Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
How 9/11 began the decline in our democracy
Monday, September 12, 2011 8:13 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:A year after the attacks of 9/11, Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, was detained during a layover at JFK on his way home to Ottawa. He was held in solitary confinement for two weeks, interrogated and denied access to lawyers. The Bush administration labeled him al Qaeda, and rather than send him home to Canada, they sent him to Syria, a country known for using torture. There, over the course of a year's confinement in a cell he describes as the size of a grave, he was repeatedly interrogated and tortured. He was never charged and never tried. After a year, the Syrians released him and publicly stated he had done nothing wrong. Later, the Canadian government apologized and awarded him more than $9 million in compensation. Around the same time in and around New York, immigrant men from countries ranging from Turkey to India were being swept up on minor immigration violations and detained for months on end, even after they were cleared of any connection to terrorism. They were sometimes held in solitary confinement. They were not permitted to reach out to family or friends or lawyers, and some were subjected to physical and verbal abuse and forbidden to practice their religion. How did this happen? How did a nation that prides itself on being the world's greatest constitutional democracy become one that sends innocent people to be tortured or indefinitely detains and abuses immigrants who committed no crime? September 11 was tragic in many ways, and it marked the beginning of the greatest decline in democracy in our country since the Japanese internment during World War II and the Red Scare of the 1950s. It was the day we began to let fear erode our belief in our own system of government, with all its checks and balances and laws and treaties. Playing on that fear, our government began to operate outside the law and in the process destroyed many more lives than those lost in the attack. Let us list some of the more egregious ways our most cherished protections were swept aside: Our government engaged in surveillance of citizens, spying without the court approval required by law. For example, in March 2010 a federal judge found that the government under the Bush administration had violated a federal statute when in 2004 it wiretapped Al Haramain, a now-defunct charity organization in Oregon, along with two of its lawyers. The Bush administration did more than that, though. Shortly after 9/11 it authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop, without a warrant, on the telephone calls and other electronic communications of millions of Americans, most of whom were suspected of no crime. It tortured in our name. Arar's rendition to Syria (and the secret renditions of others) proves that the United States tortures or hires others to torture on its behalf. The United States sent prisoners to these places --Egypt is another -- with the knowledge that they were places known for torture and other human rights abuses. Additional proof, if it's needed, of what is tolerated in this new America can be found in the horrifyingly graphic photographs, revealed to the world in 2004, documenting prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib detention center. Since the publication of those photos, the government has admitted to other instances of torture, most notably at the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay. Even today, under the guidance of the president who promised change, the U.S. government continues to imprison people for years without trial or due process. After 9/11, President Bush threw due process out the window, holding prisoners at Guantanamo without charging them and subjecting some of them to unfair military tribunals. President Obama has extended these illegal and unjust aspects of Bush's Guantanamo approach. Earlier this year, he signed an executive order creating a formal system of indefinite detention at Guantanamo and starting new military tribunals for detainees there. Our government created and continues to defend vague and far-reaching laws. It made dissent, a basic right protected by the First Amendment, into a criminal act, going so far in one 2005 case as to monitor a group gathering at a Quaker meeting house in Florida to plan anti-war protests. It subcontracted our interrogations and other military duties to private corporations with little accountability for their actions. It hid detainees at Abu Ghraib in violation of international and domestic law and kept them hidden from the Red Cross. And it created, at Guantanamo Bay, a legal black hole that has become a worldwide symbol of the way our country has turned its back on human rights and the law. At the Center for Constitutional Rights, we see the faces of these new victims every day. Our clients are men and women who have been caught up in unlawful sweeps, racially profiled, sold for bounties in distant villages. They have been held indefinitely, tortured, abused. Their lives were destroyed because too many times they were "the Other" and did not deserve our respect or even our protections. But democracy is the presumption of innocence. The right to due process. The body of laws and international agreements that have been carefully built up (and fought for) over centuries to protect all people from arbitrary authority and persecution. Maybe it's time to admit we lost our way and start on a new path. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/07/warren.9.11.rights/index.html
Monday, September 12, 2011 8:18 AM
Quote:How 'war on terror' unleashed a war on journalists In the days following the 9/11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft asserted that criticism of the Bush administration "only aids terrorists" and "gives ammunition to America's enemies." White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer warned that "all Americans ... need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told television executives they should not air videos from Osama bin Laden because these could contain coded messages. These statements sparked widespread concern in U.S. media circles about looming restrictions on local media. While there have been no sweeping legislative attacks on the First Amendment, press freedom has eroded domestically and globally. President Obama's record as a zealous classifier of government documents has institutionalized increased official secrecy. Legal efforts to compel journalists to reveal confidential sources are prevalent, and without a federal shield law, journalists facing a federal subpoena confront the prospect of jail. Similarly, the U.S. Justice Department has sought to imprison government employees for leaking classified information to the media. In its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military has detained journalists without charge for long periods, and failed to adequately investigate our documentation of the killings of 16 journalists by U.S. forces' fire. The killings, however, did not appear to be deliberate attacks on the media. But whatever damage was done to press freedom domestically pales in comparison to the devastating impact of U.S. post-9/11 policies on press freedom around the world. Anti-state charges and "terrorist" labels have become commonplace and are used to unduly intimidate, detain and imprison journalists. Media blackouts and limited access to war and conflict zones have become routine, along with the uninvestigated killings of journalists. To put it starkly, 81 journalists were in jail around the world at the end of 2000. By the end of 2001, that number shot up to 118. Today there are 145, most held on state security charges. Abusive use of national security was the single greatest charge invoked to justify journalist imprisonments in 2010, the Committee to Protect Journalists found. In fact, a good part of the increase in the last decade is directly attributable to the policies and rhetoric employed in the aftermath of 9/11, which were eagerly adopted by repressive governments around the world. ..... Anti-terrorist rhetoric continues to provide political cover for anti-press policies around the world, yet the actions of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq have also changed the ways the wars are covered. Although the embedding program that allows journalists to accompany the U.S. military has provided new opportunities for coverage, it has also created a dichotomy between embedded and "unilateral" journalists, whom U.S. forces have often viewed with grave suspicion. More than a dozen journalists have been detained by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan and held for extended periods without charge or due process, according to CPJ research. Al Jazeera correspondent Sami Al Haj was held for more than six years as a prisoner at Guantanamo and never charged with a crime. The U.S. also bombed Al Jazeera offices in both Kabul and Baghdad, leading to the death of one reporter. These actions sent a powerful message to militaries around the world that an embedded journalist is the only acceptable way to cover their activities .The Israeli military, for example, denied the media access during their 2008 Gaza invasion. Journalists were mostly forced to cover that event from inside Israel. The Sri Lankan government used the same approach during its brutal final offensive against Tamil separatists in 2009. The absence of any independent media gave government forces a free hand, which they used to carry out massive human rights abuses including indiscriminate fire that killed thousands of civilians. The global fallout from 9/11 is a stark reminder that while the U.S. failure to uphold democratic standards has obvious implications domestically, the greatest long-term impact is likely to be in the many places where governments are always seeking justifications for unrelenting repression. Ten years on, it's clear that the anti-terror rhetoric and policies developed by the United States after 9/11 have provided effective and enduring cover for the erosion of civil liberties around the world -- including press freedom. (The only excerpt left out was about how regimes have used anti-free-speech methods around the world, which can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/08/simon.press.freedom.911/index.html a country who has always prized itself on freedom of speech, we seem to have left THAT concept behind since 9/11, as well. Again: "Maybe it's time to admit we lost our way and start on a new path".
Monday, September 12, 2011 1:21 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL