WP: China, Others Criticize U.S. Report on Rights
Stormlx
Double Standard at State Dept. Alleged
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, March 4, 2005; Page A14
Photo:
http://tinyurl.com/3vnec
Caption:
Activists in Bangkok parade in front of the U.S. Embassy to protest the U.S.
State Department's annual human rights report, which criticized practices in
Thailand, among other countries. Many nations condemned the report.
Photo Credit: Chaiwat Subprasom -- Reuters
BEIJING, March 3 -- China accused the United States on Thursday of using a
double standard to judge human rights in other countries, adding to a list
of nations suggesting that the government that produced the Abu Ghraib
prison abuses has no business commenting on what happens elsewhere.
"No country should exclude itself from the international human rights
development process or view itself as the incarnation of human rights that
can reign over other countries and give orders to the others," Premier Wen
Jiabao's cabinet declared, three days after the State Department criticized
China in its annual human rights report.
The Chinese retort, which contained a long list of what it labeled U.S.
human rights abuses at home and abroad, came directly from Wen's cabinet,
giving it more weight than a Foreign Ministry comment or editorial. In
addition, it used unusually direct language -- for example, charging that
the United States "frequently commits wanton slaughters during external
invasions and military attacks."
A number of other countries criticized in the U.S. report expressed a
similar view, that the Bush administration has compromised on human rights
and has no standing to chastise others. Such responses often follow
Washington's annual report, but the reaction has become more intense and
more readily voiced since U.S. abuses of Iraqi and other prisoners were
publicized around the world last year.
"Unfortunately, [the report] once again gives us reason to say that double
standards are a characteristic of the American approach to such an important
theme," the Russian Foreign Ministry declared after reviewing the report.
"Characteristically off-screen is the ambiguous record of the United States
itself."
The Venezuelan vice president, Jose Vicente Rangel, said in a statement that
the United States was "not qualified from any point of view" to lecture
others on human rights. "The State Department report is more of the same,
that is to say, more lies, more falsehoods and more hypocrisies, and
therefore it has absolutely no worth," he added.
Jose Luis Soberanes, president of Mexico's Human Rights Commission, also
said the United States lacked moral authority to pass judgment on others,
citing U.S. treatment of Mexicans who sneak across the border into the
United States. He compared Washington's criticism of Mexico's record to "the
donkey talking about long ears" -- the Spanish-language equivalent of "the
pot calling the kettle black" -- "because the United States violates human
rights, especially those of our countrymen."
"The U.S. State Department in its human rights report blames countries such
as Egypt and Syria for using torture; however, there is not even a mention
of the incidents in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq," complained the mainstream
Turkish newspaper Hurriyet. "Of course, there is no mention of Guantanamo,
either."
Amnesty International, the human rights organization, noted that the Bush
administration has turned over prisoners arrested in the battle against
terrorism to some of the countries it cites in the report for torturing
prisoners. Human rights activists long have charged that U.S. intelligence
officers resorted to this practice, known as rendition, as a way to avoid
U.S. restrictions prohibiting the torture of prisoners by allowing foreign
agents to do so.
"The State Department's carefully compiled record of countries' abuses may
perversely have been transformed into a Yellow Pages for the outsourcing of
torture," said William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty
International USA.
The acting assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and
labor, Michael Kozak, acknowledged when his report was released Monday that
the United States did not have a perfect record. But he argued that
Americans who commit abuses, such as the soldiers at Abu Ghraib, were being
court-martialed and that interrogation techniques used with terrorism
suspects at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were being
challenged in U.S. courts.
The Chinese statement issued Thursday dismissed this defense as legal
window-dressing, suggesting that Abu Ghraib and other instances of abuse
were not exceptions committed by bad apples, but the Bush administration's
policy in the war on terrorism.
"The International Committee of the Red Cross believed that abuse of the
detained Iraqis in the notorious Abu Ghraib Prison was not a single case. It
was systematic behavior," Beijing's declaration said. "According to some
White House documents that were made public on June 22, 2004, the Department
of Defense approved to use harsh means to interrogate prisoners in
Guantanamo."
China has made a regular practice in recent years of replying to the annual
human rights report, denouncing it as interference in domestic affairs. But
in counterattacking, it usually focuses on what Chinese officials see as
social rights, saying, for instance, that the United States violates the
right to good health, the right to be free from racial prejudice and the
right to live in security.
Thursday's response listed these charges. But it also included an expanded
and strongly worded section on alleged human rights violations committed in
Iraq and worldwide in the battle against terrorism, particularly the heavily
publicized mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, near Baghdad.
"The newspaper Pyramid pointed out that the true face of Americans was
exposed through this incident," it said, apparently referring to the
Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram, or Pyramids in English.
In addition, the Chinese document cited what it said was testimony by "one
low-ranking U.S. officer" that U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib abused children
at the prison and "even assaulted young girls sexually."
China broke off a formal human rights dialogue with the Bush administration
a year ago, after the United States sponsored a resolution condemning China
at the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva. A U.S. delegation met with
officials in Beijing in early February to discuss resuming the dialogue, but
the State Department has not yet made clear whether it intends to introduce
a similar resolution in Geneva this year.
Correspondents Kevin Sullivan in Mexico City, Peter Finn in Moscow and Doug
Struck in Toronto, and researcher Yesim Borg in Istanbul contributed to this
report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3840-2005Mar3.html
David L. Debonnaire
Stormlx schrieb:
> China, Others Criticize U.S. Report on Rights
> Double Standard at State Dept. Alleged
>
> By Edward Cody
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Friday, March 4, 2005; Page A14
>
>
> Photo:
> http://tinyurl.com/3vnec
> Caption:
> Activists in Bangkok parade in front of the U.S. Embassy to protest the U.S.
> State Department's annual human rights report, which criticized practices in
> Thailand, among other countries. Many nations condemned the report.
> Photo Credit: Chaiwat Subprasom -- Reuters
>
>
> BEIJING, March 3 -- China accused the United States on Thursday of using a
> double standard to judge human rights in other countries, adding to a list
> of nations suggesting that the government that produced the Abu Ghraib
> prison abuses has no business commenting on what happens elsewhere.
Damn right there!
And *NO* I'm not a supporter of the Chinese, I wouldn't want to go there
- to America either for that matter, but America has lost *ALL* rights
to critisise other countries for what it is practising on an hourly /
daily basis.
>
> "No country should exclude itself from the international human rights
> development process or view itself as the incarnation of human rights that
> can reign over other countries and give orders to the others," Premier Wen
> Jiabao's cabinet declared, three days after the State Department criticized
> China in its annual human rights report.
>
> The Chinese retort, which contained a long list of what it labeled U.S.
> human rights abuses at home and abroad, came directly from Wen's cabinet,
> giving it more weight than a Foreign Ministry comment or editorial. In
> addition, it used unusually direct language -- for example, charging that
> the United States "frequently commits wanton slaughters during external
> invasions and military attacks."
.. so I *wasn't* imagining it?
"Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been witnessed.
Such a genocide was never seen in the time of the pharaohs nor
of Hitler nor of Mussolini."
~ Mehmet Elkatmi, head of Turkish parliament's human rights commission
on Bush's genocide in the Iraq war. 2004-11-28
--
Thanks for the quote Roedy.
Ken
"David L. Debonnaire" <david....@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:d098ij$599$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
Interesting. The only free country, according to Freedom House, offering
criticism in the article is Mexico, and they wouldn't be free without US
intervention. When true tyrants like the other countries mentioned criticize
the US and the leftwing laps it up like dogs, you know who the true haters
of freedom, liberty, and democracy are.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2005/table2005.pdf
Have a nice day,
Ken
lo yeeOn
Did the US free Mexico from the Spaniards? Who was trying to invade
Mexico but was thwarted by US intervention?
And who are the true tyrants? Doesn't it depend on who is doing the
talking?
>the US and the leftwing laps it up like dogs, you know who the true
>haters of freedom, liberty, and democracy are.
I know. Those in this country who can't tolerate freedom of speech,
like those who is currently in a feeding frenzy attacking Ward
Churchill, the University of Colorado Ethnic Studies professor for
speaking his mind on the possible link between American foreign policy
and the 9/11 attacks, calling him a ``crook'', a ``total fraud'', and
questioning whether he served in Vietnam just because he drove a truck
instead of dropping bombs.
lo yeeOn
========
In article <1109573477....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
whizbang <Steinems...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>traveler wrote:
>> Article Published: Saturday, February 26, 2005
>> CU weighs buyout for firebrand prof
>>
>> By Dave Curtin and Arthur Kane
>> Denver Post Staff Writers
>>
>> University of Colorado officials are considering offering Ward
>> Churchill an early retirement package that could end an increasingly
>> uncomfortable standoff with the controversial professor.
>>
>> Two people familiar with internal CU discussions said the
>> still-undetermined offer is in the idea stage. The discussions come
>> just a week before a three-person panel is scheduled to deliver a
>> report on Churchill's fitness for tenure.
>>
>> David Lane, Churchill's attorney, said he has not been contacted
>about
>> a buyout offer.
>>
>> But, he said, while his primary focus is on protecting Churchill's
>> constitutional right to speak out, he would be willing to listen to a
>> university proposal.
>>
>> "If they offer $10 million, I would think about it. If they offer him
>> $10, I wouldn't," Lane said.
>>
>> Attorneys for CU were not available for comment Friday afternoon.
>>
>> Since it was first reported that Churchill, a CU ethnic studies
>> professor, had demonized some of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001,
>> terrorist attacks, the university has faced relentless scrutiny of
>its
>> hiring practices and faculty qualifications. Churchill has undergone
>an
>> extensive media review of his scholarship, artwork and genealogy,
>while
>> everyone from radio talk-show hosts to syndicated newspaper
>columnists
>> have questioned his integrity, his ancestry and his military career.
>>
>> CU regents have said they are bound by due process and authorized a
>> review of Churchill's writings and speech by a panel comprising the
>> interim Boulder chancellor, the arts and sciences dean, and the law
>> school dean.
>>
>> Depending on the panel's findings, due the week of March 7, CU
>> president Betsy Hoffman could inform Churchill of the university's
>> desire to terminate his employment. Churchill would then have the
>right
>> to appeal through a faculty committee.
>>
>> Typically such dismissals - even if done by the book - result in
>years
>> of expensive lawsuits that Hoffman told legislators last week the
>> university would like to avoid.
>>
>> Sources involved in the talks said if an arrangement could be made,
>it
>> could get everyone off the hook, including Churchill, the subject of
>> daily press revelations.
>>
>> The latest controversy is whether an artwork by Churchill titled
>> "Winter Attack" was copied from a 1972 piece by Thomas Mails, "The
>> Mystic Warriors of the Plains."
>>
>>
>> (It is a mirror image of the other man's work, everything is flipped
>> around to the other side of the painting, otherwise, it is an exact
>> copy.)
>>
>> Churchill told KCNC-Channel 4 last week that he had permission to use
>> Mails' work in his art. However, Mails has died, and copyright
>experts
>> say an agreement could be as informal as a telephone conversation.
>>
>> It is clear that Churchill's work is extremely similar to Mails',
>said
>> Denver attorney James Hubbell, who handles intellectual property
>cases.
>>
>> "Is Churchill's work different enough to constitute a different work?
>> The answer to that is, 'No, it doesn't,"' Hubbell said. "It's awfully
>> similar, and probably too similar."
>>
>> An Aurora art gallery removed the Churchill print from an Internet
>> auction site after its attorney advised the gallery that it might
>> violate copyright laws by selling it.
>>
>> "It's just too much of a headache for a few hundred dollars' sale,"
>> said Darren Zueger, general manager of American Design Ltd.
>>
>> Another copy of "Winter Attack" remains for sale on the Internet by
>> someone other than American Design.
>>
>> American Design is selling several other Churchill pieces, which were
>> written off the books and placed in storage, since the controversy
>> brought the CU professor's name to a nationwide public.
>>
>> At least two other Churchill works are painted from historic photos
>of
>> Native Americans, but Zueger said it is common for artists to use
>> photos in their work.
>>
>> Duke Prentup, who bought a copy of "Winter Attack" for $100 in the
>> mid-1980s from Churchill, said he feels taken advantage of because he
>> thought it was an original work.
>>
>> "I was a little shocked, a little disappointed," he said.
>>
>> Prentup was reviewing his Indian library last month when a book by
>> Mails broke apart at the binding and opened to the page with Mails'
>> "Mystic Warriors of the Plains" drawing.
>>
>> "I've seen this before," Prentup said to himself. "It's on my wall."
>>
>> Questions also remain about Churchill's résumé. In a version
>provided
>> to American Design by either Churchill or one of his publishers, he
>> says he served with the 101st Airborne Division during the Vietnam
>War.
>> Military records, however, show he worked as a light-truck driver in
>> South Vietnam.
>>
>> Regents, who may one day be called upon to vote on Churchill's job,
>are
>> upset about the daily publicity over the controversial professor,
>> saying it could cause long-term damage to CU's reputation.
>>
>> "The possible damage to the university this controversy has created
>> will take years to recover from," said Regent Peter Steinhauer
>
>Page after page of leftwing lies about Bush and they don't even respond
>to a story about what a crook one of their own is.
>
Pardon me? So far, there is nothing to tar Churchill as a crook but
we all know that Bush is a proven liar!
(If Chruchill has been found a crook by the University of Colorado, we
would have heard that by now, given how annoyed the administration is
with him. He would be fired, period. No ifs, ands, or buts. A
university like CU would have the resources to have a legal team to
engage him in court for the rest of his life should he choose to sue.
But that is only the case if they have found a just cause to fire him
with. If they haven't and simply fired him, the ACLU and a lot of
people of conscience would speak up and come to his aid. And it is
the unpredictable and hard-to-control publicity which would ensue in
the event of an unjust firing, particularly of an American Indian by a
powerful institution which has been giving CU the headache. So far,
the administration is angry because of what he said in reference to
the 911 attacks, not because of his scholarship or academic services.
But what he has said in reference to 9/11 was free speech protected by
the constitution. He, according to one report on the internet, has
published 15 books and is a popular teacher. How, did he get tenured
in the first place? Did he cheat? If he did, CU wouldn't need to
explore a ``buyout'' offer to try to get rid of him, would it?)
Remember the importance of an American's inherent rights to free
speech! Either we have freedom in this country or we don't!
Just look at the latest news:
U.S. Planning Arab-Language TV Broadcasts to Europe
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration plans to begin
Arab-language satellite-television broadcasts to Europe later this
year in a new escalation of its information war against Islamic
extremism, officials say.
Three-and-a-half years after Islamic militants based in Germany helped
mount the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S.-backed TV channel Alhurra
expects to transmit 24-hour programing to European Muslim communities
seen as potential breeding grounds of extremism.
France and Germany, which have Western Europe's largest Muslim
populations, would be a special focus for news and current affairs
programs intended to promote an American ethic of free speech and open
debate, officials say.
Note the last sentence in the David Morgan excerpt above!
We are telling the world that the American way is the way of ``free
speech and open debate'' and that is precisely what Ward Churchill as
an independent thinker has meant to do: to exercise his free speech
rights to start an open debate on the possible links between American
foreign policy and 9/11. He is saying if there is a lesson to be
learned we should learn it sooner than later because people's lives
may depend on it!
Are we going to tell the world then that while we want them to believe
in free speech and open debate we are ready to dismiss our own people
from their employment just because they have started an unpopular
debate, exercising their free speech rights which are protected by the
constitution?
Nay, Ward Churchill and his lawyers must remind CU of this! So far, I
am seeing very little Americanism in the CU administration.)
If we have to compare Bush with Ward Churchill, we must recognize that
Bush's lies are massive and their consequences uncalculable because of
the sheer number of people killed and of the devastation to the world.
Now if you assert that there are lies written about Bush, leftwing or
right wing, tell them!
As for Ward Churchill, I have not seen any evidence that he lied.
What evidence is there to justify calling him a crook? The Denver
Post, smelling blood, is trying to say something bad about the guy.
But did they name any act Churchill has committed that can be honestly
characterized as a lie or a fraud? No!
The military career issue is totally bogus. Driving a truck in South
Vietnam for the US military means absolutely that he was at risk being
in the midst of all the visible and invisible Viet Congs. He was by
any objective measure serving his country. Whether he has ever shot
another human being is a different story. He might not have killed
another human being, unlike some other soldiers. But he was certainly
risking his own life to serve in the the US military at the time.
His paintings? All that the Denver Post has said was that ``experts''
they consulted didn't think that his art works seemed very original to
them.
Originality of his art is not a relevant question concerning his job.
He teaches ethnic studies in the first place. He apparently doesn't
teach students how to become an artist. That's not part of ethnic
studies. For his subject, he has apparently written 15 books. The
guy has only a Master's degree and the university which gave him
tenure knew it. They judged by his publications and his services to
the university. That's how university tenure system works.
The fact that he also painted dealing with the subject of his interest
shows he wasn't contented with being just an armchair scholar. It
shows that he has been a doer, an energetic student of his native
culture, and a practitioner of what he believes in. It is a strength
that few other academics can match.
From what I read (see attached article below), he is a popular teacher
and he is apparently articulate, getting invitations to speak outside
of the university, in addition to his appeal at his home base. And
since he has had voluminous publications, what is the problem with his
qualification as a professor in ethnic studies? Originality to be
found in his painting American Indian art? Who is in a position to
judge? CU is not a fine arts academy or conservatory.
(Even fine arts academies and conservatories do not teach students to
be Picassos. Remember that Pablo Picasso, one of the most original of
all painters throughout the human civilization, had a father who was
also a professional painter. Picasso Senior also taught novices how
to paint to supplement his income. But he as well as the teachers at
the academy in Madrid where Pablo got the last stage of his training
were not known for their orginality. They only trained students to
acquire a certain level of what is called a painter's craftsmanship,
like for example how well you can replicate a human figure on a canvas
or a piece of paper, if you must. Originality comes from outside the
school, something which is generally regarded as impossible to teach.
So, in this light, it is natural to see that CU, like other colleges,
has simply followed the conventional wisdom of not attempting to hire
their professors based on how original some other people subjectively
think they might be as an artist, especially for a field concerning
ethnic studies.)
I have said it before and I will say it again. I don't believe his
paintings have been a factor in his success in getting tenured at CU.
It was his 15 books and his popularity as a teacher, although the
paintings might have been icing on the cake.
Again the administrators of CU will be judged by history for their
blindness and cowardice when the key issue here is the scholar's
constitutional right to free speech, something the Bush administration
claims to be America's ``ethic'' for the world to see! They should
protect Churchill's rights to free speech; instead they try to dig
some dirt on a bona fide professor of their own to get themselves off
the hot seat a bunch of narrow-minded non-believers of freedom and
democracy want them to sit on.
lo yeeOn
========
1) America's ethic of free speech and open debate
U.S. Planning Arab-Language TV Broadcasts to Europe
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration plans to begin
Arab-language satellite-television broadcasts to Europe later this
year in a new escalation of its information war against Islamic
extremism, officials say.
Three-and-a-half years after Islamic militants based in Germany helped
mount the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S.-backed TV channel Alhurra
expects to transmit 24-hour programing to European Muslim communities
seen as potential breeding grounds of extremism.
France and Germany, which have Western Europe's largest Muslim
populations, would be a special focus for news and current affairs
programs intended to promote an American ethic of free speech and open
debate, officials say.
"The 9/11 hijackers came largely from Europe. It's a significant gap
that we were not broadcasting in Arabic to Europe," said Kenneth
Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the U.S.
agency in charge of U.S. civilian TV and radio broadcasts overseas.
The planned broadcasts, which would not include Russia, are also meant
as competition for Qatar-based channel Al-Jazeera, which
administration officials view as an anti-American rival for Muslim
public opinion.
"The reason for being (in Europe) is the same as our reason for being
in the Middle East: to provide a different perspective ... of America
and the world," said Norman Pattiz, who chairs the broadcasting
board's Middle East committee.
Start-up funding for the $3.5 million venture would come from
President Bush (news - web sites)'s $81 billion supplemental budget
request for military operations in Iraq (news - web sites).
If Congress approves the request within the next several weeks as
officials expect, Virginia-based Alhurra could begin broadcasting by
next autumn to a Muslim population estimated at 11 million people in
Western Europe alone, officials said.
'SOFT-POWER TOOL'
The Bush administration views satellite TV as a so-called soft-power
tool for building goodwill toward the United States, which has been
deeply unpopular in the Muslim world in the aftermath of the Sept. 11
attacks on New York and Washington.
Since last year's Madrid bombings, intelligence officials have warned
of an increasing threat from European-born Islamic extremists inspired
by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).
"Obviously some of the people who are discontented and are recruitable
for terrorism are Muslim minorities in Europe," said Harvard professor
Joseph Nye, a noted soft-power advocate and former chairman of the
National Intelligence Council -- the federal government's strategic
intelligence think tank.
"The idea of appealing to these people to try to attract them away
from an oversimplified view of America-as-villain seems to make
sense," he added.
Officials say Alhurra has grown to reach about 25 percent of satellite
TV owners in the Middle East and viewers increasingly find its
newscasts credible and reliable.
"If you can reach tens of millions in the Middle East who find your
broadcasts reliable, why wouldn't you take that to other Muslim
Arabic-speaking populations?" said Pattiz.
But independent experts say Alhurra's mass-market appeal is a risky
departure from a Cold War propaganda strategy that sought to influence
decision-makers rather than general audiences.
"I just don't know how effective it's going to be. A better use of
resources would be to work with moderate leaders throughout the Arab
world," said Nancy Snow, a propaganda expert at California State
University, Fullerton.
2) Ward Churchill: popular teacher and authors of 15 books
Churchill a lightning rod
CU prof at center of 9/11 dispute has been there before
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
January 28, 2005
So, people are mad at Ward Churchill. What else is new?
For a man who has weathered anonymous death threats telephoned to his
home, the latest turmoil is comparatively tame.
Churchill, chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department at the University
of Colorado, is at the center of controversy - again. This time it's
students at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., upset about his
scheduled appearance there next week.
They are disturbed by an essay Churchill wrote in the wake of the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks suggesting they were justified.
In an essay written the day after the attacks, Some People Push Back:
On the Justice Of Roosting Chickens, he said America was merely
reaping what it had sown through a long history of violent domination
and assault upon indigenous people.
"There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel
killed on September 11 fill that bill" as innocent victims, Churchill
wrote.
"The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and
simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really.
"Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians, of
a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."
Among those spitting mad is Debra Burlingame of Westchester, N.Y.,
sister of a pilot who died on Sept. 11. She said the CU professor's
remarks are "beyond the pale."
To find himself outside the mainstream is not a novel experience for
Churchill; this is the same man who, in an interview last year, said
"it may be that more 9/11s are necessary."
U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., has called for Churchill's
resignation because of his 3-year-old Sept. 11 essay. And U.S. Rep.
Mark Udall, an Eldorado Springs Democrat whose district includes
Boulder, said Churchill's essay "grossly defames those who were
murdered in the attack on the World Trade Center. Mr. Churchill owes
the 9/11 families an apology."
Churchill, 57, was one of eight defendants acquitted in Denver on Jan.
20 for blocking the Oct. 9 Columbus Day parade, which he and his
co-defendants consider an act of hate speech and ethnic intimidation.
He also was arrested in a 1991 Columbus Day parade protest, but the
charges in that case were dismissed a few months later.
This semester, Churchill is teaching three classes at CU: Topical
Issues in Native North America, American Indians in Film, and Indian/
Government Conflicts.
He is currently out of state on a speaking tour. But his wife, fellow
CU ethnic studies professor Natsu Saito - also one of those acquitted
in the Columbus Day parade trial - spoke highly of her husband as an
academic.
"Students love him. His classes are always filled to overflowing, and
he sets a standard for teaching and scholarship that is inspiring for
all of us," she said.
"He has written more books than most academics even think about
writing. I think he inspires the students with respect to how to put
one's teachings into practice, and applies it to the world."
This is not the first time Churchill has come under fire for his
alternative viewpoint on Sept. 11.
He stirred a hornet's nest of opposition during a visit on Dec. 1,
2001 - less than three months after nearly 3,000 were killed in the
attacks - to the University of Vermont.
Situated in the liberal enclave of Burlington, Vt., the university
lost 13 alumni in the attacks.
"The stuff was so outrageous and the timing was so bad because it (the
Sept. 11 trauma) was so fresh," said Sam Hemingway, a columnist for
the Burlington Free Press who wrote about Churchill's visit.
"Everybody was so worked up."
Many still are.
Debra Burlingame is the sister of Charles "Chick" Burlingame III, the
captain of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the
Pentagon the day before his 52nd birthday.
Using the same argument Churchill has used against the Columbus Day
parade, she said of his writings: "I consider it hate speech, which
isn't protected at all by the First Amendment.
"What (Hamilton College) is doing is paying him money, sponsoring him,
an individual who is calling for the murder of innocent people. That
is hate speech."
Saito said those who have read her husband's writings - which include
at least 15 books - should have a good sense of who he is.
"I think the part that a lot of people miss - because he says things
in a way that makes people uncomfortable, because he forces people to
confront truths they don't want to deal with, that they would rather
ignore - is why he does it," said Saito.
On Thursday, interim CU Chancellor Phil DiStefano issued a statement
emphasizing that Churchill's views are his own and not representative
of the university.
"While I may personally find his views offensive, I also must support
his right (guaranteed by the First Amendment) as an American citizen
to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant," he said.
Professor at the center of controversy
o Name: Ward Churchill (which he terms his "colonial" name;
Keezjunnahbeh, meaning "kind-hearted man." is his given Native
American name)
o Age: 57
o Education: Bachelor's degree (1974) and master's degree (1975) from
Sangamon State University, which is now the University of
Illinois-Springfield
o Employment: Chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department, University of
Colorado
o Personal: Married, with one stepdaughter; lives in unincorporated
Boulder County
3) Churchill's statement
Churchill's statement
January 31, 2005
The following is a statement from Ward Churchill:
In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate
media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has
resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life.
What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of
itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to
the same extent that the fabrications have been.
* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On
the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed
chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S.
violations of international law since World War II. My point is that
we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in
massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights
and not expect to reap the consequences.
* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply
pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and
destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that
destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage
in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a
natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin
Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful
change impossible make violent change inevitable."
* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in
Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish
to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence,
especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the
responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United
States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April
1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban
rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my
voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first
spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today
-- my own government."
* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be
U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children
had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national
television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the
victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of
those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war
in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama
and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic
slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal
policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of
others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.
* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as
"Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in
the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns."
Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring
the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi
genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted
by the Allies.
* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that
a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the
logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently
sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this
placement of an element of the American "command and control
infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade
Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S.
military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who
did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack
amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is
prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to
other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards
are applied to them.
* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns"
characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it
was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service
workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack.
According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral
damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less
ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis,
Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be
treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be
similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way
to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to
compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of
Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To
the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans"
of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no
legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This,
of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than
anyone else.
* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the
Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for
the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human
rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it
presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public
debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades
today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only
be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at
hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in
this country.
Ward Churchill
Boulder, Colorado
January 31, 2005
kuac...@yahoo.com
> the US and the leftwing laps it up like dogs, you know who the true
haters
> of freedom, liberty, and democracy are.
Not exactly:
1) the neocons want to abolish all welfare, social and, seemingly,
public health and education benefits. (That the ignorant and sick may
cost the rest of us money and make us sick too seems to escape them.)
2) the US has little regard for international law except when it makes
claims under it (that started with Nicaragua and continues to the
present)
But, most importantly:
3) the US holds itself out as paragon of virtue in democaracy and human
rights and country of laws (including international law). Most other
countries don't make that pretense -- they admit to following the form
but ignoring the substance. Since a least 1964 (when I began following
this subject) the US has compained about being held to a higher
standard. But it shouldn't, simply because it holds itself to that
standard, and then lies (or makes excuses) about its own conduct.
Cloistered as they are (and I note in America they claim the Press is
controlled by leftists and Jews, forgetting that Murdoch, among others,
is neither of those) they simply are out of touch with the world, and
think that the world depends on them. But as the world goes off the
dollar standard, the US will find itself the poorer (to have the dollar
held as a reserve currency is a free loan from the rest of the world).
All that saves the USA now is its vast holdings of natural resources --
which the Bush crowd is bent on despoiling.
Stormlx
1109940623.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "kuac...@yahoo.com"
<kuac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> When true tyrants like the other countries mentioned criticize
>> the US and the leftwing laps it up like dogs, you know who the true
> haters
>> of freedom, liberty, and democracy are.
>
> Not exactly:
>
...
> 2) the US has little regard for international law except when it makes
> claims under it (that started with Nicaragua and continues to the
> present)
The New York Times
March 3, 2005
EDITORIAL
Looking the Other Way
The Bush administration enthusiastically congratulated itself this week for
including abuses by Iraqi authorities in its annual report on human rights
violations. One State Department official called it proof that "we don't
look the other way." But the report did look away - from American
involvement in the mistreatment it decried. In the end it was another sad
reminder of the heavy price the nation has paid for ignoring fundamental
human rights in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo; in the secret cells where
the C.I.A. holds its unaccounted-for prisoners; and at home, where President
Bush continues to claim the power to hold Americans in jail indefinitely
without the right to trial.
The administration's refusal to remedy these abuses - or even acknowledge
most of them - leaves the 2004 human rights report heavy with irony and saps
its authority. Not only did the report fail to mention that the Iraqi
government it criticized was appointed and controlled by the United States,
but it also chastised the local security forces for the same kinds of
arbitrary detentions, abusive treatment and torture that have been
widespread in American military and intelligence prison camps. Indeed, some
of the practices the report labeled as torture when employed by foreign
governments were approved at one point for American detention centers by
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The horrible abuses at Abu Ghraib and other American prison camps badly
damaged the nation's image as a defender of human rights. The administration
then worsened the damage by refusing to deal with the issue openly and
forcefully. Just yesterday, Douglas Jehl of The Times reported that the
Senate Intelligence Committee's Republican chairman, Pat Roberts of Kansas,
is blocking a serious inquiry into the C.I.A.'s abuse of prisoners.
Meanwhile, on the same day the State Department issued its human rights
report, the administration said it would fight a third federal court order
to end the illegal detention of Jose Padilla, an American citizen who has
been held for nearly three years without charges because Mr. Bush has
declared him an "enemy combatant."
A district court judge in South Carolina, Henry Floyd, who was appointed by
Mr. Bush in 2003, said the president's claim that he could order such
detentions was "deeply troubling." He said endorsing that view "would
totally eviscerate the limits placed on presidential authority to protect
the citizenry's individual liberties." His ruling echoed earlier decisions
by federal courts in New York, which were mooted when the Supreme Court said
Mr. Padilla's case should have been heard in South Carolina, where he is
held in a Navy brig. Now that has happened, and still Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales says the administration will not accept the decision.
Mr. Gonzales continues to cling to the fiction that combating terrorism
somehow gives Mr. Bush the power to violate Americans' constitutional
rights. The administration's appeal will needlessly further delay Mr.
Padilla's day in court. But we hope it will finally lead to a Supreme Court
ruling against the White House's abuse of power. That would be a good step
toward restoring America's moral authority on the rule of law and human
rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/opinion/03thu1.html