Tuesday, 19 October 2010
A NEW MIDDLE EAST, BUT NOT THE ONE BUSH AND CONDI WERE BLABBERING ABOUT
Syria’s Diversified Options
Insight.
Pulse
A sigh of relief blew across Syria when the Bush administration was
retired. Bush had backed Israel’s reoccupation of West Bank cities,
described Ariel ‘the Bulldozer’ Sharon as “a man of peace”, given
Syria two million Iraqi refugees and an inflation crisis, and blamed
Syria for the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafiq
al-Hariri. Veiled American threats of “regime change” scared the
Syrian people – who observed the blood rushing from neighbouring Iraq
– almost as much as they scared the regime itself.
Obama’s re-engagement signalled an end to the days of considering
Syria – in the predatorial neo-con phrase – “low-hanging fruit”, but
American overtures have remained cautious, the new administration’s
policy severely limited by its commitments to Israel and the domestic
Israel lobby. Obama nominated Robert Ford as the first American
ambassador to Damascus in five years, but the appointment has since
been blocked by the Senate. In May, Obama renewed Bush-era sanctions,
citing Syria’s “continuing support for terrorist organizations and
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs,” which,
“continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.”
So not much has changed. The neoconservative language is still in
place, the same elision of distance between American and Israeli
interests, and between anti-occupation militias and al-Qa’ida-style
terrorists, plus a flat refusal to understand that the countries
really under unusual and extraordinary threat of attack are Syria,
Lebanon, and – Netanyahu’s “new Amalek” – Iran.
It is clear to Syria that the US is both unwilling and unable to
deliver an Arab-Israeli settlement which would fulfill its minimum
demand – the return of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since
1967 (creating 100,000 refugees) and annexed in 1981 (a move
condemned by UN Security Council Resolution 497). Any concession on
the well-watered Golan would be experienced as a betrayal by the
Syrian people. Former President Hafez al-Asad dragged a promise of
full Israeli withdrawal from Yitzhak Rabin, but all subsequent
Israeli prime ministers have reneged on the “Rabin Pledge.”
Furthermore, the “just and comprehensive peace” envisaged as a
“strategic option” by Hafez al-Asad in 1991 is no longer on offer.
Observers of the calibre of John Mearsheimer believe that it’s now
far too late for a viable two-state solution in Israel-Palestine.
Obama’s new peacemaking tack may involve public snubs of the Israeli
right, but it doesn’t extend to enforcing UN Resolution 497, (or 242
or 191 for that matter). Obama will not apply the real pressure
needed to nudge Israel into decolonisation of the West Bank. He will
not stop the billions of dollars of direct military aid, loan
guarantees and technology transfers, nor the flow of private Zionist
cash.
In April Obama adopted as truth highly suspect Israeli allegations of
a Syrian Scud missile transfer to Lebanon’s Hizbullah. The charge,
denied in Damascus and Beirut and by the UN, provided the Arabs
another example of American double standards. Aside from the
improbability of the Scud claim (these are weapons too cumbersome for
Hizbullah’s style of warfare), it stank of hypocrisy. The US is
currently selling F35 fighter planes to Israel, the most advanced of
its own fleet.
Without a change in the balance of power, it seems impossible that
Syria will reclaim the Golan. But the region is changing, and Syria
is diversifying its options.
In Istanbul on May 9th Bashaar al-Asad reaffirmed Syria’s willingness
to resume indirect peace talks with Israel, mediated by Turkey. The
bait is there if anyone wants to bite. Meanwhile Syria is working on
relations with its ‘Northern Alliance’: Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
The superficially unlikely alliance of secular-nationalist Syria and
Islamist Iran is longstanding and unwavering, and is of great
political, economic and military value to Syria. Al-Asad, like
Turkish prime minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan, had hoped to act as a
bridge between Iran and the Obama administration. Such hopes have
evaporated, and regional security deteriorates a notch further with
each Israeli threat to bomb Iran’s nuclear programme, or re-destroy
Lebanon’s infrastructure, or unseat the Asad regime.
In a February Damascus summit, al-Asad, Iran’s Ahmadinejad and
Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared a common military front in
the event of an Israeli attack on any of their countries. Nasrallah’s
rare public appearance gave bite to the proceedings. Known – almost
uniquely among Arab leaders – for keeping his word, Nasrallah had
promised a new military doctrine a few weeks earlier:
“If you strike martyr Rafiq al-Hariri’s international airport in
Beirut, we’ll strike your Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. If you hit
our ports, we’ll hit your ports. If you attack our refineries or
factories, we’ll bomb your refineries and factories.”
For the US and Israel, Hizbullah is no more than a terrorist
organisation, despite the fact that it concentrates its fire on
military targets far more effectively than Israel (in the 2006 war,
Hizbullah killed 43 civilians and 121 soldiers; Israel killed 1190
civilians and 250 soldiers). The Party of God – which runs
construction, welfare and media projects as well as an armed wing –
is wildly popular amongst the Shia, Lebanon’s largest sect, and at
any moment has the support of at least half the country as a whole
(elections under Lebanon’s skewed sectarian system do not always
reflect this fact). And Hizbullah is dear to most Arabs, because its
few thousand fighters drawn from the downtrodden have done what the
Arab states could not, for all their emergency laws and massive
military budgets, for all their fruitless embrace of the US-sponsored
peace process: they beat back, then in 2000 ended Israel’s 22-year
occupation of Lebanon. When Hizbullah held its own against Israel’s
2006 onslaught it proved its evolution from shadowy militia to
guerrilla force to a semi-conventional army able to keep territory.
For all the current rumours of war, it may be that a balance of
terror has already been achieved on the Lebanese border, that Israel
may be contained.
A step back from Syria’s frontline alliances stands its spectacularly
improved relationship with Turkey. Under new, upwardly-mobile,
Islamist-democrat direction, Turkey is investing heavily in Syria,
Iraq and Iran, waiving visas and building railways in the interests
of trade and tourism, publically supporting Iran’s nuclear programme
while condemning Israel’s siege of Gaza. Turkey, of course, with NATO
membership and a flourishing economy, is a weight-bearing nation. An
immediate consequence of its realignement is that the Resistance
Front – ‘Moderate State’ duality which held sway in the region a few
years ago has been consigned to history’s dust-heap. The increasing
irrelevance of such US-client regimes as Egypt and Saudi Arabia is
what prompted General Petraeus’s statement that “Israeli
intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardising US
standing in the region.”
And there’s a jaded but resurgent superpower in the picture too. In
the first visit to Syria by a Russian leader since the 1917
Revolution, this month President Medvedev discussed oil, gas, and
possibly nuclear cooperation. Russia is selling Damascus warplanes,
air defence systems and anti-tank weapons, and developing the port of
Tartus to receive the Russian fleet.
“Washington’s failure to realign relations with Iran and Syria dooms
it to repeat its past,” writes Syria analyst Joshua Landis, warning
of a new cold war. Bashaar al-Asad agrees, telling La Republica, “The
Russians never believed the Cold War ended. Neither did we. It only
changed shape. It has evolved with time. Russia is reasserting
itself. And the Cold War is just a natural reaction to the attempt by
America to dominate the world.”
But the current situation is too multipolar for an old-style cold
war. This time Syria isn’t compelled to choose between two sponsors.
Instead it meets a world of independent actors – Iran, Turkey,
Russia, China, even Brazil. The big story here is the emergence of
new alliances as the global power balance shifts.
A sigh of relief blew across Syria when the Bush administration was
retired. Bush had backed Israel’s reoccupation of West Bank cities,
described Ariel ‘the Bulldozer’ Sharon as “a man of peace”, given
Syria two million Iraqi refugees and an inflation crisis, and blamed
Syria for the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafiq
al-Hariri. Veiled American threats of “regime change” scared the
Syrian people – who observed the blood rushing from neighbouring Iraq
– almost as much as they scared the regime itself.
Obama’s re-engagement signalled an end to the days of considering
Syria – in the predatorial neo-con phrase – “low-hanging fruit”, but
American overtures have remained cautious, the new administration’s
policy severely limited by its commitments to Israel and the domestic
Israel lobby. Obama nominated Robert Ford as the first American
ambassador to Damascus in five years, but the appointment has since
been blocked by the Senate. In May, Obama renewed Bush-era sanctions,
citing Syria’s “continuing support for terrorist organizations and
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and missile programs,” which,
“continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.”
So not much has changed. The neoconservative language is still in
place, the same elision of distance between American and Israeli
interests, and between anti-occupation militias and al-Qa’ida-style
terrorists, plus a flat refusal to understand that the countries
really under unusual and extraordinary threat of attack are Syria,
Lebanon, and – Netanyahu’s “new Amalek” – Iran.
It is clear to Syria that the US is both unwilling and unable to
deliver an Arab-Israeli settlement which would fulfill its minimum
demand – the return of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since
1967 (creating 100,000 refugees) and annexed in 1981 (a move
condemned by UN Security Council Resolution 497). Any concession on
the well-watered Golan would be experienced as a betrayal by the
Syrian people. Former President Hafez al-Asad dragged a promise of
full Israeli withdrawal from Yitzhak Rabin, but all subsequent
Israeli prime ministers have reneged on the “Rabin Pledge.”
Furthermore, the “just and comprehensive peace” envisaged as a
“strategic option” by Hafez al-Asad in 1991 is no longer on offer.
Observers of the calibre of John Mearsheimer believe that it’s now
far too late for a viable two-state solution in Israel-Palestine.
Obama’s new peacemaking tack may involve public snubs of the Israeli
right, but it doesn’t extend to enforcing UN Resolution 497, (or 242
or 191 for that matter). Obama will not apply the real pressure
needed to nudge Israel into decolonisation of the West Bank. He will
not stop the billions of dollars of direct military aid, loan
guarantees and technology transfers, nor the flow of private Zionist
cash.
In April Obama adopted as truth highly suspect Israeli allegations of
a Syrian Scud missile transfer to Lebanon’s Hizbullah. The charge,
denied in Damascus and Beirut and by the UN, provided the Arabs
another example of American double standards. Aside from the
improbability of the Scud claim (these are weapons too cumbersome for
Hizbullah’s style of warfare), it stank of hypocrisy. The US is
currently selling F35 fighter planes to Israel, the most advanced of
its own fleet.
Without a change in the balance of power, it seems impossible that
Syria will reclaim the Golan. But the region is changing, and Syria
is diversifying its options.
In Istanbul on May 9th Bashaar al-Asad reaffirmed Syria’s willingness
to resume indirect peace talks with Israel, mediated by Turkey. The
bait is there if anyone wants to bite. Meanwhile Syria is working on
relations with its ‘Northern Alliance’: Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
The superficially unlikely alliance of secular-nationalist Syria and
Islamist Iran is longstanding and unwavering, and is of great
political, economic and military value to Syria. Al-Asad, like
Turkish prime minister Tayyip Recep Erdogan, had hoped to act as a
bridge between Iran and the Obama administration. Such hopes have
evaporated, and regional security deteriorates a notch further with
each Israeli threat to bomb Iran’s nuclear programme, or re-destroy
Lebanon’s infrastructure, or unseat the Asad regime.
In a February Damascus summit, al-Asad, Iran’s Ahmadinejad and
Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared a common military front in
the event of an Israeli attack on any of their countries. Nasrallah’s
rare public appearance gave bite to the proceedings. Known – almost
uniquely among Arab leaders – for keeping his word, Nasrallah had
promised a new military doctrine a few weeks earlier:
“If you strike martyr Rafiq al-Hariri’s international airport in
Beirut, we’ll strike your Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. If you hit
our ports, we’ll hit your ports. If you attack our refineries or
factories, we’ll bomb your refineries and factories.”
For the US and Israel, Hizbullah is no more than a terrorist
organisation, despite the fact that it concentrates its fire on
military targets far more effectively than Israel (in the 2006 war,
Hizbullah killed 43 civilians and 121 soldiers; Israel killed 1190
civilians and 250 soldiers). The Party of God – which runs
construction, welfare and media projects as well as an armed wing –
is wildly popular amongst the Shia, Lebanon’s largest sect, and at
any moment has the support of at least half the country as a whole
(elections under Lebanon’s skewed sectarian system do not always
reflect this fact). And Hizbullah is dear to most Arabs, because its
few thousand fighters drawn from the downtrodden have done what the
Arab states could not, for all their emergency laws and massive
military budgets, for all their fruitless embrace of the US-sponsored
peace process: they beat back, then in 2000 ended Israel’s 22-year
occupation of Lebanon. When Hizbullah held its own against Israel’s
2006 onslaught it proved its evolution from shadowy militia to
guerrilla force to a semi-conventional army able to keep territory.
For all the current rumours of war, it may be that a balance of
terror has already been achieved on the Lebanese border, that Israel
may be contained.
A step back from Syria’s frontline alliances stands its spectacularly
improved relationship with Turkey. Under new, upwardly-mobile,
Islamist-democrat direction, Turkey is investing heavily in Syria,
Iraq and Iran, waiving visas and building railways in the interests
of trade and tourism, publically supporting Iran’s nuclear programme
while condemning Israel’s siege of Gaza. Turkey, of course, with NATO
membership and a flourishing economy, is a weight-bearing nation. An
immediate consequence of its realignement is that the Resistance
Front – ‘Moderate State’ duality which held sway in the region a few
years ago has been consigned to history’s dust-heap. The increasing
irrelevance of such US-client regimes as Egypt and Saudi Arabia is
what prompted General Petraeus’s statement that “Israeli
intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardising US
standing in the region.”
And there’s a jaded but resurgent superpower in the picture too. In
the first visit to Syria by a Russian leader since the 1917
Revolution, this month President Medvedev discussed oil, gas, and
possibly nuclear cooperation. Russia is selling Damascus warplanes,
air defence systems and anti-tank weapons, and developing the port of
Tartus to receive the Russian fleet.
“Washington’s failure to realign relations with Iran and Syria dooms
it to repeat its past,” writes Syria analyst Joshua Landis, warning
of a new cold war. Bashaar al-Asad agrees, telling La Republica, “The
Russians never believed the Cold War ended. Neither did we. It only
changed shape. It has evolved with time. Russia is reasserting
itself. And the Cold War is just a natural reaction to the attempt by
America to dominate the world.”
But the current situation is too multipolar for an old-style cold
war. This time Syria isn’t compelled to choose between two sponsors.
Instead it meets a world of independent actors – Iran, Turkey,
Russia, China, even Brazil. The big story here is the emergence of
new alliances as the global power balance shifts.
UGLY ISLAMOPHOBIC ATTACK BY FRENCH WOMAN ON MUSLIM SISTERS
The "country of human rights" or
French White Supremacist Republicanism?
14 October 2010
be given a two-month suspended prison sentence and a fine
of €750 (£659) after she admitted tearing a full Islamic
veil from the face of a tourist from the United Arab
Emirates.
The woman, a retired English teacher identified only as
Marl癡ne Ruby, said she was "irritated" by the sight of two
women shopping in Paris in their niqabs.
She said that, not realising the pair were foreigners, she
initially pulled one of their veils while chastising them
in French for covering their faces. Minutes later, upon
noticing that the woman concerned had replaced her veil,
she became further enraged.
"I tore her niqab off and I shouted. I wanted to create a
bit of a scandal," she told Le Parisien. Her anger, she
said, sprang from witnessing the treatment of women in the
Middle East, where she used to teach. "I think it is
unacceptable for the niqab to be worn in the country of
human rights. It's a muzzle," she said.
Although she admits removing the veil, Ruby denies
allegations that she hit and bit the tourist, who claims to
have been so distressed by the incident that she had not
returned to France since. The victim's lawyer said her
client was on the receiving end of "an attack on religious
freedom".
In a Paris court, the prosecutor, Anne de Fontette, said
the behaviour was not something that could be permitted in
France. "Living together requires, quite simply, an
acceptance of the other, of the way in which [the other] is
dressed," De Fontette said.
She said that although at the time of the attack, in
February, the full Islamic veil was legal attire in France,
the accused's actions would be reprehensible even now – a
month after the ban on wearing face-covering veils in
public became law.
Critics of the ban, which threatens wearers of the niqab
with a fine of €150 and a course in French citizenship,
have warned it is an unnecessary step that affects a small
minority of women but stirs up tensions.
A verdict is expected on 4 November.
LEILA KHALED'S ADDRESS TO LONDON EVENT COMMEMORATING 10yrs SINCE THE START OF THE SECOND/AL-AQSA INTIFADA
Brothers, Sisters and comrades,
I am glad and honoured to be addressing you for this event.
I would like to tell you that from the start of our Palestinian
revolutionary movement, we knew we were not alone, that our struggle
was part of the international struggle. This makes us continue our
struggle without fear in facing zionism and imperialism, especially
US imperialism, as we know people around the world are with us
practically and not just theoretically.
We have learnt from history that when a people is occupied and
oppressed they will revolt to liberate themselves using all methods
including armed struggle, which is also enshrined in the UN Charter.
Our homeland has been occupied since 1948, and I Leila Khaled have
been a refugee for 62 years like 6 million other refugees inside and
outside of Palestine. In Palestine we have an occupation, the
occupation is the terrorism that oppresses the people of the land,
the Palestinians.
In the 21st Century capitalism and imperialism are trying to impose
their system of globalisation, which is not just an economic
globalisation, but exploits all aspects of the life of individuals
and peoples. But in confronting the system we say we should globalise
the struggle and defend the oppressed nations, our homeland and our
humanity.
I ask you all to research and look into the conflicts in the world so
that you have more knowledge of what is taking place, and if you
study, you will find the answers. I ask you on the basis of your
learning and understanding to struggle to establish a future based
not on WMDs and wars of aggression, but on peoples civilisation.
I request you to use this event to develop the BDS movements, to join
the struggle against imperialism and racism in the world. Continue to
get together and further deepen our struggles to defend our future.
Leila Khaled,
Amman, Jordan
01 October, 2010
==================================
INTERNATIONALISM & SOLIDARITY WITH PALESTINE |
| Time | Saturday at 5:30pm - October 3 at 12:00am |
|---|---|
| Location | Ladbroke Grove / Portobello Inn on the Green, 3-5 Thorpe Close, Ladbroke Grove, W10 5XL London, United Kingdom |
| More Info | ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ 10 YEARS SINCE THE INTIFADA series Part I INTERNATIONALISM & SOLIDARITY WITH PALESTINE "We are not liberating Palestine, Palestine is liberating us" ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ This is the first event in a series of events which commemorates 10 years since the eruption of the defining struggle of our generation - the Al-Aqsa / Second Intifada against the zionist-apartheid state. It is also a salute to that struggle. This event will explore the development of solidarity and internationalism with Palestine during the Intifada; what forms of struggle were more effective than others, and how we can continue to build a radical and effective internationalism for Palestine. ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ PROGRAM: * There will be large prints from paintings from artists from Gaza * There will also be an exclusive photo gallery by journalist and war correspondent Mustafa Khalili who covered the Intifada 1745: Doors open 1800: Welcoming address by Moktar Alatas followed by filmmaker Gabrielle Tierney presents her film on the Raytheon 9: NOT IN OUR NAME, with Q&A 1900: PANEL DEBATE with: - Lizzie Cocker - Gaza Demonstrators Defence Campaign - Arzu Merali - Islamic Human Rights Commission - Chris Osmond - Smash EDO - Jody McIntyre - grassroots peace activist and internationalist - Bellavia Ribeiro-Addy - Palestine Solidarity Campaign chair - Sukant Chandan 2130: CULTURAL PROGRAM compered by Lara Ahmad Louisa Maynard and Soufian Saihi (poetry recital and live Oud) Where's Huey? dedication to Rachel Corrie Empress Emmanuelle DJ Steaz Nekz (Brotherhood Movement) STORMTRAP (Ramallah Underground) and Kolonel Bleep GAZATEAM SHADIA MANSOUR LOWKEY ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ **NOTE: The organisers reserve the right to eject anyone causing distress or disruption to the event. There will be friendly but firm security at the event. ** No persons or organisations are allowed to distribute material at this event without prior permission from the event organisers. * Please note that the whole event is being filmed and will be put on youtube The '10 years since the eruption of the Intifada' is an initiative of Sons of Malcolm, although people are more than welcome to get involved by getting in touch with event organiser: sukant.chandan@gmail.com |
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Sunday, 12 September 2010
VIDEO AND REVIEW OF NEW LOWKEY TRACK - 'TERRORIST?'
Lowkey is on a serious roll at the moment – everything he is putting out is lyrically, musically and politically on point. The latest video from his forthcoming (and much-anticipated) album ‘Soundtrack to the Struggle’ is called ‘Terrorist?’, and it explores the true meanings of the concepts ‘terror’ and ‘terrorism’.
Lowkey starts off by quoting the dictionary definitions as follows:
Terrorist: the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coersion.
Terror: violent or destructive acts such as bombing, committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.
He proceeds to compare some of the people that are labeled in the media as ‘terrorists’ (ie. Iraqis and others using primitive explosives against colonial domination) with the powerful states and corporations that are terrorising millions on a daily basis.
What’s the bigger threat to human society,
BAE Systems or home-made IEDs?
Remote controlled drones killing off human lives
Or man with home-made bomb committing suicide?
Although the ‘terrorist’ label has primarily been used to describe Muslims, particularly since the twin towers attack, Lowkey points out that resistance to imperialism isn’t limited to any one religion or racial group, and that all oppressed people are united by their opposition to the empire.
This is very basic
One nation in the world has over a thousand military bases.
They say it’s religion, when clearly it isn’t
It’s not just Muslims that oppose your imperialism.
Is Hugo Chavez a Muslim? Nah, I didn’t think so.
Is Castro a Muslim? Nah, I didn’t think so.
He brilliantly exposes the hypocrisy of western colonisers describing anybody as terrorists:
Lumumbah was democracy
Mossadeq was democracy
Allende was democracy
Hypocrisy, it bothers me
Call you terrorist if you don’t wanna be a colony
Refuse to bow down to a policy of robbery
The song is summed up by its beautiful, haunting chorus:
They’re calling me a terrorist
Like they don’t know who the terror is
When they put it on me I tell them this
I’m all about peace and love.
They’re calling me a terrorist
Like they don’t know who the terror is
Insulting my intelligence
Oh how these people judge
All in all, another very powerful track from Lowkey, with excellent production by the ever-reliable Red Skull and a highly professional, innovative video by Global Faction. Please spread the word!
Thursday, 9 September 2010
YANKEE TROOPS STAY LOYAL TO THEIR TRADITIONS: KILLING INNOCENTS AT RANDOM AND COLLECTING FINGERS AS TROPHIES
US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for
sport and collected fingers as trophies'
Soldiers face charges over secret 'kill team' which allegedly murdered
at random and collected fingers as trophies of war
The Guardian, 09 Sept, 2010
team" that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at
random and collected their fingers as trophies.
Five of the soldiers are charged with murdering three
Afghan men who were allegedly killed for sport in separate
attacks this year. Seven others are accused of covering up
the killings and assaulting a recruit who exposed the
murders when he reported other abuses, including members of
the unit smoking hashish stolen from civilians.
In one of the most serious accusations of war crimes to
emerge from the Afghan conflict, the killings are alleged
to have been carried out by members of a Stryker infantry
brigade based in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan.
According to investigators and legal documents, discussion
of killing Afghan civilians began after the arrival of
Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs at forward operating base
Ramrod last November. Other soldiers told the army's
criminal investigation command that Gibbs boasted of the
things he got away with while serving in Iraq and said how
easy it would be to "toss a grenade at someone and kill
them".
One soldier said he believed Gibbs was "feeling out the
platoon".
Investigators said Gibbs, 25, hatched a plan with another
soldier, Jeremy Morlock, 22, and other members of the unit
to form a "kill team". While on patrol over the following
months they allegedly killed at least three Afghan
civilians. According to the charge sheet, the first target
was Gul Mudin, who was killed "by means of throwing a
fragmentary grenade at him and shooting him with a rifle",
when the patrol entered the village of La Mohammed Kalay in
January.
Morlock and another soldier, Andrew Holmes, were on guard
at the edge of a poppy field when Mudin emerged and stopped
on the other side of a wall from the soldiers. Gibbs
allegedly handed Morlock a grenade who armed it and dropped
it over the wall next to the Afghan and dived for cover.
Holmes, 19, then allegedly fired over the wall.
Later in the day, Morlock is alleged to have told Holmes
that the killing was for fun and threatened him if he told
anyone.
The second victim, Marach Agha, was shot and killed the
following month. Gibbs is alleged to have shot him and
placed a Kalashnikov next to the body to justify the
killing. In May Mullah Adadhdad was killed after being shot
and attacked with a grenade.
The Army Times reported that a least one of the soldiers
collected the fingers of the victims as souvenirs and that
some of them posed for photographs with the bodies.
Five soldiers – Gibbs, Morlock, Holmes, Michael Wagnon and
Adam Winfield – are accused of murder and aggravated
assault among other charges. All of the soldiers have
denied the charges. They face the death penalty or life in
prison if convicted.
The killings came to light in May after the army began
investigating a brutal assault on a soldier who told
superiors that members of his unit were smoking hashish.
The Army Times reported that members of the unit regularly
smoked the drug on duty and sometimes stole it from
civilians.
The soldier, who was straight out of basic training and has
not been named, said he witnessed the smoking of hashish
and drinking of smuggled alcohol but initially did not
report it out of loyalty to his comrades. But when he
returned from an assignment at an army headquarters and
discovered soldiers using the shipping container in which
he was billeted to smoke hashish he reported it.
Two days later members of his platoon, including Gibbs and
Morlock, accused him of "snitching", gave him a beating and
told him to keep his mouth shut. The soldier reported the
beating and threats to his officers and then told
investigators what he knew of the "kill team".
Following the arrest of the original five accused in June,
seven other soldiers were charged last month with
attempting to cover up the killings and violent assault on
the soldier who reported the smoking of hashish. The
charges will be considered by a military grand jury later
this month which will decide if there is enough evidence
for a court martial. Army investigators say Morlock has
admitted his involvement in the killings and given details
about the role of others including Gibbs. But his lawyer,
Michael Waddington, is seeking to have that confession
suppressed because he says his client was interviewed while
under the influence of prescription drugs taken for
battlefield injuries and that he was also suffering from
traumatic brain injury.
"Our position is that his statements were incoherent, and
taken while he was under a cocktail of drugs that shouldn't
have been mixed," Waddington told the Seattle Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
