scheiß amis...
Seite 13 von 16 Neuester Beitrag: 16.05.06 10:54 | ||||
| Eröffnet am: | 02.11.05 13:20 | von: börsenfüxlein | Anzahl Beiträge: | 399 |
| Neuester Beitrag: | 16.05.06 10:54 | von: börsenfüxlein | Leser gesamt: | 18.736 |
| Forum: | Talk | Leser heute: | 3 | |
| Bewertet mit: |  | |||
| Seite: < 1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | | 14 | 15 | 16 > | ||||
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24wilkerson.html
....Alone among those who surrounded Mr. Powell in the first term, he is speaking out critically, assailing the president as amateurish, especially compared to the first President Bush, and describing the administration as secretive, inept and courting disaster at home and abroad. Nor has he spared his former boss, whom he says was overly preoccupied with "damage control" for policies set by others.
"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made," Mr. Wilkerson said in a well-publicized speech at the New America Foundation in October. "And you've got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either," he added in the speech.
Mr. Wilkerson has also attacked the Bush administration for allegedly condoning torture and setting lax policies on treatment of detainees that led, he charges, to the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the black eye they gave to the United States Army.
SINCE starting to speak out a few months ago, Mr. Wilkerson has become something of a Washington celebrity.... He has given interviews and speeches, appeared on television, written op-ed articles and taken telephone calls from journalists and senators.He says his decision to speak in the open about the policy wars of the first Bush term was slow in coming, but a major factor was the revelations about Abu Ghraib, which he said he realized, after studying the matter, had resulted from decisions on prisoner treatment and intelligence set shortly after Sept. 11, 2001.
After the Wilkerson attacks, administration spokesmen avoided any official response. But many administration officials have acknowledged their displeasure. A half-dozen former colleagues of Mr. Wilkerson's at the State Department, none of whom wanted to be quoted by name out of deference to Mr. Powell's silence, said they were not especially surprised that he had begun to speak out, but that they found his criticisms unseemly....
Die umstrittene Abhöraktion des US-Geheimdienstes NSA war laut einem Bericht der "New York Times" weit umfangreicher, als die Regierung von Präsident George W. Bush bisher zugegeben hat.
Unbescholtene Bürger überwacht
Wie die Zeitung gestern berichtete, hörten Techniker der NSA nicht nur die Gespräche Verdächtiger ab, sondern kontrollierten in großem Stil auch Telefongespräche und E-Mails unbescholtener Bürger - in der Hoffnung, Hinweise auf Terrorverdächtige zu finden. Einige Regierungsvertreter hätten das Programm als "groß angelegte Operation zur Datensammlung" beschrieben, berichtete die "NYT".
Nach Informationen der Zeitung arbeitete der Geheimdienst dabei oftmals eng mit großen Telekommunikationsunternehmen zusammen, um Zugriff auf internationale Telefongespräche zu erhalten, die über US-Schnittstellen liefen.
Bush in der Defensive
Die "New York Times" hatte die Abhöraffäre aufgedeckt. Am vergangenen Wochenende gab Bush zu, zahlreiche Lauschangriffe durch die National Security Agency (NSA) genehmigt zu haben. Die Abhöraktionen fanden nach den Terroranschlägen vom 11. September 2001 statt.
Bush vertrat die Ansicht, eine richterliche Genehmigung der Lauschangriffe sei nach der Verabschiedung des Patriot Act, in dem der Kampf gegen den Terrorismus nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 neu geregelt wurde, überflüssig gewesen. Zudem habe es sich bei den Belauschten nur um Verdächtige mit nachweislichen Verbindungen zum Terrornetz El Kaida gehandelt.
Quellenangabe
......
(3) Wird ein Artikel aus einer Zeitung oder einem anderen Informationsblatt nach § 49 Abs. 1 in einer anderen Zeitung oder in einem anderen Informationsblatt abgedruckt oder durch Funk gesendet, so ist stets außer dem Urheber, der in der benutzten Quelle bezeichnet ist, auch die Zeitung oder das Informationsblatt anzugeben, woraus der Artikel entnommen ist; ist dort eine andere Zeitung oder ein anderes Informationsblatt als Quelle angeführt, so ist diese Zeitung oder dieses Informationsblatt anzugeben. Wird ein Rundfunkkommentar nach § 49 Abs. 1 in einer Zeitung oder einem anderen Informationsblatt abgedruckt oder durch Funk gesendet, so ist stets außer dem Urheber auch das Sendeunternehmen anzugeben, das den Kommentar gesendet hat.
füx
In den USA werden Moscheen und öffentliche Plätze nach radioaktiven Spuren abgesucht - Geheimdienste vermuten dort offenbar Hinweise auf schmutzige Bomben. Außerdem wurden E-Mails und Telefonate in weit größerem Maß überwacht als bisher bekannt.
Washington - In mindestens sechs Großstädten der USA werden private und öffentliche Plätze seit drei Jahren auf radioaktive Strahlung untersucht. So soll herausgefunden werden, ob beispielsweise in Moscheen an Bomben gebaut wird. Der "New York Times" zufolge bestätigte das US-Justizministerium einen entsprechenden Bericht der Website US News and World Report vom Donnerstag.
Moschee in Culver City: Auf "passive" Weise radioaktive Strahlung suchen
Danach untersuchten die US-Bundespolizei und das Energieministerium tausende Wohnhäuser und Arbeitsplätze von Moslems sowie Moscheen auf radioaktive Spuren. Im Großraum Washington wurden demnach bis zu 120 von Moslems besuchte Orte überwacht, weitere in New York, Chicago, Seattle, Detroit und Las Vegas. Das Programm sei nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 gestartet worden.
Die US-Regierung habe Polizisten und Feuerwehrleute in Großstädten mit tausenden Detektoren ausgestattet, die am Gürtel getragen werden könnten. Laut "New York Times" bestätigten Regierungsbehörden, dass Geräte zum Aufspüren radioaktiver Strahlung in Häfen, U-Bahn-Stationen und öffentlichen Plätzen installiert wurden. Eine übermäßige heimliche Überwachung von Privatgebäuden wurde jedoch ausdrücklich nicht öffentlich bestätigt. Ein Sprecher des US-Justizministeriums sagte demnach, Sicherheitskräfte würden den öffentlichen Bereich auf "passive" Weise auf radioaktive Strahlung untersuchen.
Internationaler Datenfluss über US-Knotenpunkte
Die US-Regierung ist in der vergangenen Woche bereits wegen Lauschangriffen durch den Geheimdienst NSA unter Druck. Im Rahmen des Kampfes gegen die Terrororganisation Al-Qaida hatte US-Präsident George W. Bush im Jahre 2001 den Geheimdienst ermächtigt, auch ohne richterliche Erlaubnis internationale Telefongespräche in den USA abzuhören sowie E-Mails mitzulesen.
Die NSA habe dabei weitaus mehr Telefonate und E-Mails unbefugt ausgewertet als bisher bekannt, berichtet die Zeitung jetzt mit Verweis auf Regierungsmitarbeiter. Der Durch die umstrittenen Abhöraktionen habe der Geheimdienst "durch die Hintertür" Zugang zu nationalen und internationalen Kommunikationswegen erhalten.
Der Geheimdienst hat nach Informationen des Blattes in Zusammenarbeit mit einigen der größten Telefon- und Internetfirmen Zugriff auf Verbindungsknoten erhalten, über die amerikanische und internationale Netzwerke miteinander verzahnt sind.
Nach Angaben eines ehemaligen Geheimdienstmitarbeiters hat die amerikanische Regierung in den vergangenen Jahren die Internet-Firmen ermutigt, den internationalen Datenfluss über in den USA angesiedelte Knotenpunkte laufen zu lassen. Damit sollten die technischen Möglichkeiten des Geheimdienstes erweitert werden. Die amerikanischen Geheimdienste hätten traditionell sehr gute Beziehungen zu Telefon- und Computerfirmen, heißt es weiter.
Those who support this theory are usually people inside and outside the U.S. who believe that "the Jews" have the U.S. government wrapped around their fingers.
An article published Sunday on The Washington Post said that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee; the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, is starting to turn against the Bush administration because of it’s policy towards Iran’s nuclear program.
Israel has been covertly trying to push the United States to stop Iran’s nuclear program, threatening to attack Tehran’s nuclear facilities if the Bush administration failed to take tough action against the Islamic Republic.
Both Israel and the U.S. accuse Iran of seeking atomic weapons, claims that have been repetitively rejected by Tehran as false and politically motivated, asserting that its nuclear program is aimed at civilian purposes, mainly the generation of electricity.
In lengthy news releases and talking points circulated to supporters on Capitol Hill, the Post’s article said, AIPAC slammed Bush’s admin for its “soft stance” against Iran, describing it as "dangerous," "disturbing" and "inappropriate."
AIPAC’s criticism comes at a difficult time for President Bush, already suffering major slump in his approval ratings as a result of Iraq war and the mounting casualties among the American troops there.
AIPAC has a history full of struggles with previous U.S. governments; Democratic and Republican, but we never heard of such a fight and confrontation with President Bush.
It seems that AIPAC was greatly angered with Bush's last month decision to hold off on pushing to refer Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
Washington, which favored referring Iran to the Security Council the past two years, decided to endorse Russia’s offer allowing Iran conduct some of the nuclear work to meets its needs for an indigenous nuclear energy program.
AIPAC issued a statement, addressing the Congress, warning that it "is concerned that the decision not to go to the Security Council, combined with the U.S. decision to support the 'Russian proposal' indicates a disturbing shift in the Administration's policy on Iran and poses a danger to the U.S. and our allies."
"This decision will facilitate Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and undermines international efforts to stop Iran from achieving such a capability," AIPAC told supporters and policymakers in a paper circulated after Thanksgiving.
AIPAC, which claims to be nonpartisan state, had criticized almost every administration's Middle East policies, the Post said.
This is the first time the Committee criticizes the Bush White House that harshly and directly.
Earlier this year, members of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, publicly called for launching pre-emptive strikes on Iran, citing Israel’s super military capabilities, which allowed it in 1981 attack Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq. However some analysts say that the case with Iran is different, as distances and the more developed program mean that any Israeli strike would be far tougher than the one-target strike on the Iraqi reactor.
Some military analysts said that Washington “would have no problem" taking out Iran's major nuclear sites if it decided to launch a pre-emptive strike.
Gen. McInerney, a Vietnam War fighter pilot, said that the B-2 stealth bombers, backed with the huge penetrating bombs known as the "bunker busters," would easily destroy Iran’s air defenses and strike 20 or more sites.
"They have not updated that very, very old air defense system," he said. "I can tell you from my personal experience we would have no problem there."
And John Pike, chief of the GlobalSecurity.org, believe that attacking Iran would likely include the F-117 strike fighters, as well as B-2s.
"As some of the facilities are still under construction and not yet active, the United States may have a window of opportunity that would allow it to destroy those locations without causing the environmental problems associated with the destruction of an active nuclear reactor." Pike said.
President Bush has made it clear already that he would support Israel if it was threatened by Iran. “Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened," he was once quoted as saying.
Ex-Außenminister Powell kritisiert Abhöraktion
Der frühere Außenminister Colin Powell stellte sich grundsätzlich hinter die Abhöraktion der US-Regierung, meldete jedoch Zweifel an der Umgehung der Gerichte an. Unterdessen bestätigte die Bundespolizei FBI einen Bericht, wonach muslimische Einrichtungen gezielt aus der Luft überwacht wurden.
New York - Seiner Einschätzung nach wäre es nicht schwer gewesen, eine richterliche Genehmigung für die Abhörmaßnahmen zu bekommen, sagte Powell gestern im ABC-Fernsehen. Damit hätte die jetzige Kontroverse um die Befugnisse des Präsidenten vermieden werden können. Er selbst habe als Außenminister keine Kenntnis davon gehabt, dass Bush Abhörmaßnahmen ohne richterliche Genehmigung angeordnet habe, sagte Powell weiter.
DPA
Ex-Außenminister Powell: Keine Kenntnis von Abhöraktion
Die umstrittene Abhöraktion des US-Militärgeheimdienstes NSA war der "New York Times" zufolge weitaus umfangreicher, als die Regierung zugegeben hat. Demnach wurden im großen Rahmen Telefongespräche belauscht und E-Mails kontrolliert, wie die Zeitung auf ihrer Website unter Berufung auf Regierungsbeamte berichtete. Unterstützt worden sei die Behörde zur Abwehr ausländischer Spione im Inland von Fernmeldeunternehmen, die den Zugriff auf private Kommunikation technisch möglich gemacht hätten.
Die "New York Times" hatte die Abhöraffäre erstmals am 16. Dezember aufgedeckt. Daraufhin erklärte US-Präsident George W. Bush, seine Genehmigung zum Lauschangriff habe sich nur auf Personen mit nachweislichen Verbindungen zum Terrornetzwerk Al-Qaida bezogen. Dagegen berichtete die Zeitung, es seien weite Kreise der Bevölkerung abgehört werden - in der Hoffnung eine Spur zu Terroristen zu finden.
Luftüberwachung von muslimischen Einrichtungen
Das Magazin "U.S. News and World Report" berichtete unterdessen von einer weiteren Überwachungsaktion. Demnach maß die US-Bundespolizei FBI in einem geheimen Programm ohne richterliche Anordnung die Strahlung in der Umgebung von privaten Anwesen.
Polizeikreise in Washington bestätigten den Bericht. Ziel sei es gewesen, einen Anschlag von Al-Qaida zu verhindern. Die Luftüberwachung habe seit dem 11. September 2001 stattgefunden und sei von öffentlich zugänglichen Orten aus erfolgt. Deshalb seien richterliche Anordnungen nicht nötig gewesen.
Dem Magazin zufolge wurden mehr als 100 muslimische Einrichtungen im Großraum Washington und in mindestens fünf weiteren Städten mit erhöhtem Gefährdungspotenzial überwacht. Dazu hätten Moscheen, Wohnungen und Geschäfte gehört.
Ein Sprecher des Justizministeriums sagte, die Regierung sei sehr besorgt über eine wachsende Zahl von Berichten, wonach Al-Qaida das klare Ziel verfolge, chemische, biologische, radiologische und nukleare Waffen zu besitzen und einzusetzen. Um dieser Gefahr zu begegnen, überwache die Regierung die Luft. Aus Kreisen der Bundespolizei verlautete, es seien nicht ausschließlich Orte mit Bezug zu Muslimen überwacht worden. Das Programm sei vor acht Monaten stark eingeschränkt oder gestoppt worden.
Iraq under Saddam Hussein never posed a threat to the United States, but it was considered as one by Israel, the U.S.‘s biggest ally in the Middle East. That is why Washington launched the war, a top-level White House intelligence group said.
According to an article on Inter Press Service news agency, Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the 9/11 investigation panel, said that the main reason behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to protect Israeli interests in the region. Zelikow made his comments about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003. Zelikow's remarks contradict with the justifications provided by the Bush administration, which has never linked Iraq with Israel’s security. Instead, President Bush has insisted that the war was to topple the Iraqi leader, “liberate” the Iraqis and destroy Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. (No such weapons were ever found in Iraq.)
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990--it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on behalf of a team of foreign policy experts evaluating the impact of 9/11 and the future of the U.S.‘s “war on terror”.
"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," he added.
Even if Iraq really possessed weapons of mass destruction, Zelikow said, then the fear of them falling into the hands of the Palestinian resistance would have threatened Israel rather than the United States. "Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it."
Until now the possibility that Washington invaded Iraq to protect Israel has been rarely raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the Bush administration. Zelikow’s statements are the first to acknowledge that the war, which has so far claimed the lives of thousands of Iraqis, was launched by the U.S. to eliminate a threat against Israel.
Political analysts who reviewed Zelikow's remarks said they are strong evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been covered up. "Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."
Others blame the White House for not making known to the public its true motives for invading Iraq. "They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.
The Bush administration, which is surrounded by pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is now trying to defend itself against accusations that it derailed the "war on terror” it launched after 9/11 by hitting Iraq, which didn’t pose any direct threats to the Americans.
In fact, the Iraq war was pushed forcefully by the neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration. A number of senior figures from Bush administrations’ neo-con wing wrote an advisory paper for the Netanyahu government in 1996 entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This paper listed ousting Saddam as an “important Israeli strategic objective." It defies logic to believe that the same people, in their push toward Iraq war, didn’t think about Israel’s security. Writers involved in the "Clean Break" paper included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser and James Colbert. All of them were supporters for the war.
Moreover, Israel’s support for the invasion was never hidden. Both the Sharon government and a majority of the Israelis backed the war. A Guardian report on how the U.S. intelligence community provided "evidence" for the invasion described how Americans working outside the CIA worked with Israelis operating outside of the Mossad to help produce that "evidence." Reports before the war indicated that Israel was playing a key role in preparing for the invasion, and others indicate that Israeli agents have been working among Iraqi Kurds.
Also benehmt euch gefälligst so, verdammte shice ;o)
Morgen könnt ihr euch die Köppe wieder einschlagen...
__________________________________________________
VIVA ARIVA!
Optionen
Wenn du da was wissen magst, schau im Thread von Lalapo... steht viel drin. Und bevor irgendwas kommt: Jep, ich bin drin und jep, bereits im Plus und jep, mit Sl abgesichert ;o)
__________________________________________________
VIVA ARIVA!
Optionen
PRESIDEN GEORGE W. BUSH doesn’t seem to have a clear strategy for finishing what he started in IRAQ , which led many analysts to start drawing parallels between the current war and VIETNAM, accusing American policymakers of repeating old mistakes committed by the U.S. government during the Vietnam era.
Washington has become majorly dependant on its military might to achieve its political ends; fooling the public by painting unrealistically rosy predictions of how long Iraq war will last.
According to analysts, questions that ended President Lyndon Johnson's hopes for a second term in 1968 are now threatening Mr. Bush.
"The VIETNAM WAR started as a guerrilla war and then escalated into a conventional war; in IRAQ , it started as a conventional war and now it's deteriorated into a guerrilla war," the USA Today once quoted Stanley Karnow a Pulitzer Prize-winning author as saying.
But some may reject the Vietnamization of the current U.S. war, arguing that VIETNAM is in Southeast Asia and IRAQ is in the Middle East, and that Vietnam war was fought in rain forests, while the current war is in desert towns.
Despite how hard the AMERICAN PRESIDENT tries to shift the world's attention from drawing similarities between the two bloody wars, the "comparison keeps creeping into the national conversation", an editorial on The Boston Globe says.
Numerous historians, political scientists and congressional Democrats have warned that a Vietnam-style quagmire is taking place in Iraq.
One true similarity between the two wars is that both Vietnam were wars of choice. Neither SADDAM HUSSEIN nor Ho Chi Minh posed any threat to the national security of the U.S. or the entire world.
However, in the two cases, the U.S. government "took the road to intervention to further the perceived American interests", The Globe article continues.
The only difference is that VIETNAM was a communist threat, while in Iraq, the threat of what Bush's admin claimed to be "Islamic extremism" didn't actually exist. Analysts say that Iraq war, with the animosity and hatred it fueled, will create extremists groups that will start posing a real threat to the Iraqi nation and the world, including the U.S.
Another similarity between the two wars is that the U.S. government reached a stage where it finds itself almost incapable of wining yet reluctant to lose.
The BUSH administration insists on "staying the course", but this is not a long-term option. The recently announced troop reduction is a reflection of the domestic pressure he's currently facing, not conditions in IRAQ.
As did Lyndon Johnson in the past, the current American President keeps repeating the rhetoric that the U.S. wont' leave the battlefield until victory, and "that we are fighting them there so we won't have to fight them at home".
Recently, Richard Nixon's defense secretary, Melvin Laird, wrote: ''Both the VIETNAM WAR and the IRAQ WAR were launched based on intelligence failures and possibly outright deception." So launching a war on the basis of lies and deception makes the two wars similar a great extent.
Moreover, in Vietnam, ''elections were choreographed by the United States to empower corrupt, selfish men who were no more than dictators in the garb of statesmen." Melvin Laird wrote.
With their reliance on fire power, the U.S. invaders in Iraq caused great destruction and loss of civilian life not less than that caused in Vietnam War. The atrocities now committed in IRAQ war and the administration's handling of the Abu Ghraib detainees are similar to those that took place in VIETNAM.
The U.S. is stuck in Iraq, and the war seems to have no end.
It was a huge mistake by the United States to deny Geneva Convention rights to foreign suspects it holds at its detention facilities. This decision four years ago led to all the prisoner abuses at the hands of American forces in IRAQ, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. This shame has now been doubled by Washington’s refusal to allow UN Human Rights monitors free access to Guantanamo, provoking widespread criticism and enforcing the view that the U.S. placed itself above international law.
According to an ediotrial on The Daily Star, the U.S. army claims that its rejection of the UN visits stems from the fact it allows regular access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). But UN Human Rights experts say that the ICRC’s monitoring is very different, as it reports its findings to the detaining authorities. In contrast, the UN monitors investigate allegations of human rights violations and report publicly to the UN General Assembly and the world body's top watchdog, the Human Rights Commission.
The UN rights commission has been trying to visit Guantanamo since it opened in January 2002. It repeated its request earlier this year because it had “reliable” reports that the detainees had been tortured. The United States reluctantly agreed to allow only three monitors, instead of five, to visit the camp for just one day. Moreover, U.S. officials refused to let the investigators speak to the detainees in private, a condition rejected by the commission, which said that free access was needed to make a "credible, objective and fair assessment of the situation of the detainees".
The United States is holding more than 500 foreign suspects at Guantanamo. Only nine have been charged. The Pentagon’s rejection to allow free access to those detainees only raises more concerns about the U.S.’s treatment of the detainees it arrests in its “war on terrorism”. It would also undermine Washington’s credibility when it tries to criticize other nations’ human rights record. It is frustrating to see that the United States, which has consistently declated its commitment to the principles of independence and democracy, doesn’t follow these terms when it is involved.
"Black sites"
UN monitors also wanted to have access to the U.S.'s secret detention centers around the world, known as “black sites”. Critics say that it is unlikely that the Red Cross visited detainees in these prisons, since Washington doesn’t admit that they exist. Reports of secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe provoked outrage in the international community when it surfaced last month. The European Union's top human rights organization, the Council of Europe, recently said that it has “credible” information that the CIA ran secret prisons in some European countries.
The EU is also investigating reports that the CIA transfers detainees through European airports to secret detention centers without any judicial involvement, a process that violates the international law, known as “extraordinary rendition”. Human right groups say that the detainees often end up being tortured in third countries.
The United States says that it is difficult to apply Geneva Convention rights on “terror suspects”, as the laws mainly govern prisoners of war. But this doesn’t justify illegal and groundless detentions, because the international covenants on human rights ban arbitrary arrests and state that every individual is entitled to be accorded basic human rights. There is simply no excuse for denying the very existence of the detainees.
After months of resistance, the White House recently approved a measure that would ban torture of foreign suspects in U.S. custody. There is also a move towards investigating reports of secret CIA prisons and flights. However, the BUSH administration has to decide quickly how it plans to treat the detainees legally. More scandals will seriously damage the principles of democracy that the Americans have claimed to be promoting.
According to an article on peacejournalism.com, the United States was one of seven states to reject the creation of the International Criminal Court in 1998, defying the rest of the world and aligning itself with notorious human rights abusers. The BUSH administration demands that American citizens be exempt from prosecution by the court, and has pressured ICC member states to sign bilateral agreements promising not to hand over any American to the court's jurisdiction.
Human rights groups say that Washington’s position towards ICC creates a double-standard system of international law: one for U.S. citizens and one for everyone else. "U.S. ambassadors have been acting like schoolyard bullies," said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Programme. "The U.S. campaign has not succeeded in undermining global support for the court. But it has succeeded in making the U.S. government look foolish and mean-spirited."
Women rights group also slam the U.S. for rejecting a UN treaty that defines what constitutes discrimination against women and outlines regulations to end the abuse of women’s human rights. “The U.S. wants to protect women's rights around the world, including in the Middle East. It is supposed to be human rights leader," says Sharma from the Women's Edge Coalition, a U.S. women rights group. “But that rings a little hollow if it does not sign a women's rights treaty."
The United States also stands alone with the East African state of Somalia in its rejection to endorse the 1989 Convention on the Rights of a Child, which the UN describes as "the most powerful legal instrument that not only recognizes but protects [children's] human rights”. Washington also voted against a UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) treaty that protects cultural diversity, claiming that the convention could curb international trade.
The Bush administration’s rejection to pass UN-adopted treaties has not only angered its critics and civil society leaders, but also those who have been Washington's allies for a long time. "It's clear, carefully balanced, and consistent with the principles of international law and fundamental human rights," Timothy Craddock, the British ambassador, said of the treaty on cultural diversity. He added that the United Kingdom and the European Union had indeed "agreed to disagree" with "one country" - meaning the United States.
These are not all the global treaties that Washington refuses to endorse. Recently when world leaders met in Canada to take further steps to curb global warming, the U.S. once again turned its back to the international community, insisting that it won‘t embrace the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement setting targets for industrialized countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. withdrew from the treaty in 2001, although it is responsible for about 35 percent of worldwide emissions. American officials claim that the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would hurt the national economy, but critics argue that transitioning the American economy to emit fewer greenhouse gases would create jobs.
The list of UN treaties that Washington ignores is too long, despite strong persuasion efforts from its staunchest allies. American leaders continue to oppose the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on nuclear weapons, the Treaty Banning Antipersonnel Mines, a protocol to create a compliance regime for the Biological Weapons Convention, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, the International Criminal Court treaty, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The U.S. is also not complying with the Chemical Weapons Commission, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and the UN framework Convention on Climate Change. Moreover, Washington recently refused to let the UN Human Rights Commission investigate prisoner abuses at Guantanamo and other detention centers.
This staunch rejection to back such international treaties is hurting the already damaged image of the United States in the eyes of the international community. "It sends the message that the United States has been the biggest violator and thrasher of international law in the post-war period," Richard Du Boff, a professor emeritus of economic history at Bryn Mawr College in the state of Pennsylvania, told the Inter Press Service.
Du Boff also noted that while Washington has often opposed UN treaties since the end of World War II, its isolationist stance "has escalated dramatically and reached a level never before challenged" during the presidency of GEORGE W. BUSH. This, he said, makes the U.S. a "rogue" state in the realm of international law. “The term is inspired by U.S. officials themselves.... This is a term that they constantly apply to any country that does something we may not like: 'rogue state'."
vom 31. Dezember 2005 20:20
Crawford, 31. Dez (Reuters) - US-Präsident George W. Bush hat das Jahr 2005 als ein Jahr mit weltweit positiven Entwicklungen für Demokratie und Freiheit bezeichnet.
"2005 war ein Jahr mit einem deutlichen Fortschritt hin zu einer freien und friedlicheren Welt und einem blühenderem Amerika", sagte Bush am Samstag in einer Radioansprache. Die Wahlen im Irak und in Afghanistan seien "unglaubliche Erfolge in der Entwicklungsgeschichte der Freiheit". "Indem wir dem Irak beim Aufbau einer friedfertigen und stabilen Demokratie helfen, werden die USA einen Verbündeten im Kampf gegen den Terror gewinnen, Reformer in Nahen Osten begeistern und mehr Sicherheit für das amerikanische Volk bekommen." Bush hob zudem die Wirtschaftsentwicklung seines Landes hervor, um das der Rest der Welt die USA beneide.