and the learned people in this world.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): With every effort there is a window that is opened, and one reality is discovered. Whenever the high stature of science and wisdom is preserved and the dignity of scholars and researchers are respected, humans have taken great strides toward their material and spiritual promotion.
In contrast, whenever learned people and knowledge have been neglected, humans have become stranded in the darkness of ignorance and negligence.
If it were not for human instinct, which tends toward continual discovery of truth, humans would have always remained stranded in ignorance and no way would not have discovered how to improve the life that we are given.
The nature of man is, in fact, a gift granted by the Almighty to all. The Almighty led mankind into this world and granted him wisdom and knowledge as his prime gift enabling him to know his God.
In the story of Adam, a conversation occurs between the Almighty and his angels. The angels call human beings an ambitious and merciless creature and protested against his creation.
But the Almighty responded, quote, "I have knowledge of what you are ignorant of," unquote. Then the Almighty told Adam the truth. And on the order of the Almighty, Adam revealed it to the angels.
The angels could not understand the truth as revealed by the human being.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The Almighty said to them, quote, "Did not I say that I am aware of what is hidden in heaven and in the universe?" unquote.
In this way the angels prostrated themselves before Adam.
In the mission of all divine prophets, the first sermons were of the words of God, and those words -- piety, faith and wisdom -- have been spread to all mankind.
Regarding the holy prophet Moses, may peace be upon him, God says, quote, "And he was taught wisdom, the divine book, the Old Testament and the New Testament. He is the prophet appointed for the sake of the children of Israel, and I rightfully brought a sign from the Almighty, holy Koran (SPEAKING IN PERSIAN)," unquote.
The first words, which were revealed to the holy prophet of Islam, call the prophet to read, quote, "Read, read in the name of your God, who supersedes everything," unquote, the Almighty, quote again, "who taught the human being with the pen," unquote. Quote, "The Almighty taught human beings what they were ignorant of," unquote.
You see, in the first verses revealed to the holy prophet of Islam, words of reading, teaching and the pen are mentioned. These verses in fact introduced the Almighty as the teacher of human beings, the teacher who taught humans what they were ignorant of.
In another part of the Koran, on the mission of the holy prophet of Islam, it is mentioned that the Almighty appointed someone from amongst the common people as their prophet in order to, quote, "read for them the divine verses," unquote, and quote again, "and purify them from ideological and ethical contamination" unquote, and quote again, "to teach them the divine book and wisdom," unquote.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): My dear friends, all the words and messages of the divine prophets from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, to David and Solomon and Moses, to Jesus and Mohammad delivered humans from ignorance, negligence, superstitions, unethical behavior, and corrupted ways of thinking, with respect to knowledge, on the path to knowledge, light and rightful ethics.
In our culture, the word science has been defined as illumination. In fact, the science means brightness and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance, to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the almighty.
Therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift and the heart is where it resides. If we accept that science means illumination, then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality.
One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences. This harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.
Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of a material and the spirit. And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science; the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior. Knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality.
It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality. And only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions, selfishness and material trappings can discover -- discover the reality.
AHMADINEJAD: My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests.
Material desires place humans against the realities of the world. Corrupted and dependent human beings resist acceptance of reality. And even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.
There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities.
Do those who, in the course of human history, wage wars, not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories, and the rights of all human beings should be respected, or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?
My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy, and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself.
Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity, and several events can ensue.
First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality, which is to their own benefit, and conceal the rest. As we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past, too, unfortunately, today, we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.
Second, science, scientists, and scholars are misused for personal, group, or party interests. So, in today's world, bullying powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit.
For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though. By creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.
They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities.
They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and (inaudible) submission to oppressive powers and disability.
Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Are these weapons to protect global security?
What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity?
If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place?
Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents, which might be witnessed in even the next generations to come.
Presently, the effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly.
These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.
Another point of sorrow: Some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well.
This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values and the teachings of the divine prophets.
Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Dear academics, dear faculty and scholars, students, I believe that the biggest God-given gift to man is science and knowledge. Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God. But science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.
These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards a better future.
And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore, it must remain pure.
God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God. So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us toward justice.
I'd like to thank you now but refer to two points made in the introduction given about me, and then I will be open for any questions.
Last year -- I would say two years ago -- I raised two questions. You know that my main job is a university instructor.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Right now, as president of Iran, I still continue teaching graduate and Ph.D.-level courses on a weekly basis. My students are working with me in scientific fields. I believe that I am an academic, myself. So I speak with you from an academic point of view, and I raised two questions.
But, instead of a response, I got a wave of insults and allegations against me. And regretfully, they came mostly from groups who claimed most to believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of information. You know quite well that Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years. For 60 years, these people are displaced.
For 60 years, these people are being killed. For 60 years, on a daily basis, there's conflict and terror. For 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads. For 60 years, children and kindergartens, in schools, in high schools, are in prison being tortured. For 60 years, security in the Middle East has been endangered. For 60 years, the slogan of expansionism from the Nile to the Euphrates is being chanted by certain groups in that part of the world.
And as an academic, I asked two questions; the same two questions that I will ask here again. And you judge, for yourselves, whether the response to these questions should be the insults, the allegations, and all the words and the negative propaganda or should we really try and face these two questions and respond to them?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Like you, like any academic, I, too, will keep -- not yet become silent until I get the answer. So I'm awaiting logical answers instead of insults.
My first question was if -- given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?
Our friend referred to 1930 as the point of departure for this development. However, I believe the Holocaust from what we've read happened during World War II, after 1930, in the 1940s. So, you know, we have to really be able to trace the event.
My question was simple: There are researchers who want to approach the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now, there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust or research it from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it.
My question is: Why isn't it open to all forms of research?
I have been told that there's been enough research on the topic. And I ask, well, when it comes to topics such as freedom, topics such as democracy, concepts and norms such as God, religion, physics even, or chemistry, there's been a lot of research, but we still continue more research on those topics. We encourage it.
But, then, why don't we encourage more research on a historical event that has become the root, the cause of many heavy catastrophes in the region in this time and age?
AHMADINEJAD: Why shouldn't there be more research about the root causes? That was my first question.
And my second question, well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?
The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems.
And today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world in many parts of the world. They don't have any serious problems.
But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians, for 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees abroad for 60 years. Is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself?
Why should an academic myself face insults when asking questions like this? Is this what you call freedom and upholding the freedom of thought?
And as for the second topic, Iran's nuclear issue, I know there is time limits, but I need time. I mean, a lot of time was taken from me.
We are a country, we are a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For over 33 years we are a member state of the agency. The bylaw of the agency explicitly states that all member states have the right to the peaceful nuclear fuel technology. This is an explicit statement made in the bylaw, and the bylaw says that there is no pretext or excuse, even the inspections carried by the IAEA itself that can prevent member states' right to have that right.
Of course, the IAEA is responsible to carry out inspections. We are one of the countries that's carried out the most amount of level of cooperation with the IAEA. They have had hours and weeks and days of inspections in our country, and over and over again the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation, and that Iran -- they have received positive cooperation from Iran.
But regretfully, two or three monopolistic powers, selfish powers want to force their word on the Iranian people and deny them their right.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They keep saying...
(CROSSTALK)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They tell us you don't let them -- they won't let them inspect. Why not? Of course we do. How come is it, anyway, that you have that right and we can't have it? We want to have the right to peaceful nuclear energy. They tell us, don't make it yourself, we'll give it to you.
Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government, and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay a heavy cost in billions of dollars.
Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years under the name of embargo and sanctions because we're against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext, you are deny us that technology? We want to have the right to self-determination toward our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us.
If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes?
For 30 years, we've faced these problems for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything. And the words have not been completed.
It is our right. We want our right. And we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than international law.
We are a peaceful, loving nation. We love all nations.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: Mr. President, your statements here today and in the past have provoked many questions which I would like to pose to you on behalf of the students and faculty who have submitted them to me.
Let me begin with the question to which you just alluded...
AHMADINEJAD: Just one by one, one by one -- could you just...
MODERATOR: Yes.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran, leaving peacefully, with security.
You must understand that in our constitution and our laws and in the parliamentary elections for every 150,000 people, we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, for one- fifth of this number, they still get one independent representative in the parliament.
So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself.
This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Whatever they choose as a nation, everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.
We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would like to hear a clearer answer to that question. That is...
(APPLAUSE)
The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You asked the question, and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information.
(APPLAUSE)
I'm just telling you what my position is. I'm asking you: Is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no?
(APPLAUSE)
There's the plight of a people.
QUESTION: The answer to your question is yes.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, thank you for your cooperation. We recognize there's a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution. And our solution is a free referendum.
Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are.
AHMADINEJAD: Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen there will happen and will be realized.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) second question, which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students: Why is your government providing aid to terrorists?
Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them?
Would you reward them, or would you name them a terrorist group?
Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist.
My dear friends, the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. For --26 years ago, where I worked, close to where I worked, in a terrorist operation, the elected president of the Iranian nation and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives in a bomb explosion. They turned into ashes.
A month later, in another terrorist operation, 72 members of our parliament and highest-ranking officials, including four ministers and eight deputy ministers' bodies were shattered into pieces as a result of terrorist attacks.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Within six months, over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives, assassinated by terrorist groups. All this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully, that same terrorist group now, today, in your country, is being -- operating under the support of the U.S. administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely, and their camps in Iraq are supported by the U.S. government.
They're secured by the U.S. government. Our nation has been harmed by terrorist activities. We were the first nation that objected to terrorism and the first to uphold the need to fight terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, a number of questioners -- sorry -- a number of people have asked...
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate those root causes. We live in the Middle East. For us, it's quite clear which powers, sort of, incite terrorists, support them, fund them. We know that. Our nation, the Iranian nation, through history has always extended a hand of friendship to other nations. We're a cultured nation.
We don't need to resort to terrorism. We've been victims of terrorism, ourselves. And it's regrettable that people who argue they're fighting terrorism, instead of supporting the Iranian people and nation, instead of fighting the terrorists that are attacking them, they're supporting the terrorists and then turn the fingers to us.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is most regrettable.
QUESTION: Mr. President, a further set of questions challenged your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s, as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts -- are well documented, why are you calling for additional research? There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as a historical fact.
Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are -- what is -- what are incontrovertible?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much for your question. I am an academic, and you are as well.
Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished, forever done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event?
There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge?
You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that that's questionable? Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research?
Do you ever take what's known as absolute in physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years. But new science has gotten rid of those absolutisms, come forward other different logics of looking at mathematics and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years.
So, we must allow researchers, scholars, they investigate into everything, every phenomenon -- God, universe, human beings, history and civilization. Why should we stop that?
I am not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not that judgment that I am passing here.
I said, in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is a serious question. There are two dimensions. In the first question...
QUESTION: Let me just -- let me pursue this a bit further.
It is difficult to have a scientific discussion if there isn't at least some basis, some empirical basis, some agreement about what the facts are. So calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me move on to...
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Allow me. After all, you are free to interpret what you want from what I say. But what I am saying I'm saying with full clarity.
In the first question I'm trying to actually uphold the rights of European scholars. In the field of science and research I'm asking, there is nothing known as absolute. There is nothing sufficiently done. Not in physics for certain. There has been more research on physics than it has on the Holocaust, but we still continue to do research on physics. There is nothing wrong with doing it.
This is what man wants. They want to approach a topic from different points of view. Scientists want to do that. Especially an issue that has become the foundation of so many other political developments that have unfolded in the Middle East in the past 60 years.
Why do we stop it altogether? You have to have a justified reason for it. The fact that it was researched sufficiently in the past is not a sufficient justification in my mind.
QUESTION: Mr. President, another student asks -- Iranian women are now denied basic human rights and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom.
We have two deputy -- two vice presidents that are female, at the highest levels of specialty, specialized fields. In our parliament and our government and our universities, they're present. In our biotechnological fields, our technological fields, there are hundreds of women scientists that are active -- in the political realm as well.
It's not -- it's wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to, sort of, try to spread lies that distort the full truth.
Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections, in Iran. Eighty percent, ninety percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which, over half of which are women. So how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth?
But as for the executions, I'd like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the youth in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States, by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them?
People who lead the lives -- cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, too, there's capital punishment for illicit drug traffickers, for people who violated the rights of people. If somebody takes up a gun, goes into a house, kills a group of people there, and then tries to take ransom, how would you confront them in Iran -- or in the United States? Would you reward them? Can a physician allow microbes symbolically speaking to spread across a nation?
We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sells drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran.
And some of these punishments, very few, are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law, based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they, they're executed or they're hung. But the end result is killing.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the question isn't about criminal and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.
(LAUGHTER)
We don't have that in our country.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it.
(LAUGHTER)
But, as for women, maybe you think that being a woman is a crime. It's not a crime to be a woman.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran. In Iran, every family who is given a girl -- is given -- in every Iranian family who has a girl, they are 10 times happier than having a son. Women are respected more than men are.
They are exempt from many responsibilities. Many of the legal responsibilities rest on the shoulders of men in our society because of the respect, culturally given, to women, to the future mothers. In Iranian culture, men and sons and girls constantly kiss the hands of their mothers as a sign of respect, respect for women. And we are proud of this culture.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I have two questions which I'll put together.
One is, what did you hope to accomplish by speaking at Columbia today? And the second is, what would you have said if you were permitted to visit the site of the September 11th tragedy?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, here, I'm your guest. I've been invited by Columbia, an official invitation given for me to come here. But I do want to say something here.
In Iran, when you invite a guest, you respect them. This is our tradition, required by our culture. And I know that American people have that culture, as well. Last year, I wanted to go to the site of the September 11th tragedy to show respect to the victims of the tragedy, to show my sympathy with their families.
But our plans got overextended. We were involved in negotiations and meetings until midnight. And they said it would be very difficult to go visit the site at that late hour of the night. So, I told my friends then that they need to plan this for the following year so that I can go and visit the site and to show my respects.
Regretfully, some groups had very strong reactions, very bad reactions. It's bad for someone to prevent someone to show sympathy to the families of the victims of the September 11 event -- tragic event. This is a respect from my side. Somebody told me this is an insult. I said, "What are you saying? This is my way of showing my respect. Why would you think that?"
Thinking like that, how do you expect to manage the world and world affairs?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Don't you think that a lot of problems in the world come from the way you look at issues because of this kind of way of thinking, because of this sort of pessimistic approach toward a lot of people, because of a certain level of selfishness, self-absorption that needs to be put aside so that we can show respect to everyone, to allow an environment for friendship to grow, to allow all nations to talk with one another and move toward peace?
What was the second question?
I wanted to speak with the press. The September 11th tragic event was a huge event. It led to a lot of many other events afterwards. After 9/11 Afghanistan was occupied, and then Iraq was occupied. And for six years in our region there is insecurity, terror and fear.
If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it was happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
QUESTION: Mr. President, a number of questions have asked about your nuclear program. Why is your government seeking to acquire enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons? Will you stop doing so?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Our nuclear program, first and foremost, operates within the framework of law.
And, second, under the inspections of the IAEA.
And, thirdly, they are completely peaceful.
The technology we have is for enrichment below the level of 5 percent level.
AHMADINEJAD: And any level below 5 percent is solely for providing fuel to power plants. Repeated reports by the IAEA explicitly say that there is no indication that Iran has deviated from the peaceful path of its nuclear program.
We are all well aware that Iran's nuclear issue is a political issue. It's not a legal issue. The international atomic energy organization -- agency has verified that our activities are for peaceful purposes.
But there are two or three powers that think that they have the right to monopolize all science and knowledge. And they expect the Iranian people, the Iranian nation, to turn to others to get fuel, to get science, to get knowledge that's indigenous to itself, to humble itself. And then they would, of course, refrain from giving it to us, too.
So we're quite clear what we need.
If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power?
We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity.
(APPLAUSE)
So let me just joke -- try to tell a joke here. I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs or are testing them, making them, politically, they are backward, retarded.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, a final question. I know your time is short and that you need to move on. Is Iran prepared to open broad discussions with the government of the United States?
What would Iran hope to achieve in such discussions?
How do you see, in the future, a resolution of the points of conflict between the government of the United States and the government of Iran?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): From the start, we announced that we are ready to negotiate with all countries.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Since 28 years ago, when our revolution succeeded and we established, we took freedom and democracy that was held at bay by a pro-Western dictatorship. We announced our readiness that besides two countries, we are ready to have friendly relations and talks with all countries of the world.
One of those two was the apartheid regime of South Africa, which has been eliminated. And the second was the Zionist regime. For everybody else around the world, we announced that we want to have friendly, brotherly ties. The Iranian nation is a cultured nation. It is a civilized nation. It seeks -- it wants talks and negotiations. It's for it.
We believe that in negotiations and talks, everything can be resolved very easily. We don't need threats. We don't need to point bombs or guns. We don't need to get into conflicts if we talk. We have a clear logic about that.
We question the way the world is being run and managed today. We believe that it will not lead to viable peace and security for the world, the way it's run today. We have solutions based on humane values and for relations among states. With the U.S. government, too, we will negotiate -- we don't have any issues about that -- under fair, just circumstances with mutual respect on both sides.
You saw that in order to help the security of Iraq, we had three rounds of talks with the United States, and last year, before coming to New York, I announced that I am ready in the United Nations to engage in a debate with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, about critical international issues.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): So that shows that we want to talk. Having a debate before the all the audience, so the truth is revealed, so that misunderstandings and misperceptions are removed, so that we can find a clear path for brotherly and friendly relations.
I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation.
For 28 years, they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day, under one pretext or another.
You all know Saddam, the dictator, was supported by the government of the United States and some European countries in attacking Iran. And he carried out an eight-year war, a criminal war. Over 200,000 Iranians lost their lives. Over 600,000 Iranians were hurt as a result of the war.
He used chemical weapons. Thousands of Iranians were victims of chemical weapons that he used against us.
Today, Mr. Noble Vinn (ph), who is a reporter, an official reporter, international reporter, who was covering U.N. reports in the U.N. for many years, he is one of the victims of the chemical weapons used by Iraq against us.
And since then, we've been under different propaganda, sort of embargoes, economic sanctions, political sanctions. Why? Because we got rid of a dictator? Because we wanted the freedom and democracy that we got for ourselves? That, we can't understand.
We think that if the U.S. government recognizes the rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations and extends a hand of friendship with all Iranians, they, too, will see that Iranians will be one of its best friends.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Would you allow me to thank the audience a moment?
Well, there are many things that I would have liked to cover, but I don't want to take your time any further. I was asked: Would I allow the faculty at Columbia and students here to come to Iran? From this platform, I invite Columbia faculty members and students to come and visit Iran, to speak with our university students. You're officially invited.
(APPLAUSE)
University faculty and students that the university decides, or the student associations choose and select are welcome to come. You're welcome to visit any university that you choose inside Iran. We'll provide you with the list of the universities. There are over 400 universities in our country. And you can choose whichever you want to go and visit. We'll give you the platform. We'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say.
Right now in our universities on a daily basis there are hundreds of meetings like this. They hear, they talk, they ask questions. They welcome it.
In the end I'd like to thank Columbia University. I had heard that many politicians in the United States are trained in Columbia University. And there are many people here who believe in the freedom of speech, in clear, frank conversations.
I do like to extend my gratitude to the managers here in the United States -- at Columbia University, I apologize -- the people who so well organized this meeting today.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I'd like to extend my deepest gratitude to the faculty members and the students here. I ask Almighty God to assist all of us to move hand in hand to establish peace and future filled with friendship and justice and brotherhood.
Best of luck to all of you.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: I'm sorry that President Ahmadinejad's schedule makes it necessary for him to leave before he's been able to answer many of the questions that we have, or even answer some of the ones that we posed to him.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia's deep commitment to free expression and debate. I want to thank you all for coming to participate.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
President Ahmadinejad Delivers Remarks at Columbia University
CQ Transcripts Wire
Monday, September 24, 2007; 4:25 PM
SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
SPEAKER: IRANIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD
[*]
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful...
TRANSLATOR: The president is reciting verses from the holy Koran in Arabic.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al-Mahdi and grant him good health and victory and make us his followers and those to attest to his rightfulness.
Distinguished Dean, dear professors and students, ladies and gentlemen, at the outset I would like to extend my greetings to all of you. I am grateful to the almighty God for providing me with the opportunity to be in an academic environment, those seeking truth and striving for the promotion of science and knowledge.
At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims...
(APPLAUSE)
... and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.
I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.
Certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak, and that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that's given to us in this country.
Many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media, and the political, sort of, mainstream line that you read here that goes against the very grain of the need for peace and stability in the world around us.
Nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment. I will tell you what I have to say, and then the questions he can raise and I'll be happy to provide answers. But as for one of the issues that he did raise, I most certainly would need to elaborate further so that we, for ourselves, can see how things fundamentally work.
It was my decision in this valuable forum and meeting to speak with you about the importance of knowledge, of information, of education. Academics and religious scholars are shining torches who shed light in order to remove darkness. And the ambiguities around us in guiding humanity out of ignorance and perplexity.
The key to the understanding of the realities around us rests in the hands of the researchers, those who seek to discover areas that are hidden, the unknown sciences, the windows of realities that they can open is done only through efforts of the scholars and the learned people in this world.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): With every effort there is a window that is opened, and one reality is discovered. Whenever the high stature of science and wisdom is preserved and the dignity of scholars and researchers are respected, humans have taken great strides toward their material and spiritual promotion.
In contrast, whenever learned people and knowledge have been neglected, humans have become stranded in the darkness of ignorance and negligence.
If it were not for human instinct, which tends toward continual discovery of truth, humans would have always remained stranded in ignorance and no way would not have discovered how to improve the life that we are given.
The nature of man is, in fact, a gift granted by the Almighty to all. The Almighty led mankind into this world and granted him wisdom and knowledge as his prime gift enabling him to know his God.
In the story of Adam, a conversation occurs between the Almighty and his angels. The angels call human beings an ambitious and merciless creature and protested against his creation.
But the Almighty responded, quote, "I have knowledge of what you are ignorant of," unquote. Then the Almighty told Adam the truth. And on the order of the Almighty, Adam revealed it to the angels.
The angels could not understand the truth as revealed by the human being.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): The Almighty said to them, quote, "Did not I say that I am aware of what is hidden in heaven and in the universe?" unquote.
In this way the angels prostrated themselves before Adam.
In the mission of all divine prophets, the first sermons were of the words of God, and those words -- piety, faith and wisdom -- have been spread to all mankind.
Regarding the holy prophet Moses, may peace be upon him, God says, quote, "And he was taught wisdom, the divine book, the Old Testament and the New Testament. He is the prophet appointed for the sake of the children of Israel, and I rightfully brought a sign from the Almighty, holy Koran (SPEAKING IN PERSIAN)," unquote.
The first words, which were revealed to the holy prophet of Islam, call the prophet to read, quote, "Read, read in the name of your God, who supersedes everything," unquote, the Almighty, quote again, "who taught the human being with the pen," unquote. Quote, "The Almighty taught human beings what they were ignorant of," unquote.
You see, in the first verses revealed to the holy prophet of Islam, words of reading, teaching and the pen are mentioned. These verses in fact introduced the Almighty as the teacher of human beings, the teacher who taught humans what they were ignorant of.
In another part of the Koran, on the mission of the holy prophet of Islam, it is mentioned that the Almighty appointed someone from amongst the common people as their prophet in order to, quote, "read for them the divine verses," unquote, and quote again, "and purify them from ideological and ethical contamination" unquote, and quote again, "to teach them the divine book and wisdom," unquote.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): My dear friends, all the words and messages of the divine prophets from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, to David and Solomon and Moses, to Jesus and Mohammad delivered humans from ignorance, negligence, superstitions, unethical behavior, and corrupted ways of thinking, with respect to knowledge, on the path to knowledge, light and rightful ethics.
In our culture, the word science has been defined as illumination. In fact, the science means brightness and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance, to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the almighty.
Therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift and the heart is where it resides. If we accept that science means illumination, then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality.
One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences. This harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope. Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities and the materials, just a shadow of supreme reality. And physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world.
Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of a material and the spirit. And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophets, one reality shall always be attached to science; the reality of purity of spirit and good behavior. Knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality.
It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality. And only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions, selfishness and material trappings can discover -- discover the reality.
AHMADINEJAD: My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests.
Material desires place humans against the realities of the world. Corrupted and dependent human beings resist acceptance of reality. And even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.
There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities.
Do those who, in the course of human history, wage wars, not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories, and the rights of all human beings should be respected, or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?
My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy, and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself.
Science is the light, and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interests of humanity, and several events can ensue.
First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality, which is to their own benefit, and conceal the rest. As we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past, too, unfortunately, today, we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.
Second, science, scientists, and scholars are misused for personal, group, or party interests. So, in today's world, bullying powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit.
For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though. By creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.
They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities.
They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and (inaudible) submission to oppressive powers and disability.
Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Are these weapons to protect global security?
What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity?
If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place?
Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents, which might be witnessed in even the next generations to come.
Presently, the effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly.
These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.
Another point of sorrow: Some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well.
This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values and the teachings of the divine prophets.
Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Dear academics, dear faculty and scholars, students, I believe that the biggest God-given gift to man is science and knowledge. Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God. But science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.
These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards a better future.
And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore, it must remain pure.
God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God. So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us toward justice.
I'd like to thank you now but refer to two points made in the introduction given about me, and then I will be open for any questions.
Last year -- I would say two years ago -- I raised two questions. You know that my main job is a university instructor.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Right now, as president of Iran, I still continue teaching graduate and Ph.D.-level courses on a weekly basis. My students are working with me in scientific fields. I believe that I am an academic, myself. So I speak with you from an academic point of view, and I raised two questions.
But, instead of a response, I got a wave of insults and allegations against me. And regretfully, they came mostly from groups who claimed most to believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of information. You know quite well that Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years. For 60 years, these people are displaced.
For 60 years, these people are being killed. For 60 years, on a daily basis, there's conflict and terror. For 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads. For 60 years, children and kindergartens, in schools, in high schools, are in prison being tortured. For 60 years, security in the Middle East has been endangered. For 60 years, the slogan of expansionism from the Nile to the Euphrates is being chanted by certain groups in that part of the world.
And as an academic, I asked two questions; the same two questions that I will ask here again. And you judge, for yourselves, whether the response to these questions should be the insults, the allegations, and all the words and the negative propaganda or should we really try and face these two questions and respond to them?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Like you, like any academic, I, too, will keep -- not yet become silent until I get the answer. So I'm awaiting logical answers instead of insults.
My first question was if -- given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?
Our friend referred to 1930 as the point of departure for this development. However, I believe the Holocaust from what we've read happened during World War II, after 1930, in the 1940s. So, you know, we have to really be able to trace the event.
My question was simple: There are researchers who want to approach the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now, there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust or research it from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it.
My question is: Why isn't it open to all forms of research?
I have been told that there's been enough research on the topic. And I ask, well, when it comes to topics such as freedom, topics such as democracy, concepts and norms such as God, religion, physics even, or chemistry, there's been a lot of research, but we still continue more research on those topics. We encourage it.
But, then, why don't we encourage more research on a historical event that has become the root, the cause of many heavy catastrophes in the region in this time and age?
AHMADINEJAD: Why shouldn't there be more research about the root causes? That was my first question.
And my second question, well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?
The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems.
And today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world in many parts of the world. They don't have any serious problems.
But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians, for 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees abroad for 60 years. Is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself?
Why should an academic myself face insults when asking questions like this? Is this what you call freedom and upholding the freedom of thought?
And as for the second topic, Iran's nuclear issue, I know there is time limits, but I need time. I mean, a lot of time was taken from me.
We are a country, we are a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For over 33 years we are a member state of the agency. The bylaw of the agency explicitly states that all member states have the right to the peaceful nuclear fuel technology. This is an explicit statement made in the bylaw, and the bylaw says that there is no pretext or excuse, even the inspections carried by the IAEA itself that can prevent member states' right to have that right.
Of course, the IAEA is responsible to carry out inspections. We are one of the countries that's carried out the most amount of level of cooperation with the IAEA. They have had hours and weeks and days of inspections in our country, and over and over again the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation, and that Iran -- they have received positive cooperation from Iran.
But regretfully, two or three monopolistic powers, selfish powers want to force their word on the Iranian people and deny them their right.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They keep saying...
(CROSSTALK)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): They tell us you don't let them -- they won't let them inspect. Why not? Of course we do. How come is it, anyway, that you have that right and we can't have it? We want to have the right to peaceful nuclear energy. They tell us, don't make it yourself, we'll give it to you.
Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government, and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay a heavy cost in billions of dollars.
Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years under the name of embargo and sanctions because we're against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext, you are deny us that technology? We want to have the right to self-determination toward our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us.
If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes?
For 30 years, we've faced these problems for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything. And the words have not been completed.
It is our right. We want our right. And we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than international law.
We are a peaceful, loving nation. We love all nations.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: Mr. President, your statements here today and in the past have provoked many questions which I would like to pose to you on behalf of the students and faculty who have submitted them to me.
Let me begin with the question to which you just alluded...
AHMADINEJAD: Just one by one, one by one -- could you just...
MODERATOR: Yes.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran, leaving peacefully, with security.
You must understand that in our constitution and our laws and in the parliamentary elections for every 150,000 people, we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, for one- fifth of this number, they still get one independent representative in the parliament.
So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself.
This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Whatever they choose as a nation, everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.
We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would like to hear a clearer answer to that question. That is...
(APPLAUSE)
The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): You asked the question, and then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information.
(APPLAUSE)
I'm just telling you what my position is. I'm asking you: Is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no?
(APPLAUSE)
There's the plight of a people.
QUESTION: The answer to your question is yes.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, thank you for your cooperation. We recognize there's a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution. And our solution is a free referendum.
Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are.
AHMADINEJAD: Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen there will happen and will be realized.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) second question, which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students: Why is your government providing aid to terrorists?
Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them?
Would you reward them, or would you name them a terrorist group?
Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist.
My dear friends, the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. For --26 years ago, where I worked, close to where I worked, in a terrorist operation, the elected president of the Iranian nation and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives in a bomb explosion. They turned into ashes.
A month later, in another terrorist operation, 72 members of our parliament and highest-ranking officials, including four ministers and eight deputy ministers' bodies were shattered into pieces as a result of terrorist attacks.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Within six months, over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives, assassinated by terrorist groups. All this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully, that same terrorist group now, today, in your country, is being -- operating under the support of the U.S. administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely, and their camps in Iraq are supported by the U.S. government.
They're secured by the U.S. government. Our nation has been harmed by terrorist activities. We were the first nation that objected to terrorism and the first to uphold the need to fight terrorism.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, a number of questioners -- sorry -- a number of people have asked...
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate those root causes. We live in the Middle East. For us, it's quite clear which powers, sort of, incite terrorists, support them, fund them. We know that. Our nation, the Iranian nation, through history has always extended a hand of friendship to other nations. We're a cultured nation.
We don't need to resort to terrorism. We've been victims of terrorism, ourselves. And it's regrettable that people who argue they're fighting terrorism, instead of supporting the Iranian people and nation, instead of fighting the terrorists that are attacking them, they're supporting the terrorists and then turn the fingers to us.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is most regrettable.
QUESTION: Mr. President, a further set of questions challenged your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s, as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts -- are well documented, why are you calling for additional research? There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as a historical fact.
Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are -- what is -- what are incontrovertible?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Thank you very much for your question. I am an academic, and you are as well.
Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished, forever done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event?
There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge?
You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that that's questionable? Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research?
Do you ever take what's known as absolute in physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years. But new science has gotten rid of those absolutisms, come forward other different logics of looking at mathematics and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years.
So, we must allow researchers, scholars, they investigate into everything, every phenomenon -- God, universe, human beings, history and civilization. Why should we stop that?
I am not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not that judgment that I am passing here.
I said, in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is a serious question. There are two dimensions. In the first question...
QUESTION: Let me just -- let me pursue this a bit further.
It is difficult to have a scientific discussion if there isn't at least some basis, some empirical basis, some agreement about what the facts are. So calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me move on to...
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Allow me. After all, you are free to interpret what you want from what I say. But what I am saying I'm saying with full clarity.
In the first question I'm trying to actually uphold the rights of European scholars. In the field of science and research I'm asking, there is nothing known as absolute. There is nothing sufficiently done. Not in physics for certain. There has been more research on physics than it has on the Holocaust, but we still continue to do research on physics. There is nothing wrong with doing it.
This is what man wants. They want to approach a topic from different points of view. Scientists want to do that. Especially an issue that has become the foundation of so many other political developments that have unfolded in the Middle East in the past 60 years.
Why do we stop it altogether? You have to have a justified reason for it. The fact that it was researched sufficiently in the past is not a sufficient justification in my mind.
QUESTION: Mr. President, another student asks -- Iranian women are now denied basic human rights and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom.
We have two deputy -- two vice presidents that are female, at the highest levels of specialty, specialized fields. In our parliament and our government and our universities, they're present. In our biotechnological fields, our technological fields, there are hundreds of women scientists that are active -- in the political realm as well.
It's not -- it's wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to, sort of, try to spread lies that distort the full truth.
Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections, in Iran. Eighty percent, ninety percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which, over half of which are women. So how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth?
But as for the executions, I'd like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the youth in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States, by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them?
People who lead the lives -- cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, too, there's capital punishment for illicit drug traffickers, for people who violated the rights of people. If somebody takes up a gun, goes into a house, kills a group of people there, and then tries to take ransom, how would you confront them in Iran -- or in the United States? Would you reward them? Can a physician allow microbes symbolically speaking to spread across a nation?
We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sells drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran.
And some of these punishments, very few, are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law, based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they, they're executed or they're hung. But the end result is killing.
QUESTION: Mr. President, the question isn't about criminal and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women.
(APPLAUSE)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country.
(LAUGHTER)
We don't have that in our country.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it.
(LAUGHTER)
But, as for women, maybe you think that being a woman is a crime. It's not a crime to be a woman.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran. In Iran, every family who is given a girl -- is given -- in every Iranian family who has a girl, they are 10 times happier than having a son. Women are respected more than men are.
They are exempt from many responsibilities. Many of the legal responsibilities rest on the shoulders of men in our society because of the respect, culturally given, to women, to the future mothers. In Iranian culture, men and sons and girls constantly kiss the hands of their mothers as a sign of respect, respect for women. And we are proud of this culture.
QUESTION: Mr. President, I have two questions which I'll put together.
One is, what did you hope to accomplish by speaking at Columbia today? And the second is, what would you have said if you were permitted to visit the site of the September 11th tragedy?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Well, here, I'm your guest. I've been invited by Columbia, an official invitation given for me to come here. But I do want to say something here.
In Iran, when you invite a guest, you respect them. This is our tradition, required by our culture. And I know that American people have that culture, as well. Last year, I wanted to go to the site of the September 11th tragedy to show respect to the victims of the tragedy, to show my sympathy with their families.
But our plans got overextended. We were involved in negotiations and meetings until midnight. And they said it would be very difficult to go visit the site at that late hour of the night. So, I told my friends then that they need to plan this for the following year so that I can go and visit the site and to show my respects.
Regretfully, some groups had very strong reactions, very bad reactions. It's bad for someone to prevent someone to show sympathy to the families of the victims of the September 11 event -- tragic event. This is a respect from my side. Somebody told me this is an insult. I said, "What are you saying? This is my way of showing my respect. Why would you think that?"
Thinking like that, how do you expect to manage the world and world affairs?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Don't you think that a lot of problems in the world come from the way you look at issues because of this kind of way of thinking, because of this sort of pessimistic approach toward a lot of people, because of a certain level of selfishness, self-absorption that needs to be put aside so that we can show respect to everyone, to allow an environment for friendship to grow, to allow all nations to talk with one another and move toward peace?
What was the second question?
I wanted to speak with the press. The September 11th tragic event was a huge event. It led to a lot of many other events afterwards. After 9/11 Afghanistan was occupied, and then Iraq was occupied. And for six years in our region there is insecurity, terror and fear.
If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it was happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
QUESTION: Mr. President, a number of questions have asked about your nuclear program. Why is your government seeking to acquire enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons? Will you stop doing so?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Our nuclear program, first and foremost, operates within the framework of law.
And, second, under the inspections of the IAEA.
And, thirdly, they are completely peaceful.
The technology we have is for enrichment below the level of 5 percent level.
AHMADINEJAD: And any level below 5 percent is solely for providing fuel to power plants. Repeated reports by the IAEA explicitly say that there is no indication that Iran has deviated from the peaceful path of its nuclear program.
We are all well aware that Iran's nuclear issue is a political issue. It's not a legal issue. The international atomic energy organization -- agency has verified that our activities are for peaceful purposes.
But there are two or three powers that think that they have the right to monopolize all science and knowledge. And they expect the Iranian people, the Iranian nation, to turn to others to get fuel, to get science, to get knowledge that's indigenous to itself, to humble itself. And then they would, of course, refrain from giving it to us, too.
So we're quite clear what we need.
If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power?
We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity.
(APPLAUSE)
So let me just joke -- try to tell a joke here. I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs or are testing them, making them, politically, they are backward, retarded.
(APPLAUSE)
QUESTION: Mr. President, a final question. I know your time is short and that you need to move on. Is Iran prepared to open broad discussions with the government of the United States?
What would Iran hope to achieve in such discussions?
How do you see, in the future, a resolution of the points of conflict between the government of the United States and the government of Iran?
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): From the start, we announced that we are ready to negotiate with all countries.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Since 28 years ago, when our revolution succeeded and we established, we took freedom and democracy that was held at bay by a pro-Western dictatorship. We announced our readiness that besides two countries, we are ready to have friendly relations and talks with all countries of the world.
One of those two was the apartheid regime of South Africa, which has been eliminated. And the second was the Zionist regime. For everybody else around the world, we announced that we want to have friendly, brotherly ties. The Iranian nation is a cultured nation. It is a civilized nation. It seeks -- it wants talks and negotiations. It's for it.
We believe that in negotiations and talks, everything can be resolved very easily. We don't need threats. We don't need to point bombs or guns. We don't need to get into conflicts if we talk. We have a clear logic about that.
We question the way the world is being run and managed today. We believe that it will not lead to viable peace and security for the world, the way it's run today. We have solutions based on humane values and for relations among states. With the U.S. government, too, we will negotiate -- we don't have any issues about that -- under fair, just circumstances with mutual respect on both sides.
You saw that in order to help the security of Iraq, we had three rounds of talks with the United States, and last year, before coming to New York, I announced that I am ready in the United Nations to engage in a debate with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, about critical international issues.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): So that shows that we want to talk. Having a debate before the all the audience, so the truth is revealed, so that misunderstandings and misperceptions are removed, so that we can find a clear path for brotherly and friendly relations.
I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation.
For 28 years, they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day, under one pretext or another.
You all know Saddam, the dictator, was supported by the government of the United States and some European countries in attacking Iran. And he carried out an eight-year war, a criminal war. Over 200,000 Iranians lost their lives. Over 600,000 Iranians were hurt as a result of the war.
He used chemical weapons. Thousands of Iranians were victims of chemical weapons that he used against us.
Today, Mr. Noble Vinn (ph), who is a reporter, an official reporter, international reporter, who was covering U.N. reports in the U.N. for many years, he is one of the victims of the chemical weapons used by Iraq against us.
And since then, we've been under different propaganda, sort of embargoes, economic sanctions, political sanctions. Why? Because we got rid of a dictator? Because we wanted the freedom and democracy that we got for ourselves? That, we can't understand.
We think that if the U.S. government recognizes the rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations and extends a hand of friendship with all Iranians, they, too, will see that Iranians will be one of its best friends.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Would you allow me to thank the audience a moment?
Well, there are many things that I would have liked to cover, but I don't want to take your time any further. I was asked: Would I allow the faculty at Columbia and students here to come to Iran? From this platform, I invite Columbia faculty members and students to come and visit Iran, to speak with our university students. You're officially invited.
(APPLAUSE)
University faculty and students that the university decides, or the student associations choose and select are welcome to come. You're welcome to visit any university that you choose inside Iran. We'll provide you with the list of the universities. There are over 400 universities in our country. And you can choose whichever you want to go and visit. We'll give you the platform. We'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say.
Right now in our universities on a daily basis there are hundreds of meetings like this. They hear, they talk, they ask questions. They welcome it.
In the end I'd like to thank Columbia University. I had heard that many politicians in the United States are trained in Columbia University. And there are many people here who believe in the freedom of speech, in clear, frank conversations.
I do like to extend my gratitude to the managers here in the United States -- at Columbia University, I apologize -- the people who so well organized this meeting today.
AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I'd like to extend my deepest gratitude to the faculty members and the students here. I ask Almighty God to assist all of us to move hand in hand to establish peace and future filled with friendship and justice and brotherhood.
Best of luck to all of you.
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: I'm sorry that President Ahmadinejad's schedule makes it necessary for him to leave before he's been able to answer many of the questions that we have, or even answer some of the ones that we posed to him.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia's deep commitment to free expression and debate. I want to thank you all for coming to participate.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran
6:13 AM
No comments
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military WriterMon Sep 17, 6:26 PM ET; The Associated Press
Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.
John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.
"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."
He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran.
Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable."
Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons.
Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.
"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."
He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq.
He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance.
Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike.
Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem.
"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.
He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East.
"We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon.
The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan.
(This version SUBS 9th graf, Iran says ..., to CORRECT word to 'program,' sted 'problem'))
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.
John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.
"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."
He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran.
Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable."
Iran says its nuclear program is strictly for energy resources, not to build weapons.
Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.
"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."
He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq.
He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance.
Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike.
Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem.
"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.
He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East.
"We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon.
The U.S. cut diplomatic relations with Iran shortly after the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Although both nations have made public and private attempts to improve relations, the Bush administration labeled Iran part of an "axis of evil," and Iranian leaders still refer to the United States as the Great Satan.
(This version SUBS 9th graf, Iran says ..., to CORRECT word to 'program,' sted 'problem'))
Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Iraq Suspends "Criminal" US Blackwater
9:33 AM
No comments
BAGHDAD — The tragic killing of eight Iraqi civilians has revived a heated debate about the role of American security contractors in war-ravaged Iraq.
"The interior minister has issued an order to cancel Blackwater's license and the company is prohibited from operating anywhere in Iraq," Interior Ministry Director of Operations Major General Abdel Karim Khalaf said.
A US diplomatic convoy came under attack on Sunday, September 16, in Baghdad's Al-Yarmukh neighborhood of west Baghdad.
The private security contractors accompanying the convoy responded by opening fire and killing eight Iraqis.
Witnesses and victims lying in hospital suffering gunshot wounds said the Blackwater guards had opened indiscriminate fire into the crowded streets and at cars trapped behind the convoy.
When the pandemonium had died down, at least eight people were dead and 13 wounded.
"The foreigners in the convoy started shouting and signaling us to go back. I turned around and must have driven 100 feet (30 meters) when they started shooting," said lawyer Hassan Jabar Salman.
He was hit by five bullets while trying to flee the scene in his car and is being treated in Baghdad's Al-Yarmukh Hospital.
"My car was hit with 12 bullets, of which four hit me in the back and one in the arm," he said as he lay wrapped in bloodied bandages on the hospital bed.
"There were eight of them in four utility vehicles and all shooting with heavy machine guns."
Salman said he had seen a woman and a traffic policeman killed and dozens of people hitting the ground to avoid the barrage of bullets.
"We have opened a criminal investigation against the group who committed the crime," said Khalaf, the interior ministry official.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had condemned the "criminal" response of the contractors guarding the convoy.
There have been several other similar incidents involving private security contractors in the Iraqi capital.
The contractors are often accused of firing randomly and speeding through the crowded streets of Baghdad to avoid attack.
Blackwater Mercenaries
US Embassy information officer W. Johann Schmonsees told reporters that Blackwater had not "been expelled from the country yet".
"We are continuing to discuss with the Iraqi government," he said.
No representatives from Blackwater, which offers personal security to US civilian officials working in Iraq, were immediately available for comment.
Blackwater's security consulting division holds at least 109 million dollars worth of State Department contracts in Iraq and is authorized to use deadly force, the Washington Post said in June.
It employs nearly 1,000 people in Iraq and operates a fleet of helicopters offering security to US embassy officials and other Americans and escorts for convoys on the country's dangerous roads.
Riding machine-gun mounted utility vehicles, the armed contractors employed by the North Carolina firm have gained a notoriety for shooting first and not bothering to ask questions later.
In May, a guard working for Blackwater shot and killed an Iraqi driver near the interior ministry.
The Blackwater guards said the victim drove too close to their convoy and drew fire.
Blackwater made headlines when four of its contractors were killed and hung from a bridge in Fallujah in 2004.
In April 2005, six Blackwater contractors were killed when Iraqi resistance downed a Bulgarian helicopter with a missile strike near the northern city of Tikrit.
A seventh Blackwater employee was killed at the same time near Ramadi when a roadside bomb blew up near his vehicle.
Established 10 years ago by Erik Prince, right-wing son of a multi-millionaire and a former Navy SEAL, the security consulting firm has grown into what US investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill describes as the "world's most powerful mercenary army."
According to Scahill, Blackwater has "more than 2,300 private soldiers deployed in nine countries including the United States."
Its "private soldiers" arrived in Iraq soon after the 2003 US-led invasion, being employed by then US administrator Paul Bremer.
Blackwater is by no means the only private security company operating in Iraq or losing personnel.
Jose Luis Gomez del Prado, head of a UN workgroup on the use of mercenaries in Iraq, estimates that at least 160 companies are in the country, employing between them 35,000 to 40,000 people.
He also estimated in January that more than 400 private employees have died in Iraq since 2003.
Though originally hired to protect US officials and convoys transporting vehicles, weapons and ammunition for the Iraqi army and police, armed contractors are becoming increasingly involved in military action, the Post said.
They can make up to 20,000 dollars a month in Iraq.
"The interior minister has issued an order to cancel Blackwater's license and the company is prohibited from operating anywhere in Iraq," Interior Ministry Director of Operations Major General Abdel Karim Khalaf said.
A US diplomatic convoy came under attack on Sunday, September 16, in Baghdad's Al-Yarmukh neighborhood of west Baghdad.
The private security contractors accompanying the convoy responded by opening fire and killing eight Iraqis.
Witnesses and victims lying in hospital suffering gunshot wounds said the Blackwater guards had opened indiscriminate fire into the crowded streets and at cars trapped behind the convoy.
When the pandemonium had died down, at least eight people were dead and 13 wounded.
"The foreigners in the convoy started shouting and signaling us to go back. I turned around and must have driven 100 feet (30 meters) when they started shooting," said lawyer Hassan Jabar Salman.
He was hit by five bullets while trying to flee the scene in his car and is being treated in Baghdad's Al-Yarmukh Hospital.
"My car was hit with 12 bullets, of which four hit me in the back and one in the arm," he said as he lay wrapped in bloodied bandages on the hospital bed.
"There were eight of them in four utility vehicles and all shooting with heavy machine guns."
Salman said he had seen a woman and a traffic policeman killed and dozens of people hitting the ground to avoid the barrage of bullets.
"We have opened a criminal investigation against the group who committed the crime," said Khalaf, the interior ministry official.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had condemned the "criminal" response of the contractors guarding the convoy.
There have been several other similar incidents involving private security contractors in the Iraqi capital.
The contractors are often accused of firing randomly and speeding through the crowded streets of Baghdad to avoid attack.
Blackwater Mercenaries
US Embassy information officer W. Johann Schmonsees told reporters that Blackwater had not "been expelled from the country yet".
"We are continuing to discuss with the Iraqi government," he said.
No representatives from Blackwater, which offers personal security to US civilian officials working in Iraq, were immediately available for comment.
Blackwater's security consulting division holds at least 109 million dollars worth of State Department contracts in Iraq and is authorized to use deadly force, the Washington Post said in June.
It employs nearly 1,000 people in Iraq and operates a fleet of helicopters offering security to US embassy officials and other Americans and escorts for convoys on the country's dangerous roads.
Riding machine-gun mounted utility vehicles, the armed contractors employed by the North Carolina firm have gained a notoriety for shooting first and not bothering to ask questions later.
In May, a guard working for Blackwater shot and killed an Iraqi driver near the interior ministry.
The Blackwater guards said the victim drove too close to their convoy and drew fire.
Blackwater made headlines when four of its contractors were killed and hung from a bridge in Fallujah in 2004.
In April 2005, six Blackwater contractors were killed when Iraqi resistance downed a Bulgarian helicopter with a missile strike near the northern city of Tikrit.
A seventh Blackwater employee was killed at the same time near Ramadi when a roadside bomb blew up near his vehicle.
Established 10 years ago by Erik Prince, right-wing son of a multi-millionaire and a former Navy SEAL, the security consulting firm has grown into what US investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill describes as the "world's most powerful mercenary army."
According to Scahill, Blackwater has "more than 2,300 private soldiers deployed in nine countries including the United States."
Its "private soldiers" arrived in Iraq soon after the 2003 US-led invasion, being employed by then US administrator Paul Bremer.
Blackwater is by no means the only private security company operating in Iraq or losing personnel.
Jose Luis Gomez del Prado, head of a UN workgroup on the use of mercenaries in Iraq, estimates that at least 160 companies are in the country, employing between them 35,000 to 40,000 people.
He also estimated in January that more than 400 private employees have died in Iraq since 2003.
Though originally hired to protect US officials and convoys transporting vehicles, weapons and ammunition for the Iraqi army and police, armed contractors are becoming increasingly involved in military action, the Post said.
They can make up to 20,000 dollars a month in Iraq.
An Indispensable Irritant to Iran and Its Foes - New York Times
8:24 AM
No comments
An Indispensable Irritant to Iran and Its Foes - New York Times: "September 17, 2007 An Indispensable Irritant to Iran and Its Foes By ELAINE SCIOLINO and WILLIAM J. BROAD VIENNA — Late in August, Mohamed ElBaradei put the finishing touches on a nuclear accord negotiated in secret with Iran. The deal would be divisive and risky, one of the biggest gambles of his 10 years as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran would answer questions about its clandestine nuclear past in exchange for a series of concessions. With no advance notice or media strategy, Dr. ElBaradei ordered the plan released in the evening. And then he waited. The next day, diplomats from the United States, France, Britain and Germany marched into his office atop a Vienna skyscraper to deliver a joint protest. The deal, they said, amounted to irresponsible meddling that threatened to undermine a United Nations Security Council strategy to punish, not reward, Tehran. Dr. ElBaradei, an Egyptian-born lawyer, was polite but firm. “If Iran wants to answer questions, what am I supposed to do, tell them it can’t?” he asked."
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Prisoner 345: Campaign to free Sami Haj held in Guantanamo | Campaign to free Sami Haj an Al Jazeera cameraman held in Guantanamo
8:10 AM
No comments
Who is Sami Haj
Submitted by ibrahima on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 13:38.
Sami al Haj is an Al Jazeera journalist, originally from the Sudan, who has been detained by the U.S. at Guantánamo for over five years without trial. He was seized whilst working as a cameraman on assignment reporting on the war in Afghanistan.
Born in Khartoum on February 15, 1969, Sami has a wife and a 6 year old son Mohammed, who was only one when Sami left on assignment. Sami’s wife only found out where he was from the Red Cross 18 months after he had been seized, and had feared him dead.
While the U.S. military will neither confirm nor deny the fact, it seems that Sami was originally seized at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, on December 15, 2001, because the U.S. thought that he had been the cameraman at an Al Jazeera interview with Usama Bin Laden. Their intelligence was flawed.
Despite learning this, the U.S. military flew him to Bagram Airforce Base on January 7, 2002. He reports that these were the longest days of his life. He was kept in a freezing hangar with other prisoners, in a cage, with an oil drum to use as a toilet. He was given one freezing cold meal a day. He was not allowed to talk, and he severely abused.
On January 23, 2002, Sami was taken to Kandahar. There, U.S. MPs pulled the hairs of his beard out one by one. He was forced him to kneel for long periods on cold concrete (he still has marks on his knees from this). He was beaten many times. An MP stuck a finger up his anus, and another said to Sami, “I want to f**k you.” The Qu’ran was thrown in the toilet in front of him.
Sami was transferred to Guantánamo Bay on June 7, 2002. No formal charges have ever been bought against Sami. Indeed, he has been interrogated more than 100 times, and he had to ask to be interrogated about any allegations against him. The only interest that the interrogators showed was to get him to be a cooperating witness against Al Jazeera and say that Al Jazeera was partly funded and controlled by Al Qaida. Sami refuses to say this, even as the price of his freedom, since he says that it is false. The U.S. military now shows no interest in him as an alleged terrorist, and has not interrogated him about anything since he finally secured a lawyer two years ago.
“There is no evidence that Sami has committed any crime,” says his London-based attorney, Clive Stafford Smith. “Sami is no more a terrorist than my grandmother.”
Sami suffers from serious health problems both incurred and exacerbated at the hands of the U.S. Military. Sami had throat cancer in 1998 and the Sudanese doctors put him on medication which he is meant to take daily for the rest of his life, but which has been denied him for over five years, since his seizure by the U.S. Whilst at Bagram, Sami was stomped by guards and had his right knee-cap was broken so that he has no lateral support. Sami has not received a necessary operation for this. He was told by doctors at Guantánamo that he must have surgery, but that he could not expect the necessary therapy to recover the use of his knee there. Sami has constant rheumatism, as well as problems with his teeth, and has not received any treatment for either complaint.
On January 7, 2007, the fifth anniversary of his transfer by the Pakistanis to U.S. custody, Sami began a hunger strike. His patience was exhausted. All he asked for was either to be given a fair trial, or to be released to rejoin his family – a claim that has been supported by every major world leader outside the White House. On the twenty-first day of this peaceful, non-violent protest, the U.S. military began to force feed him. Now each day, at 9am and 3 pm, the military inflicts the same torturous procedure on him. He is strapped into the ‘chair’, and a 43 inch tube is inserted up his nose. For the next hour and a half, doses of Ensure liquid nutrient are forced into him, and he is left in the chair to allow refeeding if it makes him vomit. Three times to date the tube has been erroneously forced into his lung, and he has choked when the liquid was forced in. All this is in violation of the Tokyo Declaration, which mandates that a competent hunger striker should not be force fed.
For his peaceful protest, Sami has been punished. All his ‘comfort items’ have been taken away. He is left with just a thin isomat for sleeping, one blanket, his prison uniform and his Qur’an. Because his glasses have been confiscated, it is difficult for him even to read that.
“Food is not enough for life,” Sami said recently. “If there is no air, could you live on food alone? Freedom is just as important as food or air. Every day they [the U.S. Military] ask me, when will I eat. Every day, I say, ‘Tomorrow.’ It’s what Scarlett O’Hara says at the end of Gone With the Wind: ‘Tomorrow is another day.’ Give me a fair trial or freedom, and I’ll eat.”
Sami was known in school as ‘Mammoth’, because he was a large and heavy child. Desperate for signs of moral support, he has asked Al Jazeera to engineer a campaign using bumper stickers that read, “345 – The Mammoth Is Hungry”, reflecting his Guantánamo prison number.
The Sudanese government, the Qatari government, Al Jazeera, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and the Sudanese Union of Journalists are all calling for Sami al Haj’s immediate release from Guantánamo. There is an on-going and urgent need for support for this courageous journalist.
Sami is represented by Anglo-American lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, Legal Director of the London-based charity Reprieve (clivess@mac.com). His Al Jazeera contact is Ahmad Ibrahim (ahmadi@aljazeera.net).
Submitted by ibrahima on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 13:38.
Sami al Haj is an Al Jazeera journalist, originally from the Sudan, who has been detained by the U.S. at Guantánamo for over five years without trial. He was seized whilst working as a cameraman on assignment reporting on the war in Afghanistan.
Born in Khartoum on February 15, 1969, Sami has a wife and a 6 year old son Mohammed, who was only one when Sami left on assignment. Sami’s wife only found out where he was from the Red Cross 18 months after he had been seized, and had feared him dead.
While the U.S. military will neither confirm nor deny the fact, it seems that Sami was originally seized at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, on December 15, 2001, because the U.S. thought that he had been the cameraman at an Al Jazeera interview with Usama Bin Laden. Their intelligence was flawed.
Despite learning this, the U.S. military flew him to Bagram Airforce Base on January 7, 2002. He reports that these were the longest days of his life. He was kept in a freezing hangar with other prisoners, in a cage, with an oil drum to use as a toilet. He was given one freezing cold meal a day. He was not allowed to talk, and he severely abused.
On January 23, 2002, Sami was taken to Kandahar. There, U.S. MPs pulled the hairs of his beard out one by one. He was forced him to kneel for long periods on cold concrete (he still has marks on his knees from this). He was beaten many times. An MP stuck a finger up his anus, and another said to Sami, “I want to f**k you.” The Qu’ran was thrown in the toilet in front of him.
Sami was transferred to Guantánamo Bay on June 7, 2002. No formal charges have ever been bought against Sami. Indeed, he has been interrogated more than 100 times, and he had to ask to be interrogated about any allegations against him. The only interest that the interrogators showed was to get him to be a cooperating witness against Al Jazeera and say that Al Jazeera was partly funded and controlled by Al Qaida. Sami refuses to say this, even as the price of his freedom, since he says that it is false. The U.S. military now shows no interest in him as an alleged terrorist, and has not interrogated him about anything since he finally secured a lawyer two years ago.
“There is no evidence that Sami has committed any crime,” says his London-based attorney, Clive Stafford Smith. “Sami is no more a terrorist than my grandmother.”
Sami suffers from serious health problems both incurred and exacerbated at the hands of the U.S. Military. Sami had throat cancer in 1998 and the Sudanese doctors put him on medication which he is meant to take daily for the rest of his life, but which has been denied him for over five years, since his seizure by the U.S. Whilst at Bagram, Sami was stomped by guards and had his right knee-cap was broken so that he has no lateral support. Sami has not received a necessary operation for this. He was told by doctors at Guantánamo that he must have surgery, but that he could not expect the necessary therapy to recover the use of his knee there. Sami has constant rheumatism, as well as problems with his teeth, and has not received any treatment for either complaint.
On January 7, 2007, the fifth anniversary of his transfer by the Pakistanis to U.S. custody, Sami began a hunger strike. His patience was exhausted. All he asked for was either to be given a fair trial, or to be released to rejoin his family – a claim that has been supported by every major world leader outside the White House. On the twenty-first day of this peaceful, non-violent protest, the U.S. military began to force feed him. Now each day, at 9am and 3 pm, the military inflicts the same torturous procedure on him. He is strapped into the ‘chair’, and a 43 inch tube is inserted up his nose. For the next hour and a half, doses of Ensure liquid nutrient are forced into him, and he is left in the chair to allow refeeding if it makes him vomit. Three times to date the tube has been erroneously forced into his lung, and he has choked when the liquid was forced in. All this is in violation of the Tokyo Declaration, which mandates that a competent hunger striker should not be force fed.
For his peaceful protest, Sami has been punished. All his ‘comfort items’ have been taken away. He is left with just a thin isomat for sleeping, one blanket, his prison uniform and his Qur’an. Because his glasses have been confiscated, it is difficult for him even to read that.
“Food is not enough for life,” Sami said recently. “If there is no air, could you live on food alone? Freedom is just as important as food or air. Every day they [the U.S. Military] ask me, when will I eat. Every day, I say, ‘Tomorrow.’ It’s what Scarlett O’Hara says at the end of Gone With the Wind: ‘Tomorrow is another day.’ Give me a fair trial or freedom, and I’ll eat.”
Sami was known in school as ‘Mammoth’, because he was a large and heavy child. Desperate for signs of moral support, he has asked Al Jazeera to engineer a campaign using bumper stickers that read, “345 – The Mammoth Is Hungry”, reflecting his Guantánamo prison number.
The Sudanese government, the Qatari government, Al Jazeera, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and the Sudanese Union of Journalists are all calling for Sami al Haj’s immediate release from Guantánamo. There is an on-going and urgent need for support for this courageous journalist.
Sami is represented by Anglo-American lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, Legal Director of the London-based charity Reprieve (clivess@mac.com). His Al Jazeera contact is Ahmad Ibrahim (ahmadi@aljazeera.net).
Prisoner 345: Campaign to free Sami Haj held in Guantanamo | Campaign to free Sami Haj an Al Jazeera cameraman held in Guantanamo
8:10 AM
No comments
Who is Sami Haj
Submitted by ibrahima on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 13:38.
Sami al Haj is an Al Jazeera journalist, originally from the Sudan, who has been detained by the U.S. at Guantánamo for over five years without trial. He was seized whilst working as a cameraman on assignment reporting on the war in Afghanistan.
Born in Khartoum on February 15, 1969, Sami has a wife and a 6 year old son Mohammed, who was only one when Sami left on assignment. Sami’s wife only found out where he was from the Red Cross 18 months after he had been seized, and had feared him dead.
While the U.S. military will neither confirm nor deny the fact, it seems that Sami was originally seized at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, on December 15, 2001, because the U.S. thought that he had been the cameraman at an Al Jazeera interview with Usama Bin Laden. Their intelligence was flawed.
Despite learning this, the U.S. military flew him to Bagram Airforce Base on January 7, 2002. He reports that these were the longest days of his life. He was kept in a freezing hangar with other prisoners, in a cage, with an oil drum to use as a toilet. He was given one freezing cold meal a day. He was not allowed to talk, and he severely abused.
On January 23, 2002, Sami was taken to Kandahar. There, U.S. MPs pulled the hairs of his beard out one by one. He was forced him to kneel for long periods on cold concrete (he still has marks on his knees from this). He was beaten many times. An MP stuck a finger up his anus, and another said to Sami, “I want to f**k you.” The Qu’ran was thrown in the toilet in front of him.
Sami was transferred to Guantánamo Bay on June 7, 2002. No formal charges have ever been bought against Sami. Indeed, he has been interrogated more than 100 times, and he had to ask to be interrogated about any allegations against him. The only interest that the interrogators showed was to get him to be a cooperating witness against Al Jazeera and say that Al Jazeera was partly funded and controlled by Al Qaida. Sami refuses to say this, even as the price of his freedom, since he says that it is false. The U.S. military now shows no interest in him as an alleged terrorist, and has not interrogated him about anything since he finally secured a lawyer two years ago.
“There is no evidence that Sami has committed any crime,” says his London-based attorney, Clive Stafford Smith. “Sami is no more a terrorist than my grandmother.”
Sami suffers from serious health problems both incurred and exacerbated at the hands of the U.S. Military. Sami had throat cancer in 1998 and the Sudanese doctors put him on medication which he is meant to take daily for the rest of his life, but which has been denied him for over five years, since his seizure by the U.S. Whilst at Bagram, Sami was stomped by guards and had his right knee-cap was broken so that he has no lateral support. Sami has not received a necessary operation for this. He was told by doctors at Guantánamo that he must have surgery, but that he could not expect the necessary therapy to recover the use of his knee there. Sami has constant rheumatism, as well as problems with his teeth, and has not received any treatment for either complaint.
On January 7, 2007, the fifth anniversary of his transfer by the Pakistanis to U.S. custody, Sami began a hunger strike. His patience was exhausted. All he asked for was either to be given a fair trial, or to be released to rejoin his family – a claim that has been supported by every major world leader outside the White House. On the twenty-first day of this peaceful, non-violent protest, the U.S. military began to force feed him. Now each day, at 9am and 3 pm, the military inflicts the same torturous procedure on him. He is strapped into the ‘chair’, and a 43 inch tube is inserted up his nose. For the next hour and a half, doses of Ensure liquid nutrient are forced into him, and he is left in the chair to allow refeeding if it makes him vomit. Three times to date the tube has been erroneously forced into his lung, and he has choked when the liquid was forced in. All this is in violation of the Tokyo Declaration, which mandates that a competent hunger striker should not be force fed.
For his peaceful protest, Sami has been punished. All his ‘comfort items’ have been taken away. He is left with just a thin isomat for sleeping, one blanket, his prison uniform and his Qur’an. Because his glasses have been confiscated, it is difficult for him even to read that.
“Food is not enough for life,” Sami said recently. “If there is no air, could you live on food alone? Freedom is just as important as food or air. Every day they [the U.S. Military] ask me, when will I eat. Every day, I say, ‘Tomorrow.’ It’s what Scarlett O’Hara says at the end of Gone With the Wind: ‘Tomorrow is another day.’ Give me a fair trial or freedom, and I’ll eat.”
Sami was known in school as ‘Mammoth’, because he was a large and heavy child. Desperate for signs of moral support, he has asked Al Jazeera to engineer a campaign using bumper stickers that read, “345 – The Mammoth Is Hungry”, reflecting his Guantánamo prison number.
The Sudanese government, the Qatari government, Al Jazeera, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and the Sudanese Union of Journalists are all calling for Sami al Haj’s immediate release from Guantánamo. There is an on-going and urgent need for support for this courageous journalist.
Sami is represented by Anglo-American lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, Legal Director of the London-based charity Reprieve (clivess@mac.com). His Al Jazeera contact is Ahmad Ibrahim (ahmadi@aljazeera.net).
Submitted by ibrahima on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 13:38.
Sami al Haj is an Al Jazeera journalist, originally from the Sudan, who has been detained by the U.S. at Guantánamo for over five years without trial. He was seized whilst working as a cameraman on assignment reporting on the war in Afghanistan.
Born in Khartoum on February 15, 1969, Sami has a wife and a 6 year old son Mohammed, who was only one when Sami left on assignment. Sami’s wife only found out where he was from the Red Cross 18 months after he had been seized, and had feared him dead.
While the U.S. military will neither confirm nor deny the fact, it seems that Sami was originally seized at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, on December 15, 2001, because the U.S. thought that he had been the cameraman at an Al Jazeera interview with Usama Bin Laden. Their intelligence was flawed.
Despite learning this, the U.S. military flew him to Bagram Airforce Base on January 7, 2002. He reports that these were the longest days of his life. He was kept in a freezing hangar with other prisoners, in a cage, with an oil drum to use as a toilet. He was given one freezing cold meal a day. He was not allowed to talk, and he severely abused.
On January 23, 2002, Sami was taken to Kandahar. There, U.S. MPs pulled the hairs of his beard out one by one. He was forced him to kneel for long periods on cold concrete (he still has marks on his knees from this). He was beaten many times. An MP stuck a finger up his anus, and another said to Sami, “I want to f**k you.” The Qu’ran was thrown in the toilet in front of him.
Sami was transferred to Guantánamo Bay on June 7, 2002. No formal charges have ever been bought against Sami. Indeed, he has been interrogated more than 100 times, and he had to ask to be interrogated about any allegations against him. The only interest that the interrogators showed was to get him to be a cooperating witness against Al Jazeera and say that Al Jazeera was partly funded and controlled by Al Qaida. Sami refuses to say this, even as the price of his freedom, since he says that it is false. The U.S. military now shows no interest in him as an alleged terrorist, and has not interrogated him about anything since he finally secured a lawyer two years ago.
“There is no evidence that Sami has committed any crime,” says his London-based attorney, Clive Stafford Smith. “Sami is no more a terrorist than my grandmother.”
Sami suffers from serious health problems both incurred and exacerbated at the hands of the U.S. Military. Sami had throat cancer in 1998 and the Sudanese doctors put him on medication which he is meant to take daily for the rest of his life, but which has been denied him for over five years, since his seizure by the U.S. Whilst at Bagram, Sami was stomped by guards and had his right knee-cap was broken so that he has no lateral support. Sami has not received a necessary operation for this. He was told by doctors at Guantánamo that he must have surgery, but that he could not expect the necessary therapy to recover the use of his knee there. Sami has constant rheumatism, as well as problems with his teeth, and has not received any treatment for either complaint.
On January 7, 2007, the fifth anniversary of his transfer by the Pakistanis to U.S. custody, Sami began a hunger strike. His patience was exhausted. All he asked for was either to be given a fair trial, or to be released to rejoin his family – a claim that has been supported by every major world leader outside the White House. On the twenty-first day of this peaceful, non-violent protest, the U.S. military began to force feed him. Now each day, at 9am and 3 pm, the military inflicts the same torturous procedure on him. He is strapped into the ‘chair’, and a 43 inch tube is inserted up his nose. For the next hour and a half, doses of Ensure liquid nutrient are forced into him, and he is left in the chair to allow refeeding if it makes him vomit. Three times to date the tube has been erroneously forced into his lung, and he has choked when the liquid was forced in. All this is in violation of the Tokyo Declaration, which mandates that a competent hunger striker should not be force fed.
For his peaceful protest, Sami has been punished. All his ‘comfort items’ have been taken away. He is left with just a thin isomat for sleeping, one blanket, his prison uniform and his Qur’an. Because his glasses have been confiscated, it is difficult for him even to read that.
“Food is not enough for life,” Sami said recently. “If there is no air, could you live on food alone? Freedom is just as important as food or air. Every day they [the U.S. Military] ask me, when will I eat. Every day, I say, ‘Tomorrow.’ It’s what Scarlett O’Hara says at the end of Gone With the Wind: ‘Tomorrow is another day.’ Give me a fair trial or freedom, and I’ll eat.”
Sami was known in school as ‘Mammoth’, because he was a large and heavy child. Desperate for signs of moral support, he has asked Al Jazeera to engineer a campaign using bumper stickers that read, “345 – The Mammoth Is Hungry”, reflecting his Guantánamo prison number.
The Sudanese government, the Qatari government, Al Jazeera, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and the Sudanese Union of Journalists are all calling for Sami al Haj’s immediate release from Guantánamo. There is an on-going and urgent need for support for this courageous journalist.
Sami is represented by Anglo-American lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, Legal Director of the London-based charity Reprieve (clivess@mac.com). His Al Jazeera contact is Ahmad Ibrahim (ahmadi@aljazeera.net).
Monday, September 3, 2007
Economist.com
7:43 AM
No comments
Mosques in the West
Islam, the American way
Aug 30th 2007
Why the United States is fairer to Muslims than “Eurabia” is
AFP
AFP
Get article background
IN PITTSBURGH, a Turkish group, pious but peaceful, decides to rethink its plans for an Islamic centre after an angry public hearing. In Clitheroe, a town in northern England, a plan to turn an ex-church into a mosque wins planning approval after seven failed bids. In Austria a far-rightist, Jörg Haider, grabs headlines by proposing that no mosques or minarets should be built in the province of Carinthia, where he is governor. In Memphis, Tennessee, Muslims manage to build a large cemetery despite local objections to their burial customs.
On the face of it, there is something similar about all these vignettes of inter-faith politics in the Western world. They all illustrate the strong emotions, and opportunistic electoral games, that are surfacing in many countries as Muslim minorities, increasingly prosperous and confident, aspire to build more mosques and other communal buildings. All these stories show the way in which whipped-up fears of a “clash of civilisations” can inflame the humdrum politics of a locality.
But there is a big transatlantic difference in the way such disputes are handled (see article). Although America has plenty of Islam-bashers ready to play on people's fears, it offers better protection to the mosque builders. In particular, its constitution, legal system and political culture all generally take the side of religious liberty. America's tradition of freedom is rooted in the First Amendment, and its stipulation that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” Another recourse for embattled minorities of any kind is “Section 1983” of America's civil-rights legislation, which allows an individual who is deprived of a legal or constitutional right to sue the official responsible.
More important than the letter of the law is an ethos that leans in favour of religious communities which are “new” (to their neighbours) and simply want to practise their faith in a way that harms nobody. In America the tone of disputes over religious buildings (or cultural centres or cemeteries) is affected by everyone's presumption that if the issue went to the highest level, the cause of liberty would probably prevail.
The European Convention on Human Rights, and the court that enforces it, also protect religious freedom. But the convention is not central to European politics in the way the Supreme Court and constitution are in America. The European court disappointed advocates of religious liberty when it upheld Turkey's ban on the headscarf in universities.
The risk in the garages
Legal principles aside, there are pragmatic reasons for favouring the American way. Most mosques in the Western world pose no threat to non-Muslim citizens; but a few do pose such a danger, because of the hatred that is preached in them. In such cases police forces generally have the legal armoury they need to step in and make arrests if necessary. Quashing extremism will surely be easier in an atmosphere where the founding and running of mosques is an open, transparent business. As Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, once said: “It is not minarets which are dangerous; it is basements and garages which hide secret places of worship.”
Will someone please tell the Swiss? Politicians from two of the biggest political parties are seeking to insert a sentence into the country's constitution forbidding the building of minarets. Measures of this sort exemplify the bigotry that lies behind much of the opposition to mosque building in Europe. Christians in the West have long complained about how hard it is for their brethren in Muslim lands to build churches. Fair enough. But they should practise what they preach.
Islam, the American way
Aug 30th 2007
Why the United States is fairer to Muslims than “Eurabia” is
AFP
AFP
Get article background
IN PITTSBURGH, a Turkish group, pious but peaceful, decides to rethink its plans for an Islamic centre after an angry public hearing. In Clitheroe, a town in northern England, a plan to turn an ex-church into a mosque wins planning approval after seven failed bids. In Austria a far-rightist, Jörg Haider, grabs headlines by proposing that no mosques or minarets should be built in the province of Carinthia, where he is governor. In Memphis, Tennessee, Muslims manage to build a large cemetery despite local objections to their burial customs.
On the face of it, there is something similar about all these vignettes of inter-faith politics in the Western world. They all illustrate the strong emotions, and opportunistic electoral games, that are surfacing in many countries as Muslim minorities, increasingly prosperous and confident, aspire to build more mosques and other communal buildings. All these stories show the way in which whipped-up fears of a “clash of civilisations” can inflame the humdrum politics of a locality.
But there is a big transatlantic difference in the way such disputes are handled (see article). Although America has plenty of Islam-bashers ready to play on people's fears, it offers better protection to the mosque builders. In particular, its constitution, legal system and political culture all generally take the side of religious liberty. America's tradition of freedom is rooted in the First Amendment, and its stipulation that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” Another recourse for embattled minorities of any kind is “Section 1983” of America's civil-rights legislation, which allows an individual who is deprived of a legal or constitutional right to sue the official responsible.
More important than the letter of the law is an ethos that leans in favour of religious communities which are “new” (to their neighbours) and simply want to practise their faith in a way that harms nobody. In America the tone of disputes over religious buildings (or cultural centres or cemeteries) is affected by everyone's presumption that if the issue went to the highest level, the cause of liberty would probably prevail.
The European Convention on Human Rights, and the court that enforces it, also protect religious freedom. But the convention is not central to European politics in the way the Supreme Court and constitution are in America. The European court disappointed advocates of religious liberty when it upheld Turkey's ban on the headscarf in universities.
The risk in the garages
Legal principles aside, there are pragmatic reasons for favouring the American way. Most mosques in the Western world pose no threat to non-Muslim citizens; but a few do pose such a danger, because of the hatred that is preached in them. In such cases police forces generally have the legal armoury they need to step in and make arrests if necessary. Quashing extremism will surely be easier in an atmosphere where the founding and running of mosques is an open, transparent business. As Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, once said: “It is not minarets which are dangerous; it is basements and garages which hide secret places of worship.”
Will someone please tell the Swiss? Politicians from two of the biggest political parties are seeking to insert a sentence into the country's constitution forbidding the building of minarets. Measures of this sort exemplify the bigotry that lies behind much of the opposition to mosque building in Europe. Christians in the West have long complained about how hard it is for their brethren in Muslim lands to build churches. Fair enough. But they should practise what they preach.
Most popular articles
-
قالت هيومن رايتس ووتش اليوم إن جماعات معارضة مسلحة تقاتل في سوريا تستخدم أطفالاً في القتال وفي أغراض عسكرية أخرى. تبينت لهيومن رايتس و... -
Reasoned Comments and Reviews Books: Does the sharia deserve its bad reputation, asks S... : Heaven on Earth: a Journey Through Sharia Law ,...
-
محمد حيان السمان* يبدو أن القانونَ الأبديّ المتعلق بتعبيرات ما قبل الدولة الدستورية, والقائل بحتمية التعسّف في استخدام السلطة حالَ ا...
-
Editors' Comment: Saudi Arabians rulers just spent nearly $500 trillions on weapons. When the Saudi rulers go on vacation, they take an... -
تواصلت المواجهات المسلحة العنيفة والدموية في العديد من المدن السورية, واستمرت عمليات الاغتيال والاختطاف والاختفاء القسري والاعتقال ا... -
أحمد رضي أثناء تشييع جواد الحاوي أمس في قرية سترة جنوب المنامة (محمد الشيخ ــ أ ف ب) لا يزال النظام البحريني يرفض السماح للمقرّر الخ... -
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights expresses grave concern over the detention and sentencing of 16 Bahraini citizens to 15 years imp... -
مهتاد لـ"الرأي": وزارة العدل تأخرت في فتح الحوار مع معتقلي السلفية الجهادية ...
-
قالت منظمة العفو الدولية يوم الثلاثاء إن الأساليب التي استخدمتها القوات العراقية والتحالف العسكري بقيادة الولايات المتحدة الذي يدعمها في ... -
جهش المفوض العام لوكالة غوث وتشغيل اللاجئين الفلسطينيين (الاونروا) بيير كرينبول بالبكاء، خلال مقابلة مع قناة «الجزيرة» أمس، من هول المجز...
Trending now
Most Popular Articles
-
قالت هيومن رايتس ووتش اليوم إن جماعات معارضة مسلحة تقاتل في سوريا تستخدم أطفالاً في القتال وفي أغراض عسكرية أخرى. تبينت لهيومن رايتس و...
-
Reasoned Comments and Reviews Books: Does the sharia deserve its bad reputation, asks S... : Heaven on Earth: a Journey Through Sharia Law ,...
-
محمد حيان السمان* يبدو أن القانونَ الأبديّ المتعلق بتعبيرات ما قبل الدولة الدستورية, والقائل بحتمية التعسّف في استخدام السلطة حالَ ا...
-
Editors' Comment: Saudi Arabians rulers just spent nearly $500 trillions on weapons. When the Saudi rulers go on vacation, they take an...
-
تواصلت المواجهات المسلحة العنيفة والدموية في العديد من المدن السورية, واستمرت عمليات الاغتيال والاختطاف والاختفاء القسري والاعتقال ا...
-
أحمد رضي أثناء تشييع جواد الحاوي أمس في قرية سترة جنوب المنامة (محمد الشيخ ــ أ ف ب) لا يزال النظام البحريني يرفض السماح للمقرّر الخ...
-
The Bahrain Center for Human Rights expresses grave concern over the detention and sentencing of 16 Bahraini citizens to 15 years imp...
-
مهتاد لـ"الرأي": وزارة العدل تأخرت في فتح الحوار مع معتقلي السلفية الجهادية ...
-
قالت منظمة العفو الدولية يوم الثلاثاء إن الأساليب التي استخدمتها القوات العراقية والتحالف العسكري بقيادة الولايات المتحدة الذي يدعمها في ...
-
جهش المفوض العام لوكالة غوث وتشغيل اللاجئين الفلسطينيين (الاونروا) بيير كرينبول بالبكاء، خلال مقابلة مع قناة «الجزيرة» أمس، من هول المجز...
Most read in the last 90 days...
-
Denmark and Greenland have formally agreed to launch a two-year investigation into historic birth control practices carried out for many ye... -
محمد حيان السمان* يبدو أن القانونَ الأبديّ المتعلق بتعبيرات ما قبل الدولة الدستورية, والقائل بحتمية التعسّف في استخدام السلطة حالَ ا...
-
Editors' Comment: Saudi Arabians rulers just spent nearly $500 trillions on weapons. When the Saudi rulers go on vacation, they take an...
-
On February 1, 2023, Amnesty said that "Israeli authorities must dismantle the system of apartheid which is causing so much suffering a...
-
A UK court ruling that the government is entitled to continue authorizing arms supplies to Saudi Arabia is a potentially deadly setback to ... -
Bahrain: Death Sentences Follow Torture, Sham Trials; Court Records Show Pervasive Rights Violations(Beirut) – Bahraini courts have convicted and sentenced defendants to death following manifestly unfair trials, based solely or primarily on... -
Turkish operation in Afrin targeted civilians The Turkish air force may have failed to take all feasible precautions prior to launching... -
When human rights abuses take place in Muslim-majority countries, Western governments impose sanctions and Western media provide extensive c...
-
The human rights organization Reprieve , which opposes the death penalty, in cooperation with the European Saudi Organization for Human Righ...
-
قالت هيومن رايتس ووتش اليوم إن جماعات معارضة مسلحة تقاتل في سوريا تستخدم أطفالاً في القتال وفي أغراض عسكرية أخرى. تبينت لهيومن رايتس و...
