Presentación de los Primeros Resultados de los Informes de Estabilidad Oscilatoria Usando

Project Censored reported the following information relating to Human Rights abuses:

This project is managed by the Department of Sociology at the school of Social Science at Sonoma State University. Over 250 people were directly involved in the production of the 2007 Censored Publication. For thirty years Project Censored has released an annual list of the most important news stories not covered by the corporate media in the United States (Phillips, 2007).

The CIA has refused to grant any independent observer or Human Rights group access to its high-level detainees to determine their physical and mental health. Supporters of the use of harsh or abusive interrogation techniques have argued that in an unconventional war against suicidal terrorists who do not abide by the traditional rules of war themselves (Risen, 2007:30), such use is justified.

On 25 October 2005 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released documents of forty-four autopsies held in Afghanistan and Iraq, where twenty-one of the deaths were listed as homicides (Phillips, 2007). The documents indicated that the detainees died during and after interrogations by Navy Seals’ Military Intelligence and Government Agency (OGA). As such, the documents presented solid evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogation, as indicated by an attorney with ACLU, Amrit Singh.

According to Singh, the public has a right to know who authorised the use of torture techniques and why these deaths had been covered up. The Department of Defence released the autopsy reports in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Centre for Constitutional Rights, as well as Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans for Peace.

Final Autopsy Report: DOD 00 3164, (Detainee) died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue haemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees, abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defence injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehouse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq (American Civil Liberties Website, 2005).

Another report from the ACLU indicates:

A 27 year old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Masul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and head. The exact cause of death was 'undetermined' although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death (American Civil Liberties Website, 2005).

An overwhelming majority of the so-called 'natural deaths' reported on in the autopsies were also attributed to arteriosclerosis cardiovascular disease (heart attack). Usually persons under extreme stress and pain may have heart attacks. A thorough check of Lexis Nexis and ProQuest electronic data bases, using the keywords ACLU and autopsy, showed that at least 95 per cent of the daily papers in the US did not report on this (Schlager, 2005).

The testimony of Jais Korpinsiki, a US Brigadier General Commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade, was given on 21 January 2006 in New York City at the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes against Humanity committed by the Bush Administration:

General (Ricardo) Sanchez, Commander of Coalition ground forces in Iraq, signed the eight page memorandum authorizing a Laundry List of harsh techniques in interrogation to include specific use of dogs and muzzled dogs with his specific permission.

Karpinsiki further testified that Major General Geoffrey Miller had been specifically selected by the Secretary of Defence to go to Guantanomo Bay to teach new and improved interrogation techniques to Military Intelligence. When asked how far up the chain of command responsibility for the torture orders went, Karpinsiki replied, “[t]he Secretary of Defence would not have authorized without the approval of the Vice President” (Jamail, 2005).

The question with the condemnation of this type of behaviour is, what right do US soldiers have when captured in Iraq or in any other foreign country, to ask for fair treatment for themselves? All of this happened despite the fact that US laws prohibit torture; it is never permitted, not even in times of war.108

Allegations of serious human rights abuses by coalition forces in Iraq include the following:

 Torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib  The illegal use of white phosphorus  Murdering of 24 civilians in Haditha  Murdering of 11 civilians in Ishaqi

 Kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi man named Hashim Ibrahim Awad, who was under investigation

 Gang-rape and murder of a 14 year old girl and the murder of her family in Mahmudiyah, who were also under investigation

 The bombing and shooting of 42 civilians under investigation in Makaradeeb (MacKay, 2004).

108

Community Evaluator: Rabbi Michael Robinson, PhD. Student Researchers: Michael B Januleski Junior and Jessica Rodas.

 Controversy over whether inappropriate methods were used by Shia and Kurdish Iraq government forces and coalition forces on Sunni insurgent members in Fallujah in 2004.

The following are reports of human rights abuses by private military contractors working at Abu Ghraib prison:

 Killing over 12 000 Iraqis from January 2005 to June 2006 (Knikmeyer, 2005).  Suicide attacks on the Iraqi civilian population by the Insurgents.109

 Bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003, killing a top UN representative and 21 UN staff members.110

 Beheadings of several diplomats.111

 A bomb in February 2006 at one of the holiest Shiite shrines killing 165 worshippers.112

 Murdering of non-military personnel.113

 Torture or murder of members in the new Iraqi Army.114

In May 1990, four years before his death, Prof. Johan Heyns, the moderator of the Dutch Reformed Church (DRC) SA, had the following to say about violence (Karsten, 2007:60-72):

Violence affects the human body and soul. It dehumanises man in such a way that he is unable to fulfil his destiny as a human being. In this light, violence is the exact opposite of love. Man, who is created in the image of God, may therefore never use violence against anyone else, but he may also not suffer violence at the hand of another. However, it is also a sign of civilization, apart from being a demand of Christianity, not to try to change the opinion of your opponents through violence” (Karsten, 2007:69-70).

109 http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/iraq-bombing-toll-rises. July 2, 2006. 110 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june06/iraq-6. 111

Kidnappers Kill Algerian Diplomats (http://www.freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid-4107. 2005-07-27.

112 http://www.chicogotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0606290162jun29,1,5062337.story? June 29, 2006. 113 http://www.cba.ca/story/world/national/2004/07/13bubjarianiraq040713.html. 2004-07-14. 114 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/international/middleeast/19torture.htmI? 2005-06-19.

Heyns also stated (December 1990) that a political policy should not cause people to suffer, must not exploit them and discriminate against them, because to love one’s neighbour implies respect for the person created in God’s image (Karsten, 2007:70).

On the other hand, Chris Hani, the Secretary-General of the South African Communist Party, regarded violence as the only option because of the exclusion of all inhabitants, except whites, from political processes in South Africa. This can serve as an example of John Burton’s theory that a state of conflict is caused by the non-recognition of a group or the denial of its identity (Burton, 1998).

When evaluating the War on Terrorism in terms of Human Rights, some critical questions need to be asked and answered:

Are war and violence the best means by which to promote solidarity with oppressed people? This does not seem to be the case. The question that the War on Terrorism raises, especially in Iraq, for the future of global governance is simple: Does the political will exist in the United Nations to seriously take on and address human rights issues? (Dunne, 2002:93-102) A positive consequence of the war in Iraq was that it developed a consideration of reforms in international law and international institutions, which might help to prevent the continued occurrence of violent events. However, in principle, it can be argued that the War on Terrorism is probably illegal from the viewpoint of most bodies of statutory international law.

Looking objectively at the War on Terrorism, it can be concluded that it liberated people from an oppressor and from long-standing tyranny; destroyed a state that was a threat to the peace and security of the Middle East and the rest of the world, and an arena where terrorists operated, sponsored materially and ideologically by Iraq; bringing the dictator Saddam Hussein to justice for his genocides and crimes against humanity; and prevented the succession of a similar leader and dictator, by restoring sovereignty to the Iraqi people. It laid the foundation of a democratic state, and vested human rights law as

a rule of law, guaranteed by the United Nations.115 The primary reason for criticism of the war is that the Bush Administration failed to strongly present its own rationale for the war.

The legal case for the War on Terrorism is twofold: Firstly, the United States argued that Iraq was in breach of sixteen separate UN Security Council resolutions, which, according to international law, the Security Council is obligated to enforce. Secondly, the argument was grounded on anticipatory self-defence: Based on intelligence reports that documented Hussein's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, as well as evidence about his support of international terrorism, the US further argued that the Iraqi ruler was a threat to the national security of the United States, and in general to world peace and security (Jervis, 2006).

Absent from the debate on the war, however, is any serious discussion of its moral legitimacy in terms of human rights, both with regard to the Iraqi people and in terms of human rights globally.