Psyche, Science, and Society

Wikileaks Under Attack: California Court Wipes Wikileaks.org Out of Existence

One of the most important web sites in recent months has been Wikileaks.org. Created by several brave journalists committed to transparency, Wikileaks has published important leaked documents, such as the Rules of Engagement for Iraq [see my The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq], the 2003 and 2004 Guantanamo Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, and evidence of major bank fraud in Kenya [see also here] that apparently affected the Kenyan elections. Wikileaks has upset the Chinese government enough that they are attempting to censor it, as is the Thai military junta.

Now censorship has extended to the United States of America, land of the First Amendment. As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. Today I received a message explaining that a California court has granted an injunction written and requested by lawyers for the Cayman Island’s Bank Julius Baer. It seems that the bank is trying to keep the public from accessing documents that may reveal shady dealings. Wikileaks was only given a couple of hours notice “by email” and was not even represented at the hearing where a U.S. judge took such a drastic step attempting to totally shut down an important information outlet. The result was this totally unprecedented attempt to totally wipe out the existence of Wikileaks:

“Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court.”

There have, of course, been previous attempts by the U.S. Government and others to block publication of particular documents, most famously in 1971 when the Nixon administration attempted to stop publication by the New York Times of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. But trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented. Not even the Nixon administration, when they sought to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, considered closing down the New York Times in response.

If this injunction stands, it will set an incredible precedent for all of us who use the web to unveil misbehavior by the rich and powerful. Fortunately, Wikileaks is fighting this unconstitutional attack on press freedom, aided by six pro bono attorneys in San Francisco. While Wikileaks has so far not issued any particular call for support, all who value freedom should stand ready to offer whatever support they need.

Meanwhile, Wikileaks still exists. Its founders, knowing that governments and institutions will go to extreme lengths to censor the truth, have created an extensive network of cover names from which one can access their materials or continue leaking the secrets of governments and the corrupt rich and powerful. Thus, everything is available at Wikileaks.be, among other names. Let the leaks continue!

14 comments February 18th, 2008

Remembering when Iran was a democracy

A reminder that Iran was a democracy once… till the United States overthrew it and placed the brutal Shah in power, with his torture chambers:

JustForeignPolicy.org is touring the United States with the experts in this video and others, building a movement against military confrontation with Iran and for real diplomacy. Find out more, sign the petition, and join us: http://www.FollyofAttackingIran.org
[h/t Effect Measure.]

Add comment February 14th, 2008

DoJ prosecutes another for breathing while Democratic

Scott Horton today warns that Alabama is the scene of another of those political prosecutions whereby the Injustice Department collaborates with the local GOP to prosecute people for the crime of being Democrats. Former Gov. Don Siegelman is already serving a long term in prison for this crime. The new victim is Sue Schmitz, 63-year-old retired social studies teacher whose real crime is being a Democratic member of the Alabama legislature, a legislature that the Alabama GOP, in cahoots with the Federal government and the corrupt Alabama press,  is trying to take over. Horton quotes the AP on Schmitz’s crime:

“We charge that Representative Schmitz’s only substantial ‘work’ was to work her official position in the Legislature to land a job through the postsecondary system,” U.S. Attorney Alice Martin said in a statement.

Schmitz was employed from January 2006 until October 2006 by the CITY Skills Training Consortium, an arm of Alabama’s troubled two-year college system. The federally funded program operated at 10 sites statewide to help at-risk youth referred by juvenile courts develop academic, behavioral and social skills. The indictment claims Schmitz made as much as $53,403 annually as a program coordinator despite rarely showing up and doing virtually nothing for the money.
And here’s Horton’s explication:

Let’s just pause and look at what’s going on here. A massive federal case has been launched, at a likely taxpayer cost in excess of $2 million, against a social studies teacher, who it is alleged (on the basis of sharply disputed evidence) was not putting in as many hours as she should have in teaching her classes. This has to count as one of the more absurd (if not malicious) cases I’ve seen in recent years. And remember, this is a Justice Department that can’t spare an FBI agent to look into, or a prosecutor to handle, a gang rape case involving Jamie Leigh Jones, or any of the dozens of other cases involving rape, assault and homicide in Iraq. They’re not “priorities.” On the other hand, bringing charges against Democratic office holders has been a very high priority from the day Bush took office, and it continues to be so today.

More than this, note how party connections flavor the U.S. Attorney’s interest in cases of feather bedding. Recall that a Missouri criminal attorney conducted a detailed investigation into the service of Mark Everett Fuller as District Attorney in Coffee and Pike Counties. His study, presented in a sworn affidavit and backed up with documentation, showed that Fuller was an absentee district attorney. He drew his salary for the job, but he spent his time out of state, largely in Colorado, attending to the business that he owns and operated and which continues to provide most of his income–Doss Aviation. The affidavit was submitted to the U.S. Attorney and the Justice Department. No investigation of its allegations occurred. The allegations of “feather bedding” in the case involving this Republican official were many times greater than the one charged against Schmitz. But what happened? Nothing. The U.S. attorney was not interested. As a prosecutor told Time’s Adam Zagorin, different rules apply with respect to the “home team.” Fuller went on to be the judge designated to handle the highest profile political prosecution in the country, involving former Governor Siegelman. Now we’re seeing more evidence of the two distinct flavors of justice dispensed by Republican prosecutors in Alabama: one marked with a “D” and the other with a “R.”

What was done to Siegelman and  is being done now to Schmitz is an outrage, a danger to us all. If it an happen to them, it can happen to anyone. But let us also remember that these and worse tactics have long been used against radical and minorities, far removed from the levers of power.

Richard Nixon had an enemies list, which inspired outrage. What actually inspired outrage was that the list consisted of liberals and Democrats; Noam Chomsky was the only radical on it. Nixon was using the tactics of repression traditionally reserved for radicals and minorities against the elite. We see that happening again. It poses a great danger to all of us if mainstream figures can be thrown in jail for opposing the woul-be dominant party. But, as we support  Sielman and Schmitz, let’s not forget the many others, less connected to positions of power and influence, who also end up imprisoned on false  charges.

Add comment February 1st, 2008

Wikleaks on the crisis in Kenya

Wikileaks has a new Editorial on the crisis in Kenya that provides useful background on the struggle there and a perspective on the way forward. [Clearly some of those affiliated with Wikileaks are Kenyan]:

An American Solution to the Kenyan Constitutional Crisis

Wikileaks EDITORIAL (Kenya)
2008-01-23

Kenya is home to more than 70 ethnic groups of different origins but with a long history of interaction. Most were already here when the colonialists arrived towards the end of the nineteenth century. In pre-colonial times, these ethnic groups all had historical connections to groups outside present-day Kenya:

The pre-colonial peoples of Kenya

The ethnic groups making up the black African population represented in Kenya fall under four main language divisions:

• The Bantu
• The Western Nilotes
• The Eastern and Southern Nilotes
• The Cushites

The groups can further be broken down into so-called tribes. Tribalism is primitive in a Globalised world and has no place in Kenya today.

The Independent peoples of Kenya

The Constitution Of Kenya carries the definition of a Kenyan Citizen in Chapter V1. There is a clear definition of a KENYAN citizen and no reference whatsoever to any ethnic group. All ethnic groups are Kenyans and all are equal under the Constitution of Kenya. For Kenya’s black communities to see themselves as Kenyan, they must also learn to see the other communities as equally Kenyan too. Nonetheless sensitive issues remain, such as land and the economic, political and educational privileges historically enjoyed by certain communities.

Kenya is a Democracy

The word democracy comes from the Greek demokratia, from demos, ‘the people,’ and kratein, ‘to rule’, and it means simply ‘rule by the people’. Democracy in its broadest sense thus means a way of governing based on people’s consent or the ‘will of the people’. It stands for the welfare of all and for the common good. The basic rules of democracy include recognition of the fact that power belongs to the citizens and the importance of achieving the following goals:

• the greatest possible freedom for all;
• a just society;
• the same rules for all;
• equality before the law;
• respect for the rule of law; and
• equal opportunities for all.

In a democracy, people rule themselves either directly or indirectly through their representatives. In a democracy, a high degree of political legitimacy is therefore necessary, because the electoral process periodically divides the population into ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. A successful democratic political culture implies that the losing parties and their supporters accept the judgment of the voters, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power – the concept of a ‘loyal opposition’

There are various ways in which different societies and governments seek to achieve democracy as an ideal. In some cases, people are involved directly in making decisions about public affairs. In other cases, people choose representatives to act on their behalf.

In direct democracy, the people themselves directly express their will on public issues. Direct democracy can also be described as participatory democracy as it involves all citizens in making decisions on public matters. Each person is given the opportunity to take part in making public decisions directly. People do not need to delegate that right to another person – or a representative – who represents their choices. The best example of participatory democracy is where citizens vote in a referendum. A referendum is a direct vote by all the citizens to decide on a political matter of national importance. For instance, a referendum can be used to decide whether to adopt or reject a new constitution, as happened in Kenya in November 2005.

Since, it is practically impossible to gather all the citizens of Kenya together to play a part of government, the function of Government must be performed by a number of individuals smaller than the totality of its citizens. An election is the chief basis of political legitimacy. The General election is the platform that we use to select a few Kenyan citizens to the National Assembly in order to represent our interests and perform the function of Government. The Members of Parliament are elected by the Kenyan citizens to watch over their interests and to, either form or check Government. This is indirect Democracy. In indirect democracy, people elect their representatives periodically to govern on their behalf and to specifically express people’s feelings on public issues. The state in this form of democracy is not directly governed by the people themselves but by their representatives. This form of democracy is practised in the modern nation-states because they are large in area and in population. Their structures and problems are also complex and varied. It is difficult to involve everybody in such a situation. As a form of indirect democracy, representative democracy requires individuals to elect other persons to exercise power and make decisions on their behalf. A person exercises his or her power through a representative. Kenyans elect their representatives every five years to govern on their behalf and to specifically express people’s feelings on public issues.

But, a democratic Kenya cannot survive, unless the people of Kenya feel that they can affect their system of Government and see all their preferences enacted. Nothing could be more important. Power must at all times; be exercised by the citizens of the Republic of Kenya, rather than the president!. Power can only be exercised by the citizens where the will of the people is seen to be done.

The problem with this country, lies in the fact, that we as citizens have for 43 years been elevating unqualified citizens to public office. The risks we have taken have resulted in Incompetence and Greed! We are responsible for creating a breed of Kenyan politicians who are not at all serious about the electoral process and the meaning of the phrase political accountability. These Politicians are not only low, uncouth, immoral individuals but also clearly visionless. These people have without any regard taken away one by one, all our Individual Rights guaranteed to all Kenyans under our Constitution in the pretext of exercising our mandate.

The Bill of Rights

The Constitution of Kenya under chapter V guarantees all Kenyans the Bill of Rights. NO ONE HAS THE POWER OR AUTHORITY BY LAW TO TAKE AWAY THESE RIGHTS FROM KENYANS. Any attempt to do so is unconstitutional, treasonable and punishable by death, as it amounts to a subversion of our Constitution.

Civil Rights upheld in the Constitution of Kenya

• The right to life,
• The right to personal freedom,
• Protection against slavery and forced labour,
• Protection from inhuman treatment,
• Protection from property being taken away illegally,
• Protection against illegal search or entry,
• The right to the protection of the law,
• Freedom of conscience,
• Freedom of expression,
• Freedom of association and assembly,
• Freedom of movement, and
• Freedom from discrimination.

This means that all Kenyans have—

Political freedom

• hold your own views and talk about what you think and believe,
• associate and meet with others, and
• move freely without hindrance.

Economic freedom

• the ability to own and use property,
• the chance to work and provide for your livelihood, and
• freedom from forced labour and slavery.

Social freedom

• the fair treatment of all citizens,
• no interference with one’s body, premises or private life, and
• no inhuman treatment.

In a democracy, all people are seen as having been born equal and are treated equally before the law. Democracy rejects any form of discrimination among people and provides a framework for justice, fairness and equality. Justice is a set of rules that provide each person and/or groups in society with basic rights. These include:

• Human rights,
• The rule of law,
• Economic justice, and
• Gender equity.

The current Administration is abusing these rules even though Kenya has ratified several United Nations conventions on human rights, among them:

• The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights;
• The International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights;
• The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The concept of the ‘rule of law’ is based on the idea of government by law. This means that no person is above the law. That is to say, all citizens (from the President to the lowliest Kenyan) are subject to and equal before the law. It means that no person can suffer punishment unless that person has broken the law and is rightly judged through the established judicial process. Leaders, too, must exercise their powers according to laid down law. Anybody who makes a decision must do so within the law. For example: The Constitution Of Kenya provides for freedom of assembly, and the government is bound by this rule. It cannot prevent a public meeting simply because it dislikes or disagrees with the views of those responsible for calling that meeting. Government officers must first obtain a court order before preventing a meeting from taking place.

Controlling the Abuse and exercise of political power

The state has legitimate power to control and influence actions within its borders. The principal organs (called arms of the government) through which the government exercises its powers are:

• The Legislature: that makes policies and laws and also supervises the work of the Executive;
• The Executive: that carries out the policies and laws passed by the Legislature; the institution that runs the government;
• The Judiciary: that interprets and applies the laws passed by the Legislature and deals with any disputes that occur within the state.

The principle of separation of powers sets limits on the work of the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. It provides the checks and balances that prevent misuse of power by any of the three arms of government. The principle of separation of powers requires that:

• There should be the least possible overlap in the powers and functions of the different arms of government;
• There should be no overlap of staff in the different arms of government;
• No arm of government should interfere with the functions and work of any of the other arms; and
• No arm of government should be more powerful than any of the others.

But is this the case in Kenya today? No it is not. Why?

Corruption

Checks and balances are mechanisms to make sure that no part of the government has too much power, or goes beyond its functions, and that each arm of the government can check the misuse of power by the other arms of the government. Examples of the checks and balances contained in the Constitution of Kenya are:

• The President, as head of the executive, can reject a Bill passed by Parliament, although Parliament may override the President’s decision with a second vote.
• The Judiciary can cancel laws passed by Parliament if these laws are not in line with the Constitution.
• The Judiciary can cancel any action by the Executive if this action is not in line with the law or with the rules of natural justice.
• The Executive has to get permission, by asking Parliament to pass the national budget, to use public money for administration.
• The President cannot dismiss a judge from office unless a tribunal has been appointed to investigate and recommend an action against the judge.

The act by Kibaki to steal the election and swear himself into Office was the ultimate Act of Corruption. That of Abuse of Power for personal gain. The check for this action would have been that the Judiciary can cancel any action by the Executive if this action is not in line with the law or with the rules of natural justice. But rather than this course of action the Judiciary swore Kibaki into Office, following his illegal declaration as winner of the Presidential Election. Here the principle of separation of powers between the executive and judicial functions of the government has not been applied leaving Kenyans with very few options.

Will it be Kenyans that set the democratic agenda?

A democracy represents the ‘will of the people” We went to the polls, voted peacefully and weeks later, we still do not know who won the election. What we do know is that Kenyans are killing Kenyans, the Police are killing Kenyans, The country is on fire and our Constitutions seems to have been suspended by Kibaki who seems to be ruling by decree! We have lost every single one of our Constitutional Rights. So, What is the way forward?

We declare ourselves Independent from Constitutional office bearers who have abused the Constitution and refuse to be governed by them by cutting all ties. How?

We try going the American Way. Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation’s most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson’s most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in “self-evident truths” and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country. The American Declaration of Independence, opens with a preamble describing the document’s necessity in explaining why the colonies have overthrown their ruler and chosen to take their place as a separate nation in the world. All men are created equal and there are certain unalienable rights that governments should never violate. These rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government. In its place, the people should establish a government that is designed to protect those rights. Governments are rarely overthrown, and should not be overthrown for trivial reasons. In this case, a long history of abuses led the colonists to overthrow a tyrannical government.

The president of Kenya, Mwai Kibaki, is guilty of very specific abuses. The President has interfered with Kenyans Constitutional rights to their Fundamental rights and for a fair judicial system. Acting with other Constitutional Office bearers (the Chief Justice, the Registrar of the High Court, the Chairman of the Electoral Commission of Kenya, the Attorney General, and the Heads of all the disciplined forces of the Republic) the President has unconstitutionally sworn himself in as President and is in office illegally. Acting with Constitutional Office bearers, the President has instituted legislation S.25A without the consent of Parliament that will affect the people of Kenya without their consent. This legislation allows appointees by the President to forgive and negotiate with individuals who have looted Kenyan tax payers money in a non transparent manner. Acting with Constitutional Officers , the President has given shoot to Kill orders against the People of Kenya to quash dissent. Acting with Constitutional Officers, the President has removed their right to judicial trial by courts, and prevented Kenyans from trading freely. Additionally, the President and the Police Commissioner are guilty of outright destruction of Kenyan life and property by their refusal to protect the Kenyan and their Fundamental rights to property and life. The president acting with Constitutional Officers has allowed foreign mercenaries to come to Kenya (some from Uganda) and threaten the security of the citizens.

The People of Kenya have tried to reach a peaceful reconciliation of these differences with the President and the constitutional offices, but are being continually ignored. International Mediators who have appealed to the President have been similarly ignored. despite their shared concern with Kenyans for their just cause. After many peaceful attempts, Kenyans have no choice but to declare independence from these Constitutional office bearers. The new nation will be called the ————and will incorporate the people driven Constitution the BOMAS DRAFT as the new Constitution of Kenya. The new government under this Constitution will reserve the right to levy war, make peace, make alliances with foreign nations, conduct trade, and do anything else that nations do.

Kibaki will have to go and will go- by whatever means necessary. Kenya will not have a Dictator. Never Again. We must restore Democracy in our Country at whatever cost. This is our Patriotic Duty that will protect Kenyan generations from Tyranny.

Add comment January 24th, 2008

George McGovern: Why I Believe Bush Must Go

In Sunday’s Washington Post, former Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential candidate George McGovern calls for impeachment:

Why I Believe Bush Must Go

Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.

By George McGovern
Sunday, January 6, 2008; B01

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.

Today I have made a different choice.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly “high crimes and misdemeanors,” to use the constitutional standard.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team’s assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged — perhaps even by a congressional investigation.

In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion — by far the highest in our national history.

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?

How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?

It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an “imminent threat” to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks — another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson’s observation: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”

The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world — more than a billion people.

Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.

Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the crucial Middle East for decades.

Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration, their policies — especially the war in Iraq — have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States. Consider the difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with little or no capacity to threaten others.

Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: “I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans.” Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.

As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, “it wasn’t until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country’s laws — that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law — and repeatedly violates the law — thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors.”

I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won’t be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I’d like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin.

There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered.

anmcgove@dwu.edu

1 comment January 6th, 2008

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in honor of the 40th anniversary

In honor of the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We should still aspire to make these noble words a reality, despite all the obstacles:

Universalism Given a Pounding
By Stéphane Bussard
Le Temps

Monday 10 December 2007

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously - less eight abstentions - adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today, that document is the keystone of nine international treaties. In spite of its normative character, it’s not certain that if the world’s governments had to vote on it again, they would be ready to take the same step on behalf of human dignity.

The UN, for which human rights are one of its three mainstays, has clearly grasped the danger. This Monday, it is launching a vast, year-long operation to sensitize people to the rights contained in the Universal Declaration. We have never before seen the UN system mobilized to this degree for any cause. But there is an emergency. The universality of human rights has rarely been as beaten down in the name of dubious cultural and religious relativism. American citizens are being deprived of their fundamental rights in the name of a vital struggle against terrorism. An Iranian addict was executed in the name of Islam.

The real problem with human rights is that they never got past the Cold War. The high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, agrees. The countries of the North swear by the great civil liberties only, while those of the South favor economic and social rights. This antagonistic perception is devastating for the cause. It underlies the serious tensions between the Human Rights Council in Geneva and UN headquarters in New York. It also undermines, whatever people may say, the effectiveness of that Council, still divided into regional blocs. Consequently, the reanimation of the Universal Declaration comes at the right time. So that, as Eleanor Roosevelt declared in 1948, the document may become the “Magna Carta for all humanity.”

---

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
United Nations Department of Public InformationPreamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11

1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

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

Article 20

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21

1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Add comment December 11th, 2007

Panties for Burmese freedom

Jim Hightower informs us of an innovative protest whereby women around the world are sending panties to Burmese embassies. It seems that the junta leaders have this superstition that even touching a woman’s panty will sap their energy. I’ll let Jim explain the rest:

[h/t Alternet.]

Add comment November 7th, 2007

Amy Goodman at APA Town Hall meeting

Link TV has reproduced the Democracy Now! segment where Amy Goodman stood up at the American Psychological Association Town Hall meeting at the August Convention and informed meeting participants that the APA leadership was threatening to call security to evict her and her crew. The APA members present got a good look at the secretive, dishonest, and anti-democratic practices of the association’s leadership. On this occasion, democracy won:

Add comment October 17th, 2007

Noted psychologist Beth Shinn resigns from American Psychological Association

The damage to the American Psychological Association from its indefensible position supporting psychologists participating in interrogations where human rights are ignored, and its weak stand, full of loopholes, against bush’s torture regime. Right after the APA Convention in August, noted psychologist and author Mary Pipher returned an award to the APA in protest of these policies. Today, Beth Shinn, former President of two APA divisions, resigned from the APA “because the American Psychological Association continues to condone psychologists’ work in detention centers that violate international law and because of actions by APA’s leadership to discourage dissent from its policies in this matter.”

Here is her letter [also available in pdf]:

October 7, 2007

Dr. Sharon Brehm
President, American Psychological Association
Department of Psychology
1101 East 10th Street
Bloomington, IN 47405-7007

Dear Sharon and Members of the Board of Directors:

I am writing with sorrow to resign from the American Psychological Association. I do not do so lightly, because my connections to APA are deep and long. I have been a member since 1980, a fellow since 1986, and a president of two APA divisions and their associated societies, 9 (the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues) and 27 (the Society for Community Research and Action). I feel I owe you and my other colleagues an explanation, detailed below. Briefly, I am resigning because the American Psychological Association continues to condone psychologists’ work in detention centers that violate international law and because of actions by APA’s leadership to discourage dissent from its policies in this matter.

Condoning Work in Illegal Detention Centers

This summer, the APA Council voted down an amendment stating that the role of psychologists in settings in which detainees are deprived of their human rights should be limited to providing psychological treatment. APA’s action effectively condones psychologists’ continued participation in interrogations at Guantánamo and in other centers that violate both the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Constitution. The resolution that was approved simply requires that psychologists not plan, design, or assist in the use of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and that they report instances of which they become aware.

I believe that the failure of APA to call for psychologists to leave Guantánamo and CIA black sites lends support and legitimacy to violations of ethics and international law. The American Bar Association has announced that it will stop attempting to find lawyers for detainees at Guantánamo because, according to a report in the New York Times, “it did not want to ‘lend support and credibility’ to what it called inadequate legal protections for the 340 men held there” (Glaberson, 2007). APA should show similar courage.

In addition, although I appreciate the argument that psychologists “on the inside” are in a position to challenge conditions of prisoners’ confinement, and have done so, I think it is equally likely that they will be co-opted. There is strong social psychological evidence of the coercive power of situational influences, even in the course of quite short-term experiments, and evidence that individuals recruit information and shift attitudes to justify the behavior in which they have engaged. Psychologists are unlikely to be immune to such forces, especially when secrecy requirements prevent them from discussing issues with others who are not subject to the same influences. Under the long-term and open-ended coercive conditions of detention centers, it seems at least as likely that psychologists would become part of the problem as that they would succeed in creating solutions. Indeed, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as cited in the New York Times and denied by the government, has stated that information from detainees’ medical records has been used to guide interrogations, and that psychologists are centrally involved in this process:

Doctors and medical personnel conveyed information about prisoners’ mental health and vulnerabilities to interrogators, the report said, sometimes directly, but usually through a group called the Behavioral Science Consultation Team, or B.S.C.T. The team, known informally as Biscuit, is composed of psychologists and psychological workers who advise the interrogators, the report said. (Lewis, 2004).

Although APA has passed resolutions unequivocally condemning and prohibiting psychologists’ participation in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, a report of the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (dated August 25, 2006, but released more recently) suggests that psychologists have been centrally involved in practices that the APA has banned. In a section on “development of interrogation policy at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” the report suggests that psychologists were responsible for reverse engineering torture techniques from the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program originally intended to train U.S. personnel how to resist breaking down if they were captured and tortured. Especially chilling to me, the report states that “The Army Special Operations Command was examining the role of interrogation support as a ‘SERE Psychologist competency area’” (p. 25)

The APA’s ban on psychologists’ participation in torture is absolute, but the Association explicitly amended its Ethics Code in 2002 to permit psychologists who experience other conflicts between law and ethics to “adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority” (section 1.02). They should first make the conflict known and attempt to resolve it. I believe that “the governing legal authority” at both Guantánamo and CIA black sites, where individuals are held without prospect of release, under shifting legal guidelines, and without the opportunity to challenge their detention in impartial courts, violates international law. By continuing to work in such facilities, psychologists, whatever their intentions, become complicit in their violations of human rights. Given the ICRC evidence that psychologists have misused medical records at Guantánamo to exploit detainees’ vulnerabilities in interrogation, I would not advocate an exception for therapeutic treatment.

Note that I make no representation about the guilt or innocence of the detainees. Some may well be guilty of heinous crimes against humanity. Others are probably innocents swept up in error. But all are human beings entitled to the protection of international law.

Discouraging Dissent

Reasonable people can disagree about appropriate ethical responses to conditions that are widely deemed unethical. I appreciate the debate that went on at the Convention this summer. However, in many other ways, APA’s leaders have blocked challenges to psychologists’ involvement in detention centers, misrepresented the nature of dissent, and even made ad hominem attacks on dissenters.

An early action that minimized challenges was the composition of the APA Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). Three of the ten members were active duty military officers, two more worked for Defense Department Agencies, and a sixth consulted with a Defense agency. As noted in a September 19 letter to you by Drs. Steven Reisner, Stephen Soldz, and Brad Olson (Reisner, Soldz & Olson, 2007), as well as an earlier open letter which I co-signed, some of these members were in the chain of command at the places and during the times that abuses have been documented. Some are also credited with protesting unethical actions. Irrespective of their individual actions, their employment constituted a conflict of interest. A committee’s criticism of detention centers and psychologists’ involvement in them is likely to be muted when a majority of its members are paid salaries or consulting fees by the military or the Department of Defense. Two of the four members with no Defense involvement have now dissociated themselves from the PENS Task Force. Dr. Wessells resigned in January, 2006, “because continuing work with the Task Force tacitly legitimates the wider silence and inaction of the APA on the crucial issues at hand” (Wessells, 2006) and Dr. Arrigo publicly complained about irregularities in Task Force procedures in her remarks at the most recent APA convention, as recorded by Democracy Now (Arrigo, 2007).

Another recent action to minimize challenge occurred this summer at the APA convention, when the Board of Directors initially attempted to prevent APA Council from voting on a resolution limiting psychologists’ roles in detention centers (“the moratorium resolution”) by presenting its own substitute resolution, which reaffirmed, but also unfortunately weakened last year’s resolution condemning torture. Under APA procedures, Council would have had the opportunity to vote on a moratorium resolution only if they first voted down the substitute resolution condemning torture. When advocates pointed out that this substitution violated APA procedures (2006, p. 19: substitute motions cannot “change an affirmative main motion into a negative proposal not to take that action”) there was discussion and compromise: A stronger substitute resolution was put forward and passed, and a limit on psychologists’ involvement was allowed as an amendment, and voted down. Dr. Linda Woolf (2007) has written articulately and at length about the limitations of the resolution that was passed: “Ultimately,” she summarizes, “the 2007 Resolution maintains the status quo and prisoners will continue to experience torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment both as a function of perpetrator behavior and as a function of context” (Woolf, 2007).

An example of the misrepresentation of dissent is the letter you have circulated from Dr. Olivia Moorehead-Slaughter, chair of the PENS Task Force (Moorehead-Slaughter, 2007), commenting on Dr. Arrigo’s concerns about the Task Force. Dr. Moorehead-Slaughter spends a considerable portion of her letter defending against attacks that Dr. Arrigo never made. Someone who read only Dr. Moorehead-Slaughter’s reply but not Dr. Arrigo’s original criticism of procedural irregularities and conflicts of interest, might think the criticism was misguided. For example, Dr. Moorehead-Slaughter begins with a disclaimer that she has “never worked in any capacity for the CIA, the FBI, or the Department of Defense,” a claim that Dr. Arrigo never made, and an extensive defense of her integrity, which Dr. Arrigo never impugned. She goes on to defend the actions and integrity of other members of the Task Force, when Dr. Arrigo’s concern was with procedures and conflicts of interest created by members’ employment. Dr. Moorehead-Slaughter does go on to address some of Dr. Arrigo’s procedural concerns, although in ways that have been disputed by Reisner et al. (2007). She ends by lauding APA’s openness as represented in this summer’s mini-convention on ethics and interrogation, which I agree was laudable, and by the fact that “The Board of Directors was entirely committed to ensuring that a proposal limiting the roles of APA members in detention facilities would be discussed and debated at the Council of Representatives meeting.” As noted above, I do not believe this is true.

More egregious is former president Gerald Koocher’s denigration of critics. In his presidential column in the APA’s Monitor on Psychology, he complained that:

A number of opportunistic commentators masquerading as scholars have continued to report on alleged abuses by mental health professionals. However, when solicited in person to provide APA with names and circumstances in support of such claims, no data have been forthcoming from these same critics and no APA members have been linked to unprofessional behaviors (Koocher, 2006, p. 7, emphasis added).

The American Psychological Associations Public Affairs Office (2007), on the other hand, acknowledges that two psychologists have been identified as developers of interrogation tactics, but they are not APA members.

Dr. Koocher has also defamed both Dr. Arrigo and her father in a widely-circulated, open letter to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! (Koocher, 2007). His allegations were refuted (Reisner, et al., 2007) and since removed from his web site and Goodman’s. But even if they had been true, his effort to discredit the messenger, rather than dealing with the substance of the message, has no place in reasoned argument. The substance of Dr. Arrigo’s message was that APA-Department of Defense conflicts of interest on the part of six task force members and several unacknowledged participants in the task force meeting compromised the PENS report.

In sum, I have become increasingly troubled with the American Psychological Associations failure to call for a moratorium on psychologists’ involvement at Guantánamo and CIA black sites, and am appalled by the actions of its leadership in response to dissent. I hereby resign.

Marybeth Shinn
Member # 1603-1653

Cc: Members of the Board of Directors, Dr. Moorehead-Slaughter

References

American Psychological Association (2006). 2006 Council of Representatives Handbook. http://www.apa.org/governance/rephandbook06.pdf

American Psychological Association (2007) Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as “Enemy Combatants” Resolution Adopted August 19, 2007. http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/councilres0807.html

American Psychological Association Public Affairs Office (September, 2007).Frequently asked questions regarding apa’s policies and positions on the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during interrogations. http://www.apa.org/releases/faqinterrogation.html

Arrigo, J.M. (2007, August 20) Remarks at the Convention of the American Psychological Association, as recorded by Democracy Now. Transcript at http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/20/1628234.

Glaberson, W. (2007, September 29). Legal aid offer for detainees is retracted. The New York Times, p. A9. Available here.

Koocher, G. (2006, Feb 2.). Speaking against torture. President’s Column, Monitor on Psychology, 37 (2), p. 5. Available here.

Koocher, G. (2007). Open letter to Amy Goodman. http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/koocher_open_letter_to_amy_goodman.pdf

Lewis, N. A. (2004, November 30). Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantánamo. The New York Times, p. A1. Available here.

Moorehead-Slaughter, O. (2007, undated in the version I received). Letter to Sharon Brehm. Posted on multiple listservs and posted here

Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (August 25, 2006). Review of the DOD-Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse. Report No. 06-Intell-10, August 25, 2006, Evaluation Report. Available here.

Reisner, S., Soldz, S., & Olson, B. (2007, September 19). Letter to Sharon Brehm. Posted on multiple listservs and posted here

Wessells, M. (2006, January 15). Resignation letter. Posted on listserv of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues as well as here.

Woolf, L. M. (2007, September 1/2). Sad day for psychologists: Major blow against human rights. Counterpunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/woolf09012007.html

Meanwhile, the list of APA members protesting by withholding their dues grows daily. How many more members will have to join them, Beth Shinn, and Mary Pipher before the APA changes course and decisively breaks with the Bush administration and its torture regime? Or will the organization go the way of the dinosaurs, to be replaced by an organization willing to put ethics above access to the military/intelligence establishment?

18 comments October 7th, 2007

Burma/Myanmar: Concentration camps reported

The London Times reports that thousands of protesters are being held in a concentration camp in Rangoon. Excerpt:

According to Western diplomats and at least one Burmese government official, the technical institute has become a temporary concentration camp for 1,700 of the victims of last week’s brutal suppression of the democracy uprising. It provides a partial answer to one of the lingering questions about the Burmese junta’s crackdown: where are the monks, democracy activists and journalists who have been rounded up and spirited away over the past six weeks?

Despite the international attention given to the quashing of the anti-Government marches, the crackdown remains undocumented. Apart from admitting that 13 people have died, a figure regarded by most observers as an underestimate, the authorities have given no details of the numbers of those arrested and detained.

Most people have vanished without trace, many of them the Buddhist monks who formed the backbone of the tens of thousands of people who turned out last week in Rangoon and Mandalay. “We think that at least 30 have been killed, about 1,400 people have been arrested,” Alexander Downer, the Australian Foreign Minister said. “This is a brutal regime and we’ve seen it at work over the last few days.”

One international organisation based in Rangoon has made a provisional reckoning of 40 dead, based on reports from hospitals, 1,000 monks arrested and 3,000 secular detainees. The only thing of which one can be sure is that somewhere in the country large numbers of people are being held in an invisible prison camp, without charge, without legal recourse and without the ability to communicate.

Tomorrow, in collaboration with bloggers around the world, I will have only one post,  the Free Burma logo from http://free-burma.org/

Add comment October 3rd, 2007