Focus :Senator Wolf, Crying Wolf
A congressional committee in the United States House of Representatives voted to cut off aid to any state that hosts Sudanese president Omer Hassan al-Basher who is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for his alleged role in Darfur war crimes. Appropriations bill was pushed for by Frank Wolf who is one of Basher’s most vocal critics." Women are being abused and killed for the color of their skin," Wolf shouted according to 'The Hill' website." This is a moral issue," he added and threatened to send gruesome videos of violence in Sudan to any committee member who voted down the amendment. "One lady she pinched her skin and said, 'I'm black. Get Basher!' "the U.S. Republican lawmaker said. Wolf's office released his prepared remarks in support of this provision which he said is necessary to further American interests. Mr Wolf, instead of lecturing others in terms of humanitarianism (an indivisible whole), are you not ashamed that George Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld — who have not been prosecuted for using torture or authorizing its use. Instead, they have been writing books, going on book tours, and appearing on mainstream TV to attempt to justify their unjustifiable actions. A four-year internal ethics investigation concluded in January 2010 that Yoo and Bybee had been guilty of “professional misconduct,” which ordinarily would have led to professional sanctions, but regrettably and contrary to worldwide basics of justice, a senior Department of Justice official, David Margolis, overrode that conclusion, stating that both men had been under great pressure following the 9/11 attacks, and had merely exercised “poor judgment,” which was the equivalent of nothing more than a slap on the wrist. If that overwhelming super-suffering of detainees is stemmed out of poor judgment why should quelling an internal rebellion in Darfur be brought before the biased ICC? Supposedly the so called “poor judgment,” was the result of great pressure following the 9/11 attacks, why did you fail (10 years after 9/11) to release detainees at and close Guitmo, the American Inquisition version? Some analysts argue “ that is a systemic conduct of the spurious US justice that paid a three-million-dollar bribe to a witness in Lockerbie case.”
How about Haditha massacre in Iraq? U.S. Marines, highly-trained killing machines who know the rules of war, know the difference between a woman with a baby in her arms and a group of insurgents, and know, furthermore, that the war they are fighting is supposed to be against terrorism. Would they succumb to “stress” like some housewife who’s run out of vacuum-cleaner bags, go ballistic, and slaughter 24 innocents, including women and very young children, if they didn’t think they could get away with it? In short, would they have done it if it wasn’t policy – directed, encouraged, and condoned by their commanders.
Moreover please read the tragedy of Daniel Chong at the hands of the alleged civilized Nation named the US. After Daniel Chong was arrested in a federal drug raid, he wasn’t taken to Gitmo. Instead, the savage and unpolished US authorities thoughtfully arranged to bring Gitmo to him, nearly torturing him to death in the process.
Chong, a senior at the University of California-San Diego, was one of nine people swept up in an April 21 narcotics raid by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). After his arrest he spent four hours handcuffed in a cell before being questioned. One of the agents who questioned Chong described him as someone who was “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
After being interrogated, the student was told that he would be released and provided with paperwork to sign. He was then handcuffed and put into a five-by-ten-foot detention cell, where he was held for five days in conditions that qualify as torture under any rational reading of either domestic or international law.
The DEA’s story was that Chong was simply “forgotten.” A likelier explanation is that he was ignored, or even singled out for deliberate abuse. Chong shouted and screamed for help, kicking against the heavy door of his cell. Although his hands were cuffed, he managed to tear a small fragment from his jacket, which he shoved under the door in an effort to get the attention of his jailers.
Since Chong had no difficulty hearing conversations and other sounds outside his cell, there’s no reason to doubt that his pleas were heard, and simply disregarded.
For at least two days and nights, Chong was left alone, handcuffed, in complete darkness, and began to hallucinate. Fearing that he might die in captivity, Chong shattered his eyeglasses and used broken shards to carve the words “Sorry, mother” into his arm.
Although Chong has admitted he had gone to a friend’s house to commemorate “4/20,” an unofficial observance celebrating recreational marijuana use, he was not charged with a narcotics offense. Through its prohibition enforcement action, DEA managed to create conditions in which Chong ingested substances much worse for him than marijuana. Left for several days without food or water to sustain him, Chong made a futile attempt to trigger an overhead fire sprinkler, and then eventually drank his own urine. Tormented by the insistent protests of an empty stomach, he consumed a small amount of a white, powdery substance that was found to be methamphetamine.
By the time two agents “discovered” him, Chong was literally pleading for his captors to kill him. After being released, he was hospitalized for severe dehydration, renal failure, a perforated esophagus, and cramps. He had shed 15 pounds. He has never received an apology.
If a dog had been subjected to treatment similar to the abuse inflicted on Daniel Chong, those responsible would face felony charges. Thanks to the spurious principle of “supremacy clause immunity,” there is no measurable likelihood that the people who nearly tortured Chong to death will face criminal charges. It’s quite likely they will never be identified.
By Alfatih Ziada, 21/05/2012