Fwd: "Dr. Afia's Trial and the Truth about US justice"

[Omar Javaid]

"Dr. Afia's Trial and the Truth about US justice"

---

Dr. Afia's Trial and the Truth about US justice Posted: 22 Feb 2010 02:03 AM PST Yvonne Ridley's anguished opinion 'Truth about US justice' has appeared worldwide including in the Pakistani press. Ms. Ridley bemoans the travesty of justice in the US court's pronouncement of its guilty verdict on the frail, tortured daughter of Pakistan, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. The veteran journalist is perhaps unaware of the import of the following revealing words of a US Supreme Court justice which were uttered in 1951: “To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic strait-jacket, we must reply that all concepts are relative.” This lesser known utterance by the highest lawman of the United States came right on the heals of the victorious Allies administering the absolute victor's justice at Nuremberg to the defeated Nazis with these famous words of its chief prosecuting counsel for the United States, Robert H. Jackson: “... we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” Indeed, if there is one monumental statement made at Nuremberg, it was possibly this: “... the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”. In other words, Justice Robert H. Jackson averred that all the destruction of civilian cities from Dresden, Hamburg, ... to Tokyo in Allied fire-bombings which deliberately killed millions of innocent civilians, was not culpable crimes against humanity because its sin and criminality was absorbed by the Supreme International Crime of the first aggression! Culpability for “all the evil that follows” is always solely apportioned by victors to the account of the first aggressor (the one who is defeated). Even the aggressor's pretext for its first invasion of Poland as its own preemptive self-defense against terrorism (the Gleiwitz terrorist incident aka Operation Canned Goods), was outright rejected at Nuremberg as merely the self-inflicted inside-job to synthesize a Machiavellian pretext for extending German Lebensraum. As Hitler had put it to his Generals in Bavaria: “[I will] give a propagandist reason for starting the war [and don't] mind whether it was plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not the right that matters, but victory.” Justice Robert Jackson unequivocally affirmed that the Nazi quest for full spectrum dominance of Europe was illegal by international law, under any pretext: “The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes.” And in order to ensure that these legal words of immense import were never re-semanticized for “imperial mobilizations” by future 'ubermensch' Reichs, but rather, that these concepts remained inviolably “encas[ed] in a semantic strait-jacket”, the very definition for the word 'aggressor' was ab initio proposed by Justice Robert Jackson as a state which first initiates: “invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State. ... If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” That is quite an objective measure in international law for ascertaining who is the most guilty aggressor party, and who to fry first for crimes against peace, for monumental crimes against humanity. So, even if Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is actually guilty as charged; is indeed the heinous mastermind of Al-Qaeeda (a Hegelian Dialectic which is examined elsewhere); or even if she was merely a dupe recruited by the Talibans/Al-Qaeeda as their waterboy (just as the CIA recruited Muslims from around the world to fight as the laudedMujahideen against the USSR with proclamations of “god is on your side”); by the same yardstick as was used to hang the Nazis while awarding medals of bravery to the Allies who killed millions of innocent civilians in the defense of Europe against the aggressor, all the evil which has followed from the terrorist acts of an individual in aiding and abetting the militant-response against the invasion forces in Afghanistan is similarly legally subsumed by the monumental acts of state terrorism! The superpower's utilization of the 911 terrorist incident to “goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers” is little different from the Nazis'. Therefore, in any fair justice system interested in bringing real criminals closer to their day of accounting, before Dr. Aafia can be charged for her criminal conduct of responding to the invading forces in Afghanistan by her frail physical might, the leaders of the 'free world' and their financial supermasters seeking their own“Lebensraum” must be put on trial for their “supreme international crime ... [of] goosestep[ing] the Herrenvolk across international frontiers.”! To anyone with even half a brain, but one which is not entirely uncongenial to reflection, it must have been rather obvious from day-one that in the light of public revelations of the egregious circumstances of Dr. Aafia's bizarre capture and the subsequent orchestration of her show trial (instead of simply assassinating the accused if she was such a diabolical threat to mankind), any “justice” administered to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui would only be comparable to the proclamation of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland: “off with her head”. It must also have been apparent to those inclined to perusing statecraft rather than watching television or reading newspapers for their knowledge of current affairs, that the show trial of Aafia Siddiqui was designed primarily to serve an agenda of the state. Namely, one of calculatingly exercising the “high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification” deemed necessary for a “sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power.” A careful reading of Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard makes the political science and the various mantras behind “imperial mobilization” abundantly clear. Therefore, at least for these abnormal people who actually try to comprehend the forces which drive terrorism, both the pirate's as well as the emperor's, there is nothing surprising in the guilty verdict, nor in the conduct of the servile Pakistani rulers leading up to the verdict, and nor in the utterances of the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Ann Patterson. To have expected anything else after all the careful preparations that went into enacting this puppetshow, the show trial and its attendantmedia demonization of Dr. Aafia, only betrays immense naiveté of the inner-workings of empire. In my view, the prima facie 'Truth about US justice' is that “justice” is in the service of empire, as it always has been! The madam Ambassador of the United States to Pakistan has only executed the core purpose of her diplomatic post rather faithfully in the service of her empire. Justice in these times, like everything else, including science, politics, history, literature, cinema, news (which is often indistinguishable from cinema), and of course political-science, is continually put in the diabolical service of empire. The only veritable truths are the imperial proclamations of the white man – from who did 911 to Global War on Terror to Global Warming to Global Epidemics to Global Financial Collapse to Global Governance. These history-constructions by incremental faitsaccomplis are the sine qua non for one-world government and cannot be constrained in any moral or legal “semantic strait-jacket”. It's not like the beleaguered Pakistanis don't know it – we even have the East India Company's achievements to guide us – but apparently, we, the 'untermensch', never quite seem to learn its lessons. And that's really the only pernicious secret of the enduring hidden strength of the golem behind all its guns and butter offerings to its victims before slaughtering them. The veritable strength of its 'Samson locks': our own price! The former Director of the ISI, Brig. Tirmazi, narrated the following about us Pakistanis in his 1996 book Profiles of Intelligence: '... It would be fair to ask what we [the ISI] did to counter the US machinations? Well we did not, and could not do any thing beyond reporting to the highest authority in the country. There are reasons for our inaction: One, neither the ISI nor the IB is designed or equipped to counter the machinations of a Super Power. Two, an important factor is our own price. A lot has been said and written by some of our American friends about the price of a Pakistani. Dr. Andrew V. Corry, US Counsel General at Lahore, once said, “Price of a Pakistani oscillates between a free trip to the US and a bottle of whisky.” He may not be too far wrong. We did observe some highly placed Pakistanis selling their conscience, prestige, dignity and self-respect for a small price.' (page 45, emphasis added) The point of this unsubtle resignation request by the courageous Ms. Ridley to show some moral backbone among the errand boys and girls of empire, even as it is merely being rhetorical, is entirely meaningless even in its rhetoric for two reasons: 1) it is a moral request in a global governance system which is beyond good and evil, one which brazenly asserts “hegemony is as old as mankind”, and which puts morality itself directly in the service of empire; and 2) given that the highest-order-bit of the systemic disease among the 'untermensch' has apparently already been apportioned as our national destiny! Crises are defining moments for nations, and for a people. Some rise to it. Others fall before it. Pakistan as a nation has evidently decided the latter course of action – and this is palpably apparent from the statements of Pakistan's own Ambassador to Washington: '“Foreign relations are not discussed in poetry, ... Saddam Husain’s last speech was also full of poetry but it could not save him or his nation”', and that 'relationships between nations are based on ground realities'. Read its full deconstruction here:  http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2009/11/bringing-back-thelost-zen-to-pakistan.html  While it is true that most in Pakistan are very upset by what has befallen Dr. Aafia Siddiqui as yet another victim of “imperial mobilization” – only one among the millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Pakistan's Tribal-Belt, all along the 'arc of crisis' in the “global zone of percolating violence”, etc. – the handful who did publicly protest this latest visitation of empire's justice upon a frail tortured woman in a nation of almost 200 million, did so only symbolically. And this show of moral bravado despite the fact that Dr. Aafia has become the inextricable symbol of the summation of all the abhorrent injustices purveyed upon women in wars – from rape to rape – and no mere words can ever capture her indescribable agony! Yet, most Pakistanis have only expressed our moral outrage and displayed our fine moral tenor from the comforts of our living room. Just as we did when Iraqi women were being raped, tortured, and disappeared in the service of empire not too long ago. Then we returned back to our daily grind. Symbols of morality, like talismans, are no match for hard orchestrated events of “imperial mobilization”. And especially when arsonists are running all the fire brigades in a nation where its masses are more closely tied to their daily bread than to matters of state or national survival. The apathetic public well understands that many more arsonists eagerly await in the wings to take the place of their predecessors. The masses are well aware that the Pakistani elite, the ever patrioticpraetorian guards, and their coterie of miserable sycophants have already learnt that while one's abject service to empire can sometimes be hazardous to one's existential wellness, it also routinely calls for new faces in many a chief's seat and presents the fabulous opportunity to loot and plunder anew in the name of patriotism. Therefore, Ms. Yvonne Ridley's impassioned moral hint to the distinguished American Ambassador to Pakistan: 'She should then pick up the phone to the US president and tell him to release Aafia and return Pakistan’s most loved, respected and famous daughter and reunite her with the two children who are still missing. Then she should re-read her letter of August 16, 2008 and write another ... one of resignation.', will only deprive madam Ambassador of a well-earned livelihood and comfortable retirement for no fault of her own. She merely faithfully discharged her service contract to her own empire. And it will do nothing for Pakistan either, for we, as a nation, are serving exactly the same interests. When these aren't even our own! I humbly recommend instead that madam American Ambassador be the next in line to be awarded the glorious Freedom Medal by the White House. PresidentObama has already received his Nobel Peace Prize. The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org . He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org

Bigmouths of the West and Clash of Civilizations Posted: 22 Feb 2010 02:00 AM PST By Omar Javaid Inspired from the writings of Mr. Shahnawaz Farooqi.  Tony Blair in his speech to the Foreign Policy Center[1] highlighted that it’s the values of Islam and the west which are on a course of clash. “Others found themselves caught between colonization, nascent nationalism, political oppression and religious radicalism. Muslims began to see the sorry state of Muslim countries as symptomatic of the sorry state of Islam …” “This is, ultimately, a battle about modernity. Some of it can only be conducted and won within Islam itself … It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand and pessimism and fear on the other. That is what this battle is about; it is a battle of values and progress; and therefore it is one we must win.”[2] This would perhaps be an elaboration of his earlier statement “This is not a clash between civilizations. It is a clash about civilization …”[3] I am sure that many would agree with Tony here, as Islamic as of today doesn’t really look much like a unique civilization; however one must not forget the past and the potential hidden underneath the skin. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi seems to be at variance with Tony Blair on an occasion when his tongue slipped uttering the following historical statement: “We must be aware of the superiority of our civilization, a system that has guaranteed well-being, respect for human rights and - in contrast with Islamic countries - respect for religious and political rights.” [4] “The West will continue to conquer peoples, even if it means a confrontation with another civilization, Islam, firmly entrenched where it was 1,400 years ago.”[5] If readers disagree then they would also have to disagree with Giovanni Berlinguer when said: "Silvio Berlusconi has gone abroad and launched into eccentric and dangerous calls for conflict between civilizations... using terms that no statesman worthy of the name has used in these recent terrible weeks for humanity."[6] And with the Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, who would agree with Berlinguer: "These remarks could, in a dangerous way, have consequences,", whose nation holds the EU presidency, was quoted as saying. I can hardly believe that the Italian prime minister made such statements ... rather than bringing civilizations together, they could feed a feeling of humiliation." Later Silvio Berlusconi argued that there were attempts to misinterpret his statement against Islam, note the word Islamic Civilization in the following statement as well: “They have tried to hang me on an isolated word, taken out of context from my whole speech ... I did not say anything against the Islamic civilization... It's the work of some people in the Italian leftist press who wanted to tarnish my image and destroy my long-standing relations with Arabs and Muslims.” George W. Bush also is reported to have said in his reaction to the event of 9/11, “… this nation is [now] at war with Islamic fascists …”[7] and said (in another of his speech) “This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.”[8] When the direct attacks from various notable figures weren’t sufficient to wake most of the secularized Muslim population from the mesmerism of the west, Attorney General Ashcroft pounded another blow when he said “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.”[9] General Wesley Clark took in it even further on 13 May 2002 while speaking at Seton Hall University, he said: “They killed in the name of God. But they are not the first. This began in pre-history; the tragedy is that it persists today. Some would characterize the events of 9-11 as a clash of civilizations, and a conflict of religions. And to many it seems a simple and satisfying explanation. But others would suggest, correctly in my view, that such an interpretation is both wrong-headed and dangerous. They recognize a civil war within Islam itself, as contending factions compete for power. They would argue that we must influence the struggle where we can, by supporting greater attention to the secular structures in the Islamic world, and by encouraging our own American Islamic community to speak out in support of America’s democratic values.”[10] Although Wesley Clark denied that there would be any clash of civilization kind of a thing, however after reading in between the lines he is highlighting nothing but the same clash in its purest of sense. [1] http://fpc.org.uk/ [2] Tony Blair's speech to the Foreign Policy centre, 21st March 2006: Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/mar/21/iraq.iraq1 [3] Ibid. [4] EU deplores 'dangerous' Islam jibe, reported on BBC world on 27th September 2001. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1565664.stm [5] “In quotes: Berlusconi in his own words” published on BBC World on May 2nd 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3041288.stm [6] EU deplores 'dangerous' Islam jibe, reported on BBC world on 27th September 2001. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1565664.stm [7] “The day the enemy became 'Islamic fascists'” by By Kari Huus and Tom Curry. Published on MSNBC on Aug. 11, 2006. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14304397/ [8] Remarks by the President Upon Arrival in the south lawn on September 16th 2001. Source: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html [9] John Ashcroft, as reported by Cal Thomas, 2001, Crosswalk.com News Channel   [10] Commencement speech by Wesley Clark at Seton Hall University (13 May 2002): Source: http://securingamerica.com/node/1030

You are subscribed to email updates from The 'Critic Magazine' Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610