The war on Iraq

Abbas wants settlement freeze at summit

JERUSALEM - Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will demand Israel commit to a freeze on all settlement construction at a peace summit Thursday, the first since the two sides agreed to resume peace talks at a U.S.-sponsored conference last month.

On Wednesday, Abbas appealed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to press Israel on the construction issue, Abbas aide Nabil Abu Rdeneh said. A State Department spokesman said Rice called both Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and urged them to make progress toward an agreement.

Israel announced last month that it was building 307 new apartments in Har Homa, part of a ring of Jewish neighborhoods around east Jerusalem where about 180,000 Israelis live, and Palestinians are demanding that Israel halt the project.

Israel, which annexed east Jerusalem after capturing it along with the West Bank in 1967, does not accept demands to limit its construction there.

Abu Rdeneh said joint committees would begin discussing the main issues, "but there is a need to freeze the settlement activities in order to create the appropriate atmosphere to bring progress in the peace process." He said Abbas will ask Olmert for "a clear cessation of settlement activities."

The main issues — final borders, Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem and its holy sites — have stymied years of peace efforts.

Thursday's Olmert-Abbas meeting comes just two weeks before President Bush visits the region in an effort to build on momentum from the Annapolis summit.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said that Israel is committed to trying for a peace treaty with the Palestinians in 2008, as decided at Annapolis.

"This is an ambitious goal. It will demand our tenacity, our determination and both sides coming to the table in the spirit of seriousness," he said.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said "this (construction) kills the credibility of the peace process."

In the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheik Wednesday, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak also criticized the Jerusalem construction plans in a meeting with the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who in turn pressed Egypt to do more to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza.

Israel is concerned that Gaza's Hamas rulers are using tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border to smuggle ammunition and explosives to brace for an intensified round of fighting against Israel. Egypt angrily rejected the charges.

At the meeting, the two sides agreed to set up a joint security team to coordinate anti-smuggling operations, and Israel said it would consider supplying Egypt with technology and intelligence reports, Israeli security officials said.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the contacts.

An influential U.S. senator visiting Israel said Wednesday that Egypt must crack down on the "intolerable" flow of the weapons into the Gaza Strip.

"And if they don't, I think it would be appropriate to condition aid to them," Sen. Arlen Specter, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters in Jerusalem.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni infuriated Cairo earlier this week by accusing its forces of doing a "terrible" job in securing the border, saying this stands in the way of Israel's negotiations with the Palestinians because it strengthens Gaza extremists.

Following his visit, Barak said the crisis with Egypt was over.

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Hizbullah and Lebanon,

It seems that the call from Syria to hinder the international tribunal on Alhariri’s assassination is working. Hizbullah have reacted directly according to the call and they are trying now to topple the Lebanese government with their stupid demonstrations ignoring that they have destroyed Lebanon when they missed up with the Israelis and even though they are trying now to blame the Lebanese government for everything they caused from the beginning.
They want a weak Lebanon and a proxy battlefield for the Syrians. It is something that the Lebanese people refuses and they emphasised that Lebanon will not be the carnage of another country. The Syrian and the Iranian are using the Shia in Lebanon to work for them and do whatever their allies ask them to do from attacking Israel to toppling the government of Lebanon.
What is happening in Lebanon is unbearable. I think the right decision would be to give Hisbullah a sovereign country in southern Lebanon or part of it and the US and Israel can do what ever they want with Hizbullah and they should not be allowed to destroy Lebanon for the eyes of Iran and Syria.
This suggestion is not difficult to be achieved and Saad Hariri can ask the Shia before this to vote for the sovereign Lebanon and I am sure many of them will abandon Hizbullah. The majority of the Shia are with Saad Hariri and his plan to build a peaceful and prosper Lebanon but they are being threatened by the Hizbullah terrorists to stand by them by force.

Henry Kissinger remarks on Iraq,

If you have been upset by the remarks that Kissinger said then you should not. The only thing that you should do is to try to find a way to deal with what he said and why he said that. From my side I think the man was right in this and you should listen to reason.
My input today will be about overcoming the civil war that is running in Iraq since the US army could not manage the Iraqi borders and canceled all the security and army forces.
Let me tell you a fact that you might not see now. When the Shia were controlling the ministry of interior affairs Bremer noticed that it is ciaos in the security situation and that the Almehdi militia were not being cracked down by the police because they were thinking that they should not do that to their brothers specially the minister which means “leader” to them was also Shia. That’s why Bremer ordered the change of the interior minister directly and ordered that a Sunni become in that position. The mistakes of the interior ministry have decreased sharply and the problems began to float on the surface from another ministry that being controlled by Shia, which is the defense ministry. Now the ministry of defense are controlling by the Sunnis and there is no problem at all in that ministry. Which means that you should understand that the Sunnis ministers are more efficient in controlling the Shia and the Sunni than the Shia ministers. Even now the interior minister on which we heard that he is trying to be good but the Shia front that is being controlled by Iran is not allowing him to be good and sincere.
I hope that you see these facts that might help you in finding a way to limit the influence of Iran and their proxies in Iraq.
Wish you luck but not greed,
Iraqi expert

Be wise Bush,
The blood bath continues and you are in this deep shit not knowing how to come out of it. I can feel your depression but MAY BE YOU DON’T CARE. I said might be because it seems when you are on TV that you don’t listen to the news. Or you don’t even care to the American soldiers that are being exposed to all the threats that the Iraqi streets pose. Is it really the war on terror or is it the war that produces terror!
Well, you can answer that question between you and yourself. I think that you were possessed by the idea of breaking Saddam’s back without knowing what to do after that.
I gave you a free advice that I hope you will listen to it at the end. It is very difficult to see Iraqis and Americans die like that without paying much attention to the only solution to the crisis. I agree with you about democracy but the problem is that democracy must be generated from inside or outside but not with violence. Violence generates violence and the Arabs as I mentioned earlier in my blog really feel you and your policies abuse them. They and the Iranian will not allow another Palestine! All you have to do is to put an officer that is not among those who have come with your tanks because if that officer came by your tanks to Iraq then he has no respect inside Iraq.
Believe me Bush I know the solution and every day you don’t do what I think is right then you are wasting your time. The blood bath will continue until you bring Sultan Hashim or someone like him. He should be a Sunni like the 95% of the Muslims and he should be not connected with Iran.
The Shia will accept him if you tell them to accept him because they are afraid from you unlike the Sunnis who don’t fear but from God.
I hope Iraq become a democracy like the western world but I am reasonable and I know it can't be, at least not in this decade!

Regards,
Iraqi expert

About who to rule Iraq

I can see that you are in a deep mess Mr. Bush. Do you think it is going to be easier when you change the defence minister? The answer is that you are wrong.
There will be more blood and more agony all the time unless you listen to the voice of reason, the voice of wisdom.
The bottom line is that:
Iran and Syria is not going to let you feel comfortable in Iraq. The Arabs I mean the people also will not allow another “Palestine”. Therefore, you should be wiser and try to accept my advice to install General Sultan Hashim and give him the necessary mandate to control everything and I mean everything. Then you can tell him that he is the “guardian” of democracy in Iraq despite that he will need to defuse the Iranian influence in Iraq through the use of the “proper” force. You know Alqaeda is also a threat to him. He is not Bathies’t like the Shia want to depict the situation but he is a qualified officer who have spent his life serving the country with honour.
Any other officer will not change the situation believe me! I know the Iraqis and the sectarian division is imposing few things that you cannot understand.
The Shia now are messing in the country. I will speak to you about them later. The most important that you follow my advices in order not to be considered like Rumsfield as a fiasco.

Best Regards,
An Iraqi expert!

Iraq prisoner abuse 'was routine'

bbcnews,
The torture of prisoners in US custody in Iraq was authorised and routine even after the Abu Ghraib scandal came to light, a US-based rights group says.
Soldiers' accounts show that detainees routinely faced severe beatings, sleep deprivation and other abuses for much of 2003-2005, Human Rights Watch says.
Soldiers who tried to complain about the abuse were rebuffed or ignored.
But a Pentagon spokesman said 12 reviews had found there was no policy condoning or encouraging abuse.
"The standard of treatment is and always has been humane treatment of detainees in [Department of Defence] custody," Lt Col Mark Ballesteros told Reuters news agency.
John Sifton, author of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, said the accounts given to the group by former US soldiers revealed the opposite.
"These accounts rebut US government claims that torture and abuse in Iraq was unauthorised and exceptional - on the contrary, it was condoned and commonly used," he said.
Photos showing US soldiers abusing and sexually humiliating Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad in 2004 shocked the world.
Eleven US soldiers have now been convicted in connection with the abuse. No senior officers have so far been convicted.
Stress positions
The HRW report gives first-hand accounts of abuses at a detention centre at Baghdad airport called Camp Nama, as well as a facility near Mosul airport and a base near al-Qaim on the Syrian border.
An interrogator posted at Mosul in 2004 told HRW that he and his fellow interrogators had been told by the officer in charge of their unit to use abuse techniques on some detainees.

He described how they used dogs to intimidate the detainees, had them walking on their knees in the gravel and standing for extended periods with arms outstretched holding water bottles.
An interrogator at Camp Nama said the use of abuse techniques was commonplace - authorisation forms could be easily prepared for commanding officers to sign.
"I never saw a sheet that wasn't signed," the soldier said.
HRW gives accounts of instances where soldiers who were concerned by the abuses were thwarted from reporting it.
One military police guard at the facility near Qaim, who took his concerns to an officer, was reportedly told: "You need to go ahead and drop this, sergeant."
Geneva Conventions
HRW says its findings show that criminal investigations of abuses need to follow the military chain of command, rather than focusing on lower-ranked soldiers.
The New York-based organisation calls on the US Congress to appoint an independent commission to investigate the extent of the problem, and urges US President George W Bush to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of the abuse.
"It is now clear that leaders were responsible for abuses in Iraq," Mr Sifton said. "It's time for them to be held accountable".
The Bush administration has faced intense and sustained international criticism for its treatment of prisoners - in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Earlier this month, the White House announced that all US military detainees would be treated in line with the minimum standards of the Geneva Conventions.
The shift in policy came almost two weeks after the US Supreme Court ruled that the conventions applied to detainees.
The Geneva Conventions, which were passed in the wake of World War II, are meant to guarantee minimum standards of protection for non-combatants and former combatants in war.

Iraq's demografic map

This is Iraq's demografic map,

It is an important map.

Iraq's geopolitical map

This is Iraq's geopolitical map,

Iraq Body Count: War dead figures

BBC world service:
The number of civilians reported to have been killed during the Iraq war and subsequent military presence is being recorded by the campaign group Iraq Body Count.
On 1 June 2006 it put the total number of civilian dead at 36,149 to 40,548 and the number of police dead at 2,145.
The issue of counting the number of Iraqis killed since the US-led invasion is highly controversial and the figure is disputed.
The US and UK military authorities do not record the number of civilians killed by their forces. The security situation and administrative chaos also make counting extremely difficult.
Iraq Body Count uses a survey of online news reports to produce its running tally, including a "minimum" and "maximum" figure where reports differ, or it is unclear whether a person killed was a civilian.
The figures include not only deaths caused by military action, but also those it considers a "direct result" of Iraq's breakdown in law and order.
In a statement on its website, Iraq Body Count says "civilian casualties are the most unacceptable consequence of all wars" and must be recorded and - if possible - investigated.
Because it relies on deaths reported by the media, it suggests its figures are an underestimate as "many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported".
Further details about Iraq's population
On 12 December, US President George W Bush said about 30,000 Iraqis had been killed since the war began.
His spokesman later said the figure was not an official one and was based on "public estimates cited by media reports" - a method similar to that used by Iraq Body Count.
Nevertheless, Iraq Body Count's methods and its ability to compile accurate statistics have been questioned by critics, with some arguing that it has greatly underestimated the number of casualties.
One study, published by the Lancet medical journal in October 2004, suggested that poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" had led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq.
The US and UK governments have both said the chaotic situation in Iraq makes it impossible to gather such information accurately.

US accuses Iran of fostering Iraq violence

General Casey accuses Iran of supporting violent Shiite groups, using surrogates to carry out terror strikes in Iraq.
WASHINGTON - The United States accused Iran Thursday of being a major force behind deadly unrest in Iraq, saying Tehran trains and arms violent Shiite groups and uses "surrogates" to carry out terror strikes.
"Since January, we have seen an upsurge in their support, particularly to the Shia extremist groups," the top US commander in Iraq, General George Casey, told reporters at the Pentagon. "It's decidedly unhelpful."
"We are quite confident that the Iranians, through their covert special operations forces, are providing weapons, IED technology and training to Shia extremist groups in Iraq, the training being conducted in Iran and in some cases probably in Lebanon through their surrogates," he said.
"They are using surrogates to conduct terrorist operations in Iraq both against us and against the Iraqi people," he said at a joint press conference with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) like road-side bombs are among the most commonly used weapons in attacks on US forces in Iraq.
"They are providing the materiel to Shia extremist groups that operate as their surrogates," he said. "There are some indications that Lebanese Hezbollah is also used in some of the training functions for the Iranians."
Casey said that he had no evidence of Iranians actually inside Iraq directing attacks against Iraqis or US forces, but said that he assumed elements in Tehran were guiding the Iranian special operations forces' efforts.
"You would assume that they're not doing that independently, that there is some central direction from somebody in Tehran," the general said.
Asked whether he believed that Iranians were directing attacks, Casey replied: "I have no evidence that there are Iranians in Iraq that are actually directing attacks.
Asked which Iraqi groups are getting Iranian aid, Casey replied: "We think they're supporting all - not all of the groups, but a wide variety of groups across southern Iraq."
The White House and Pentagon have repeatedly accused elements from Iran's security apparatus of arming Iraqi insurgent groups. But they concede they have no clear proof that the Iranian government is sponsoring the activities.
Iran is thought to have great influence with Shiite radical cleric Moqtada Sadr and his Madhi Army militia.
Earlier this month, White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley told CNN television that Iran was no longer interested in direct talks with the United States about the situation in Iraq.
"The Iranians have indicated they no longer have any interest in doing that," Hadley said, when asked in an interview with CNN if the US ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, will be meeting with Iranian diplomats in Baghdad.
Iran had indicated in April that it was interested in such talks.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice authorized Khalilzad to reach out to the Iranians, and up to late May US officials were saying that talks could go forward - even though Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by then had said the talks would be of no use.

From Racism to Islam

By Marc Springer

My journey to Islam was not the usual one. Most white converts I have met usually come from a liberal and very open-minded background. My upbringing was far from this. Both of my parents were in the US military and my upbringing was very strict. My father was very racist, and because of this, I also was very racist myself until about the age of 24. I can remember as a child listening to my father lambaste and attack Arabs and Muslims and bash their religion, their way of life, and their race. As this was the way I was raised, this is the position I took as well.
I had a very troubled childhood, as the above can only begin to describe. My father was an alcoholic and very physically abusive. I grew up with the constant fear of violence against myself, my mother, my brother and my sister. Coming from such a background, it only seemed natural that I would seek a group of people to replace the family life that I did not have at home. The problem is, with the way I was raised, the people I sought this companionship from were the worst of the worst.
For several years, I was heavily involved in the racist skinhead movement. As with anything else in my life, I was not content to be a follower, but always enjoyed taking the lead. My involvement in the neo-Nazi skinhead movement was the same. I was well known and feared in the town where I grew up.
My longing for family and friends, however, never killed the seed in my heart that told me what I was doing was wrong and unjust. I remember a Mexican schoolmate of mine asking me, when I was 16, "Why do you hang out with those losers, you are better than that." He was right, but I guess there was a part of me that, even though I hated my father for what he was doing to the family, wanted to be just like him. That is where my racism and hatred came from.
The situation at home became worse for me, so I was forced to move out on my own. I think from this moment this is what sealed my future as a Muslim — getting away from my father and the hatred that he felt, and experiencing the world and people on my own. The next few years were pretty rough on me and I continued for many years on the path that I had started on. I was drinking, doing drugs, and getting into very serious trouble with the law. All the while, all of the people I had sought to take the place of my family turned out to be the worst sort of people: violent, dishonest, and untrustworthy.
I left my home state when I was 23, and, for the first time in my life, I was able to experience life without the overwhelming figure of my father hanging over me and the malign influence of my friends. I started to see all of the carefully crafted lies that my life was based on crumble around me. I slowly saw all of the truths that my life was based on unravel. It is at this point that I started to question everything in my life, including my religious beliefs. I took the stance that everything in my life was suspect and had to be reevaluated.
I had a girlfriend at the time whom I later married. She had also been active in the racist skinhead scene that I was involved with and I was always worried that I might offend her with my new ideas and way of thinking. I had always been an avid reader, and I took the next couple of years to read everything I could get my hands onto. This passion of mine led me to collect a small library of books that now consists of over a thousand volumes, everything from Kant and Descartes to Tariq Ramadan and Edward Said.
During this time, the Intifada was raging in Palestine. My father, racist and anti-Semite though he was, had always supported the Jewish state. I now think that he hated Jews, as well as anyone else who wasn't white, but he hated the Arabs more than he hated the Jews, so that is why he supported Israel. As I was rethinking everything I had been taught when I was younger, I decided to take a closer look at this struggle in the Middle East.
I started reading general books on Middle Eastern history and the national politics of the area. Again and again I found that I was having trouble understanding both the history and politics of the area because I didn't have any sort of understanding about Islam. As a child, I had attended church from time to time, but didn't have a firm grounding in any religion. My father had a hatred of Islam, so as a teen I had shared this hatred without having a clue as to what Islam was about or what Muslims believed. It goes without saying that I had never met a Muslim in my life.
So I started to look into Islam, its history and its beliefs. At this time, the Internet was gaining in popularity so I used both print and Internet sources to help me gain an understanding on the basics of Islam and its history. I was living in Washington State and was not aware of a Muslim community there, so there was really no one with whom I could talk. Shortly after this, my wife's job transferred her to England, so that was all about to change.
When I got to England, my interests strayed for a while. I was in a new country with a long and rich history, so I spent a few years exploring this history and traveling all over Europe. But from time to time, events would draw my attention back to the Middle East and the politics there. I was now in a country with a long-standing and well-established Muslim community, although the town I lived in didn't have any such community. I began now to read in earnest about Islamic beliefs, ideology, and history. I also started reading the Qur'an.
From the very beginning, certain things struck a chord with me and answered doubts I had always had concerning the religion I was raised in. I had always taken issue with the idea that God could have offspring. From my readings, I recognized this belief as being derived from pagan sources. Zeus, Odin, and numerous other pagan gods all had children.
In the case of Odin, his followers even believed that he had been hung on a tree, much like Christians believe that Jesus was hung on a cross. Odinists, the name given to the followers of this ancient northern European religion, also believed in a trinity of sorts formed by Odin, his son Thor, and his consort Freja. It was clear this innovation of the Christians did not have its basis in God, but in previous pagan beliefs.
The other issue that I had always struggled with was the concept of original sin. The idea that God could be so unjust as to hold myself and everyone else responsible for the sins of others who had died thousands of years before me just seemed so unjust. I had a basic concept of God, and the idea He could be so unjust to do such a thing just did not sit well with me.
It always seemed to me that Christians just didn't have the answer to these questions, and if they did, their answers just reinforced these unjust positions. I looked to Judaism, but that religion offered more questions than answers as well. Their attitude towards the prophets (peace be upon them all) was disgraceful. Their religious texts accused these greatest of men of the most terrible crimes and I refused to believe God would pick such men to lead His people on earth. If Judaism held such beliefs, how could I look to them for guidance?
It seemed clear that Islam had all of the answers. It cleared up the confusion of the lie of the trinity and asserted Jesus' true role as a prophet, and not as the son of God. Islam reveres all of the prophets and recognizes them for the great people they were. In Islam and the values it promotes, I saw the answer to my problems and questions, and the future of mankind. My main issue was to try implementing Islam in my life.
As I said before, I was married to a woman who came from the same background as I did. She didn't have an easy time dealing with my interest in this subject, whether it be Islam or Middle Eastern politics. I knew that the way I needed to change my life was to start living in a proper manner, but I knew this was going to cause us serious issues. It eventually came to the point where I would be unable to practice my new found religion and stay married to this woman, so we split up. Before I left England, I went with a young Lebanese man I had met in London and said my Shahadah in a mosque there.
When I left my ex-wife, I was forced to leave England. I would have loved to stay there because the opportunity to learn about my newfound religion there would have been great, but al-hamdu lillah, I was to learn later why God chose this turn of events for me. I quickly got a job working for the US government in Alaska.
Of course, there is not much in the way of a Muslim community in Alaska, and it is centered in Anchorage and Fairbanks. I was working hundreds of miles from either of these cities, so I took the opportunity to continue reading and searching for information concerning Islam the best I could, from the Internet and other sources.
I used to travel, from time to time, to the Washington DC area for business. I made friends within the Muslim community there. At this point, I had been thinking about getting married. I had been divorced for several years and I knew that one of the main ways for Muslims to fulfill their deen (religion) is through marriage.
I was a bit worried about this, being a convert. I knew that many Muslims came from ethnic backgrounds that would not be too welcoming of a white American convert marrying their daughter. This was compounded further because I had tattoos from my teenage years, and I was very uncertain that I would find a Muslim woman and her family that would accept me.
A new friend of mine said that he knew of a sister who was looking to get married, so he asked her if it was OK to give me her number. I tried to call her when I first got home, but she wasn't there and I left a message. The next day I called her back, and we talked for hours. We exchanged e-mail addresses and for the next 3 days, we talked for dozens of hours. We hardly slept those first 3 days. I got so little sleep that I found myself falling asleep at work. We talked about all of the important things that we would need to know to make a successful marriage work.
It was clear from the beginning that we had a lot in common, and that it all centered around our devotion to our faith and to God. I had this feeling that she was meant for me. She was such a good God-fearing Muslim woman and she had so much she could teach me about the religion. Not only could she teach me about religion, but she could also help me with Arabic because she was a native speaker. We talked on the phone and via e-mail for several months.
Talking and e-mailing were wonderful, but we both knew that we had to meet each other face-to-face to see if the connection we had would still be there. Always keeping God and our religion in mind, we wanted to make sure we did everything halal and in the proper manner. We decided, with the permission of her family, that I would visit during Ramadan of that year to join the family for dinner and the breaking of the fast.
I was very nervous, and I think I had a right to be. There is one bit of information I have left out here and after I say this, you will understand my nerves. My wife and her family are from Saudi Arabia; both of her parents were born in Makkah. My earlier fear of the cultural issues that any prospective wife and her family might have with me were compounded 100 percent by this fact.
Trusting in God, and having a lump in my throat, I set off to meet this wonderful woman and what I supposed to be her intimidating family. I arrived in Washington DC right before sundown, collected my bags, and waited for a taxi. When it was my turn for a taxi, I jumped in.
The taxi driver was wearing a red and white checkered gutra, or Arab headdress. I greeted him with "as-salamu `alaykum" and he returned the greeting. The sun had gone down and he was just breaking his fast with a date. He asked if I was fasting, and when I replied in the positive, he offered me one of his own dates to break my fast. It turned out this nice older gentleman was originally from Afghanistan, I saw this as a very positive sign.
After dropping off my luggage at my hotel, I proceeded to the family's house with a traditional gift of dates and incense in hand. As I got out of the taxi and started walking up to the door, I just said "bismillah" to myself and knew God would choose the best for me. All sorts of scenarios played through my mind. She would like me, but the family would hate me. The family wouldn't mind, but she would be indifferent. What if they liked me and I didn't like them? The 20-foot walk from the curb to the door seemed to me like 20 miles. Finally, I got to the door and rang the bell.
What seemed to be a dozen people answered the door: family elders, people my age, sisters, sons, daughters, and family friends. I was warmly welcomed and asked to come into the house. After I entered, I was asked to take off my shoes and join the family in the meal they had made for me. It turned out, al-hamdu lillah, that I need not have been worried. The family and I took to each other instantly. In talking during the dinner and after, it was clear that the nice young woman and I had a connection that transcended the miles and the phone line.
I came back to the Washington DC area that January, when we got married in front of friends and family. We took a nice honeymoon, and then I had to return to my work in Alaska, which was not to finish until the end of April. When it finished, I moved to the Washington DC area and took up a job with a division of my company. I have been here almost 2 years now.
It is amazing, subhan Allah, how God led me from disbelief in a home filled with hate and then guided me to Him. At first glance, it might seem that in my childhood house I couldn't have been farther from Allah, but I would argue that this wasn't the case. Allah was always there looking out for me; He directed me through some dangerous and bad times to become the man and the Muslim that I am today.
People say that miracles do not happen today, but I would contend that my story proves them wrong.
* This story first appeared on www.welcome-back.org. It is republished with kind permission.

A question about women in Islam from Sweden

Querstion:
Hello, I don’t have faith in any religion and I don’t believe there is something like a god. But I’m, however, very interested in religions and different ways of life. I want to learn about and respect how people live all over the world. I live in Sweden, a western Christian country and I don’t think that our lifestyle is the best or the only one. Our society has come far in erasing the differences in social treatment between males and females. Islam is very often, or always, referred to as a religion that doesn’t respect females whatsoever. As far as I know, Islam men treat women with no respect, beat them, oppress them and sometimes kill them! Personally, I don’t think that there should be any differences between how we treat men and woman. I believe that woman have the exact, same, rights as I and should be respected doing whatever she wants with her life. BUT! I also understand that what I have learned to believe can’t be 100% right. My sense tells me something else than TV and newspapers. Please give me your view on the relation between men and woman. Let me know how Islam thinks and acts in this matter. I would like to be free from prejudices, but it’s not easy in a world full of that! Thank you very much.
Jakob - Sweden

Answer:

Name of Counsellor
Amani Aboul Fadl Farag

Hello Jacob, Thank you for your attitude, which is free from prejudice. I do agree with you that many images of Islam have been dreadfully and deliberately distorted by hostile mass media, especially after September the 11th. As for this image of women in Islam, actually it has been the target of the western spears and arrows, long before that time! This is not only due to prejudice, but also due to the ill practices of ignorant Muslims, which validate such a negative image. I do not think it is worthy to tell you about the aspects of equality, between the two genders, either in the way they were created or their rights and duties towards God, since you don't believe in Him. Let me focus then on the aspects of equality in our materialistic world. First, you have set a contrast between the Swedish society, as a model of respecting women, in opposition to Islam, which you have heard about to encourage people to kill them! I dare say that your society and many of the Islamic societies suffer from the same dilemma of the gap between paradigm and practice. Considering paradigms, the Islamic law is not less respecting for women than any other liberal constitution, if indeed it is not more respecting! But when it comes to practice, I don't think that the Swedish or any other western society is any less than many Islamic societies in the rate of violence against women, which is only one symptom of the general violence syndrome, recently spreading in people's lives, due to factors, which are the target of sociological studies. I have a valid study for the high rate of violence against women even in the family in Sweden regardless of the strict rules that "dictate" respect for women. For details please click: Violence Against Women This validates the fact that the law itself is not enough, unless there is an inherent power in people to respect this law. This inherent power, we - the religious people – define as ‘piety’ or ‘God love and fearing’. Therefore, the problem is with the practice and not with the law either in Islam or any other culture. This value of mutual respect amongst humans is a keynote to the Islamic moral code. The Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘A Muslim would neither abuse nor speak bad words to, nor curse others.’ (Sahih Muslim) Also, he always stressed the fact that men should treat their women in a fair way and never to use violence in dealing with them. He said: ‘Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not harm his neighbors. And I command you to take good care of the women.’ (Bukhari) Even when women misbehave, tolerance and not violence is recommended, as a way to solve the problem. The Prophet (pbuh) said: ‘No believing man should hate a believing woman, if he hates one of her manners, he should be satisfied with another.’ The same meaning is repeated in a heavenly advice for husbands through the Qur'an - the holy book of Muslims – that says:
... live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.
Surah 4 Verse 19Again, the Prophet (pbuh) stressed this meaning, saying: ‘The believers who have the best manners are those who have the most perfect faith. The best amongst you are the best towards their wives.’ (Tirmidhi) He also criticized those who misbehave towards women saying: ‘Many women come to Muhammad's family members to complain about their husbands, those men are not the best amongst you.’ (Ibn Magah) As a matter of fact, The Prophet was keen to make a model example of himself in treating women. His beloved wife 'Aisha narrated that he used to make a running competition with her! When she was newly married and still slim, she used to win. Then, after many years, she became fatter and thus he won. He used to taunt her saying: ‘this for that’ - meaning to revenge his earlier loss! These are but few glimpses of how women should be treated in Islam. This image has been neglected by some Muslims, which paved the way for the enemies to deliberately take their example as the established law of Islam, concerning women. You mentioned that in Sweden men and women are equal - a fact that you should be proud of - but I believe that they are not equal to the extent and degree, which Islam gave us, as Muslim women! For example, the husband should not share the money or assets that a Muslim woman possesses, either through inheritance or from her work. He doesn't have any claim on any part of it, which is opposite to many Western constitutions that give the husband a claim on his wife's wealth! On the other hand, while husbands are not obliged to sustain their wives in western family laws, the Muslim wife is exempted from spending her income - however big it is - on the family unless she would like to help in a voluntary way. This is while the husband is asked to sustain her fully, regardless of her wealth. If he doesn't do it, it becomes a reason for her to get a divorce. Those who are hostile towards Islam like to play on the rule that men and women are not equal in the way they inherit; the brother inherits more than his sister! Well… this is true, for a very simple reason that it is obligatory in Islam that the male member of the family should be responsible for sustaining all female members, either the wife, the mother or even the unmarried sisters. If he doesn't fulfill this obligation out of his free will, he should be forced by the power of law. This is while the sister takes her share to spend on her own interest. Thus, the matter is perfectly balanced. Another important point, is that the Islamic law grants the woman the right to get divorce if, simply, she is not happy in her marriage! This advantage is not granted to western women, without many legal complications resulting from the gap between civil and church laws. There are so many other examples of this Islamic equity, between the two genders, in all fields of life such as labor laws, criminal laws… etc. Also, what distinguishes the Islamic concept of equality, between the two genders, from other constitutions, is that it respects the biological differences between men and women. An example is the respect of the woman's need to spare a certain stage of her life for her role as a mother. Thus, in my country, as well as many Islamic countries, new mothers get fully paid long maternal leaves, which I know do not exist in western societies. Also women have their own separated sections in public transportation to avoid sexual harassment, that if they choose to use it, not obligatory. In fact, examples are endless and can never be summed up in this brief answer. I hope this answer is satisfying. Thank you again for your interest and I hope to hear from you again.

World-Famous Atheist Convinced by Science That God Exists

By Denyse O’Leary

An eminent British philosopher—a key champion of atheism for more than fifty years—announced late last year that he has come to believe that there really is a God, on account of the intelligent design of the universe and life forms.
Antony Flew, who became an atheist at 15, debated at Oxford in the 1950s. He promoted atheism through prestigious works such as his landmark 1984 book, The Presumption of Atheism.
His thesis was disarmingly simple: Most people assume that God exists, and therefore that the atheist must prove otherwise. Flew reversed the onus. He claimed that there is no evidence that God exists. Therefore, the religious believer must prove that there is a God.
Over time, Flew became a very successful atheist. Overall, he wrote ten books against belief in God, as well as many other works. His works were among the most widely reprinted in all of philosophy. One thing that helped him was that many people assumed, without really looking into it, that science evidence suggested that God does not exist.
So why did he change his mind when he was eighty-one years old? Not because he fears the eternal consequences of a lifetime spent promoting atheism. He insists that he still doesn’t believe in heaven or hell.
Rather, Flew was convinced by modern science findings. He was amazed by the language that is written into the DNA of every cell of each of our bodies. He said, “What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence.”
Flew discovered that a number of scientists and philosophers believe that the universe and life forms show scientific evidence of intelligent design—this is called the intelligent design hypothesis. At any rate, Flew began to think seriously about intelligent design in 2000. By 2003, he was actively corresponding with other philosophers about it.
Darwinism or Design?
The alternative to intelligent design is Darwinian evolution or Darwinism. According to Darwinism, life forms develop from amoeba to man by chance mutations, without any design or any need for God.
Flew put all the design arguments to Oxford scientist Richard Dawkins, who is well known not only for his defence of Darwinism but for the promotion of atheism on account of Darwinism.
And, according to Flew, Dawkins—an expert in Darwinian evolution—was not able to answer his objections based on intelligent design. Finally, in early 2004, Flew admitted to American Christian philosopher Gary Habermas that there must be a God. His change of mind became public later in the year, as the result of an interview released by the philosophy journal Philosophia Christi.
Flew makes very clear that he has not become a religious believer in any conventional sense. He thinks that God “… could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.” In reality, he believes only that God created the universe.
But let’s not discount the importance of that admission. It means that Flew’s life—and yours and mine—have a meaning and purpose that go beyond our own feelings at any given time. We are here because God intended us to be here. That makes a difference as we confront the tangled problems of our lives.
The best-known Muslim author who writes on this fiercely controversial topic is Dr. Harun Yahya. He has written several books that address divine design in nature, notably Evolution Deceit (Istanbul: Arastirma, 2002) and Signs of God: Design in Nature (Istanbul: Global Publishing, 2001). As Yahya notes in his works, modern science knows vastly more today than in past centuries about the intricate details of life. And the more we know, the less likely any atheistic explanation seems.

Turkish Philosopher: Atheism “Mere Irrationality and Ignorance”
Do you have enough faith to be an atheist? Can you look at the marvelous designs of nature and conclude that it all happened by chance? If so, you are part of a shrinking, if stubborn, minority. There has been a steep, widely reported, decline in atheism worldwide.
According to Paul M. Zulehner, a European sociologist of religion, “True atheists in Europe have become an infinitesimally small group. There are not enough of them to be used for sociological research.” And Europe, after all, is hardly noted for its piety. A key reason given is precisely the one that convinced Flew, the growing evidence from science that makes atheism unlikely.
Another reason he gives is that many people embraced atheism in the twentieth century because they hoped for a humanly-based system that would prevent the wrongs often done in the name of religion. But atheistic regimes like communism and Nazism outdid, in every category of wrong, the regimes where most rulers or leaders were religious.
Harun Yahya recently told United Press International, “Atheism, which people have tried for hundreds of years as ‘the ways of reason and science,’ is proving to be mere irrationality and ignorance.” For example, evolution alone, without intelligence, can hardly account for the fact that “a single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together” (Insight on the News, March 14, 2005).
Yahya even predicts, in Evolution Deceit, that “…the 21st century will be a historical-turning point when people will generally comprehend the divine realities and be led in crowds to God, the only Absolute Being” (p. 248).
** Denyse O’Leary (www.designorchance.com) is a freelance journalist based in Toronto, Canada. Her latest book is By Design or By Chance? The Growing Controversy Over the Origin of Life in the Universe (Augsburg Fortress, 2004). Your emails will be forwarded to her by contacting the science editor at: sciencetech@islam-online.net.

Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

By Mustafa Akyol

"[An] 'ism' of great danger to Islam... is Darwinism," said Seyyed Hossein Nasr, one of the leading Muslim thinkers of our time, in his book Islam and the Plight of Modern Man. He is certainly right. Darwinism is indeed a dangerous idea, and the reason for that is its seemingly scientific affirmation of the naturalist philosophy — the belief that nature is all there is and that life on Earth, including humans, is the product of the blind forces of nature. If one accepts that philosophy, then one will have little reason to believe in Allah, the Lord and Creator of everything.
That's why Nasr thinks that accepting the Darwinian evolution theory would be to "surrender Islam" to modern atheism. And he warns fellow Muslims against this risk as follows:
Those who think they are rendering a service to Islam by incorporating evolutionary ideas, as currently understood, into Islamic thought are, in fact, tumbling into a most dangerous pitfall and are surrendering Islam to one of modern man's most insidious pseudo-dogmas, one created in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries to enable men to forget God. (213)
Some Muslims might find Nasr's warning too farfetched because they think that Islam actually doesn't have any problems with the theory of evolution. Evolution, they would argue, might simply have been the method through which Allah manifested His creation. Besides, there are some medieval Muslim scholars who toyed with evolutionary ideas long before Darwin. So isn't evolution a problem for Christians — whose scripture is at odds with evolution in a literal reading— but not for Muslims?
Yes and no.
It is true that the Islamic doctrine of creation could allow for an evolutionary interpretation, and thus the theory of evolution, per se, is not unacceptable in Islam. But Darwinism is not evolution. It is a special theory of evolution that insists that evolutionary mechanisms are undirected and unguided. Modern Darwinian theory accepts only two creative powers — natural selection and random mutation. These blind, purposeless mechanisms are the only accepted causes for life, and any divine guidance and intervention are never, ever allowed.

An End to the Ulama and Imams?
In his famous book The Meaning of Evolution, George Gaylord Simpson, one of the arch-Darwinists of the 20th century, explained this special meaning of Darwinian evolution quite clearly. "Man," wrote Simpson, "is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."
Another prominent Darwinist, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, is even blunter. Dawkins is a militant atheist who defines religious faith "as one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." And he is Darwin's greatest fan, because, according to him, Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
William B. Provine is even blunter yet when he proudly says, "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
We should carefully note that this "engine" is not running only in the Western world. Its target is to undermine all theistic religions, including, of course, Islam. Just take a look at what Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, a hard-core proponent of Darwinian evolution, said in accepting an award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation:
I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition. ... I can hope that this long sad story will come to an end at some time in the future and that this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we'll see no more of them.
Ulama and imams coming to an end?
Although this is wishful thinking, it is noteworthy. And it confirms that Darwinism is indeed "a great danger to Islam," as Professor Nasr rightly says.

The Sun From the West
However this "danger" is not too hard to deal with because Darwinism is in fact a pseudo-scientific theory. Observable and testable data do show that there is some change in nature and that living beings have a capacity to adapt to their environment, but there is simply no evidence for the kind of macro-evolution that Darwinists envision — a chance-driven natural process that created all life without a Creator. That's why, in the past few decades, there has been a growing body of scientific literature that challenges Darwinian evolution and argues that this theory is not the correct explanation of biological origins.
Professor Nasr talks about this scientific challenge to Darwinism in his Islam and the Plight of Modern Man and emphasizes the works of Western scientists who criticize Darwinian evolution.
However, according to Professor Nasr, there is a problem. "Unfortunately," he writes, "few contemporary Muslim thinkers have taken note of these [Western] sources and made use of their arguments to support the traditional Islamic view of man" (212).
In other words, few Muslims have taken part in the scientific challenge to Darwinism.
Perhaps this was because, until recently, the challenge was mostly associated with the US-based Christian movement called creationism. Creationism was the effort to merge science and Christian theology. Some of its arguments — such as Young Earth — did not correspond to any traditional Islamic doctrine. Therefore Muslims had a good reason for not being associated with creationism in this narrow sense.
However a revolution took place in the early 1990s with the rise of a new theory called Intelligent Design (ID). ID does not try to infuse any theology into science; it just uses scientific evidence and rational inference. It argues that Darwinism is wrong in its assumptions about randomness, and that the complexity of life on Earth — and the fine-tuning of the physical universe, for that matter — can only be explained by positing a designing intelligence. In the same way that a book points to an author, ID theory argues, the universe and life points to a Designer.
It is not hard to see that this reasoning is very compatible with the Qur'anic verses that tell us that nature is full of Allah's signs and we should examine them to see His majesty. In his article "Taskhir, Fine-tuning, Intelligent Design and the Scientific Appreciation of Nature," published in the journal Islam & Science, Dr. Adi Setia of the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization in Malaysia confirms the parallels between Qur'anic concepts and intelligent design.
In other words, although ID is a theory developed in the West, it is fully compatible with, and profoundly supportive of, the core faith of Islam. Just remember what our Prophet (peace be upon him) told us: "Knowledge and wisdom are the lost property of the believers, so if a believer finds it anywhere, he should take it." Today, ID is such knowledge and wisdom to be taken.

Sign the Dissent From Darwin Statement
I have written about Intelligent Design before on IslamOnline.net, in a piece titled "Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design." "Intelligent Design is very much our cause," I held, "and we should do everything we can to support it." After that piece, many Muslim sisters and brothers sent me supportive e-mails and I am so grateful for their responses.
This time I have a more solid suggestion to Muslim scientists who would like to join the global effort against Darwinism: Come sign the Dissent From Darwin Statement, which simply reads
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. (Learn more at the Dissent From Darwin page)
The Discovery Institute, the main organization supporting Intelligent Design and the criticism of Darwinian evolution, launched this two-sentence statement in 2001 and so far more than 500 scientists have stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences; Russian, Polish, and Czech National Academies; universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others. Muslim scholar Dr. Muzaffar Iqbal, the editor of the journal Islam & Science, is also on the list. Several others from Turkey are just to be added.
It will be invaluable if more Muslim scientists sign the statement. It will empower the scientific case against Darwinism and it will show that it is a global phenomenon, despite the claims to the contrary by the Darwinist establishment. It will also have a deeper intercivilizational message: that the world is not necessarily divided between East and West, and that people of good faith and reason in all civilizations can join in proclaiming scientific truths overshadowed by materialist prejudice.
If you agree, and if you are a scientist, would you consider adding your name to the Dissent From Darwin list?
The list comprises scientists who have doctoral degrees and doctors of medicine who are professors of medicine.
If this fits your description — or if you have suggestions about reaching Muslim scientists whose do — please contact me at akyol@mustafaakyol.org.
Disclaimer: The article reflects the opinions of the author.
Note from the editor: IslamOnline.net invites its readers to join in on the debate surrounding Darwinism and evolutionary theory. You are welcome to send your writings and opinions, regardless of which side your argument supports, to the editor at sciencetech@iolteam.com.
Sources:
Nasr, Sayyed Hossein. Louisville, KY: The Islamic Texts Society, 2003.
** Mustafa Akyol is a Muslim writer and newspaper columnist living in Istanbul, Turkey. In May 2005, he testified to the Kansas State Education Board as an expert witness about Darwinism and Intelligent Design. His web blog is located at www.thewhitepath.com. Your e-mails to him will be forwarded to him by contacting sciencetech@iolteam.com.

The Ugly Truth About Everyday Life in Baghdad (by the US Ambassador)

by Zalmay Khalilzad

CONFIDENTIAL MEMO FROM: US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Baghdad TO: Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State SUBJECT: SNAPSHOTS FROM THE OFFICE SENSITIVE Published: 20 June 2006

1. Iraqi staff in the Public Affairs sector have complained that Islamist and Militia groups have been negatively affecting daily routine. Harassment over proper dress and habits is increasingly persuasive. They also report power cuts and fuel prices have diminished their quality of life.
Women's Rights
2. Two of our three female employees report stepped up harassment beginning in mid-May. One, a Shia who favors Western clothing, was advised by an unknown woman in her Baghdad neighborhood to wear a veil and not to drive her own car. She said some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran even at its most conservative.
3. Another, a Sunni, said people in her neighbourhood are harassing women and telling them to cover up and stop using cell phones. She said the taxi driver who brings her every day to the green zone has told her he cannot let her ride unless she wears a headcover. A female in the PAS cultural section is now wearing a full abaya after receiving direct threats.
4. The women say they cannot identify the groups pressuring them. The cautions come from other women, sometimes from men who could be Sunni or Shia, but appear conservative. Some ministries, notably the Sadrist controlled Ministry of Transportation, have been forcing females to wear the hijab at work.
Dress Code For All?
5. Staff members have reported it is now dangerous for men to wear shorts in public; they no longer allow their children to play outside in shorts. People who wear jeans in public have come under attack.
Evictions
6. One colleague beseeched us to help a neighbor who was uprooted in May from her home of 30 years, on the pretense of application of some long-disused law. The woman, who is a Fayli Kurd, says she has nowhere to go, but the courts give them no recourse to this new assertion of power. Such uprootings may be response by new Shia government authorities to similar actions against Arabs by Kurds in other parts of Iraq. (NOTE: An Arab newspaper editor told us he is preparing an extensive survey of ethnic cleansing, which he said is taking place in almost every Iraqi province, as political parties and their militias are seemingly engaged in tit-for-tat reprisals all over Iraq.)
Power Cuts and Fuel Shortages a Drain on Society
7. Temperatures in Baghdad have already reached 115 degrees. Employees all confirm that, by the last week of May, they were getting one hour of power for every six hours without. By early June, the situation had improved slightly. In Hal al-Shaab, power has recently improved from one in six to one in three hours. Other staff report similar variances. Central Baghdad neighborhood Bab al-Nu'atham has had no city power for over a month. Areas near hospitals, political party headquarters, and the green zone have the best supply. One staff member reported a friend lives in a building that houses the new minister; within 24 hours of his appointment, her building had city power 24 hours a day.
8. All employees supplement city power with service contracted with neighborhood generator hookups that they pay for monthly. One employee pays 7500 Iraqi dinars (ID) per ampere to get 10 amperes per month (75,000 ID = $50/month). For this, her family gets eight hours of power per day, with service ending at 2am.
9. Fuel queues. One employee told us that he had spent 12 hours on his day off waiting to get gas. Another staff member confirmed that shortages were so dire, prices on the black market in much of Baghdad were now above 1,000 ID per liter (the official, subsidized price is 250 ID)
Kidnappings, and Threats of Worse
10. One employee informed us that his brother-in-law had been kidnapped. The man was eventually released but this caused enormous emotional distress to his family. One employee, a Sunni Kurd, received an indirect threat on her life in April. She took extended leave, and by May, relocated abroad with her family.
Security Forces Mistrusted
11. In April, employees began reporting a change in demeanor of guards at the green zone checkpoints. They seemed to be militia-like in some cases seemingly taunting. One employee asked us to get her some press credentials because the guards held her embassy badge up and proclaimed loudly to passers-by "Embassy" as she entered. Such information is a death sentence if heard by the wrong people.
Supervising Staff At High Risk
12. Employees all share a common tale: of nine employees in March, only four had family members who knew they worked at the embassy. Iraqi colleagues who are called after hours often speak in Arabic as an indication they cannot speak openly in English.
13. We cannot call employees in on weekends or holidays without blowing their "cover." A Sunni Arab female employee tells us family pressures and the inability to share details of her employment is very tough; she told her family she was in Jordon when we sent her on training to the US. Mounting criticism of the US at home among family members also makes her life difficult. She told us in mid-June that most of her family believes the US - which is widely perceived as fully controlling the country and tolerating the malaise - is punishing the population as Saddam did (but with Sunnis and very poor Shia now at the bottom of the list). Otherwise, she says, the allocation of power and security would not be so arbitrary.
14. Some of our staff do not take home their American cell phones, as it makes them a target. They use code names for friends and colleagues and contacts entered into Iraq cell phones. For at least six months, we have not been able to use any local staff for translation at on-camera press events.
15. We have begun shredding documents that show local staff surnames. In March, a few members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate.
Sectarian Tensions Within Families
16. Ethnic and sectarian faultlines are becoming part of the daily media fare in the country. One Shia employee told us in late May that she can no longer watch TV news with her mother, who is Sunni, because her mother blamed all the government failings on the fact that Shia are in charge. Many of the employee's family left Iraq years ago. This month, another sister is departing for Egypt, as she imagines the future here is too bleak.
Frayed Nerves and Mistrust
17. Against this backdrop of frayed social networks, tension, and moodiness have risen. A Sunni Arab female apparently insulted a Shia female by criticizing her overly liberal dress. One colleague told us he feels " defeated" by circumstances, citing the example of being unable to help his two-year-old son who has asthma and cannot sleep in the stifling heat.
18. Another employee tells us life outside the Green Zone has become " emotionally draining." He claims to attend a funeral "every evening." He, like other local employees, is financially responsible for his immediate and extended families. He revealed that "the burden of responsibility; new stress coming from social circles who increasingly disapprove of the coalition presence, and everyday threats weigh very heavily."
Staying Straight with Neighborhood Governments and the 'Alama'
19. Staff say they daily assess how to move safely in public. Often, if they must travel outside their neighborhoods, they adopt the clothing, language, and traits of the area. Moving inconspicuously in Sadr City requires Shia dress and a particular lingo.
20 Since Samarra, Baghdadis have honed survival skills. Vocabulary has shifted. Our staff - and our contacts - have become adept in modifying behavior to avoid "Alasas," informants who keep an eye out for " outsiders" in neighborhoods. The Alasa mentality is becoming entrenched as Iraqi security forces fail to gain public confidence.
21. Staff report security and services are being rerouted through "local providers" whose affiliations are vague. Those who are admonishing citizens on their dress are not well known either. Personal safety depends on good relations with "neighborhood" governments, who barricade streets and ward off outsiders. People no longer trust most neighbors.
22. A resident of Shia/Christian Karrada district told us "outsiders" have moved in and control the mukhtars.
Comment
23. Although our staff retain a professional demeanor, strains are apparent. We see their personal fears are reinforcing divisive sectarian or ethnic channels. Employees are apprehensive enough that we fear they may exaggerate developments or steer us towards news that comports with their own world view. Objectivity, civility, and logic that make for a functional workplace may falter if social pressures outside the Green Zone don't abate.
(This is an edited version of the memo)

Baghdad under extra military pressure

The Iraqi prime minister has started the biggest security crackdown in Baghdad since the US-led invasion of 2003.
Up to 75,000 Iraqi and US soldiers using tanks and armoured vehicles will be deployed across the capital starting on Wednesday.
Not long after the clampdown started, a car bomb killed one person and wounded five, a police source said. No other information was immediately available about the blast.
Nuri al-Maliki also announced plans for an extended curfew and a weapons ban, saying he would show no mercy to alleged terrorists.
The operation, which army officials said was dubbed Operation Forward Together, came as Muqtada al-Sadr planned a demonstration in Baghdad to protest against the surprise visit on Tuesday of George Bush, the US president.
Iraqis were met with increased checkpoints causing traffic jams as they drove to work, and there were fewer vehicles on the streets.
Iraqis in Baghdad will also have to cope with a rise in house raids. Security officials also said air raids might be used. No date was given for the end of the operation.
An Iraqi army official, who declined to be named because he was not authorised to release the information, said two divisions had been deployed, which would be about 20,000 soldiers, along with 50,000 interior ministry forces.
Thinking big
Major General Mahdi al-Gharrawi, the commander of public order forces under the interior ministry, said the operation was to be the biggest of its kind in Baghdad since the US handed over sovereignty to Iraq in June 2004.
"Baghdad is divided according to geographical area, and we know the al-Qaeda leaders in each area," he said.
Al-Gharrawi also said he believed fighters opposed to the US presence in Iraq were likely to step up their attacks.
"We are expecting clashes will erupt in the predominantly Sunni areas," he said.
Civilians have complained of random violence and detentions by Iraqi forces, especially the police, which are widely believed to have been infiltrated by so-called sectarian death squads.
Al-Gharrawi said there were plans for a single uniform to distinguish legitimate forces in the coming days.
"There will be a special uniform with special badges to be put on the vehicles as a sign that it belongs to our forces," he said.
Restrictions
Al-Maliki's plan includes banning personal weapons and implementing a 9pm to 6am curfew, which hitherto had begun at 11pm. The new curfew was expected to begin on Friday.
Many Iraqis have started to carry guns for their own protection.
Al-Maliki said the plan "
An Iraqi soldier mans his gun inthe Kadhimiya district of Baghdadwill provide security and confront the terrorism and ... enable Iraqis to live in peace in Baghdad.
"The raids during this plan will be very tough ... because there will be no mercy towards those who show no mercy to our people," he said in a statement.
The Iraqi army launched a similar crackdown dubbed Operation Lightning in May 2005, deploying more than 40,000 Iraqi police and soldiers, backed by American troops and air support.
However, violence continued to increase and many Sunnis were alienated by the heavy-handed tactics concentrating on their neighbourhoods.
The extended curfew is expected to curtail what few social activities Baghdad's six million residents have left - including shopping and buying bread.
But those activities were already restricted in many neighbourhoods where the streets are not safe at night. People are very likely to shoot strangers on sight after dark, which begins about 9pm.
Deaths
Major-General Abdul-Aziz Muhammad, a defence ministry spokesman, said 761 attacks had killed 263 civilians and wounded 301 others last week, from Friday to Saturday, while 78 terrorism suspects were killed and 584 detained.
So far in 2006, at least 3,829 Iraqi civilians and at least 754 Iraqi security forces have been killed in war-related violence. For the same period, at least 4,577 Iraqi civilians and at least 749 Iraqi security forces have been wounded. These figures are based on AP reports, which may not be complete because the reporting process does not cover the entire country. These numbers do not include fighters.
There have been at least 335 deaths among US-led forces in 2006; of these at least 312 have been US military.

TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB

American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, twenty miles west of Baghdad, was one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly executions, and vile living conditions. As many as fifty thousand men and women—no accurate count is possible—were jammed into Abu Ghraib at one time, in twelve-by-twelve-foot cells that were little more than human holding pits.
In the looting that followed the regime’s collapse, last April, the huge prison complex, by then deserted, was stripped of everything that could be removed, including doors, windows, and bricks. The coalition authorities had the floors tiled, cells cleaned and repaired, and toilets, showers, and a new medical center added. Abu Ghraib was now a U.S. military prison. Most of the prisoners, however—by the fall there were several thousand, including women and teen-agers—were civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps and at highway checkpoints. They fell into three loosely defined categories: common criminals; security detainees suspected of “crimes against the coalition”; and a small number of suspected “high-value” leaders of the insurgency against the coalition forces.
Last June, Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq. General Karpinski, the only female commander in the war zone, was an experienced operations and intelligence officer who had served with the Special Forces and in the 1991 Gulf War, but she had never run a prison system. Now she was in charge of three large jails, eight battalions, and thirty-four hundred Army reservists, most of whom, like her, had no training in handling prisoners.
General Karpinski, who had wanted to be a soldier since she was five, is a business consultant in civilian life, and was enthusiastic about her new job. In an interview last December with the St. Petersburg Times, she said that, for many of the Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib, “living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to leave.”
A month later, General Karpinski was formally admonished and quietly suspended, and a major investigation into the Army’s prison system, authorized by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, was under way. A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added—“detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.”
The photographs—several of which were broadcast on CBS’s “60 Minutes 2” last week—show leering G.I.s taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to assume humiliating poses. Six suspects—Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II, known as Chip, who was the senior enlisted man; Specialist Charles A. Graner; Sergeant Javal Davis; Specialist Megan Ambuhl; Specialist Sabrina Harman; and Private Jeremy Sivits—are now facing prosecution in Iraq, on charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts. A seventh suspect, Private Lynndie England, was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, after becoming pregnant.
The photographs tell it all. In one, Private England, a cigarette dangling from her mouth, is giving a jaunty thumbs-up sign and pointing at the genitals of a young Iraqi, who is naked except for a sandbag over his head, as he masturbates. Three other hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners are shown, hands reflexively crossed over their genitals. A fifth prisoner has his hands at his sides. In another, England stands arm in arm with Specialist Graner; both are grinning and giving the thumbs-up behind a cluster of perhaps seven naked Iraqis, knees bent, piled clumsily on top of each other in a pyramid. There is another photograph of a cluster of naked prisoners, again piled in a pyramid. Near them stands Graner, smiling, his arms crossed; a woman soldier stands in front of him, bending over, and she, too, is smiling. Then, there is another cluster of hooded bodies, with a female soldier standing in front, taking photographs. Yet another photograph shows a kneeling, naked, unhooded male prisoner, head momentarily turned away from the camera, posed to make it appear that he is performing oral sex on another male prisoner, who is naked and hooded.
Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. “Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other—it’s all a form of torture,” Haykel said.
Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of an empty room, splattered with blood.
The 372nd’s abuse of prisoners seemed almost routine—a fact of Army life that the soldiers felt no need to hide. On April 9th, at an Article 32 hearing (the military equivalent of a grand jury) in the case against Sergeant Frederick, at Camp Victory, near Baghdad, one of the witnesses, Specialist Matthew Wisdom, an M.P., told the courtroom what happened when he and other soldiers delivered seven prisoners, hooded and bound, to the so-called “hard site” at Abu Ghraib—seven tiers of cells where the inmates who were considered the most dangerous were housed. The men had been accused of starting a riot in another section of the prison. Wisdom said:
SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. . . . I do not think it was right to put them in a pile. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. . . . I left after that.
When he returned later, Wisdom testified:
I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open. I thought I should just get out of there. I didn’t think it was right . . . I saw SSG Frederick walking towards me, and he said, “Look what these animals do when you leave them alone for two seconds.” I heard PFC England shout out, “He’s getting hard.”
Wisdom testified that he told his superiors what had happened, and assumed that “the issue was taken care of.” He said, “I just didn’t want to be part of anything that looked criminal.”
The abuses became public because of the outrage of Specialist Joseph M. Darby, an M.P. whose role emerged during the Article 32 hearing against Chip Frederick. A government witness, Special Agent Scott Bobeck, who is a member of the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, or C.I.D., told the court, according to an abridged transcript made available to me, “The investigation started after SPC Darby . . . got a CD from CPL Graner. . . . He came across pictures of naked detainees.” Bobeck said that Darby had “initially put an anonymous letter under our door, then he later came forward and gave a sworn statement. He felt very bad about it and thought it was very wrong.”
Questioned further, the Army investigator said that Frederick and his colleagues had not been given any “training guidelines” that he was aware of. The M.P.s in the 372nd had been assigned to routine traffic and police duties upon their arrival in Iraq, in the spring of 2003. In October of 2003, the 372nd was ordered to prison-guard duty at Abu Ghraib. Frederick, at thirty-seven, was far older than his colleagues, and was a natural leader; he had also worked for six years as a guard for the Virginia Department of Corrections. Bobeck explained:
What I got is that SSG Frederick and CPL Graner were road M.P.s and were put in charge because they were civilian prison guards and had knowledge of how things were supposed to be run.
Bobeck also testified that witnesses had said that Frederick, on one occasion, “had punched a detainee in the chest so hard that the detainee almost went into cardiac arrest.”
At the Article 32 hearing, the Army informed Frederick and his attorneys, Captain Robert Shuck, an Army lawyer, and Gary Myers, a civilian, that two dozen witnesses they had sought, including General Karpinski and all of Frederick’s co-defendants, would not appear. Some had been excused after exercising their Fifth Amendment right; others were deemed to be too far away from the courtroom. “The purpose of an Article 32 hearing is for us to engage witnesses and discover facts,” Gary Myers told me. “We ended up with a c.i.d. agent and no alleged victims to examine.” After the hearing, the presiding investigative officer ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convene a court-martial against Frederick.
Myers, who was one of the military defense attorneys in the My Lai prosecutions of the nineteen-seventies, told me that his client’s defense will be that he was carrying out the orders of his superiors and, in particular, the directions of military intelligence. He said, “Do you really think a group of kids from rural Virginia decided to do this on their own? Decided that the best way to embarrass Arabs and make them talk was to have them walk around nude?”
In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:
I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.
The military-intelligence officers have “encouraged and told us, ‘Great job,’ they were now getting positive results and information,” Frederick wrote. “CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI’s request.” At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. “His reply was ‘Don’t worry about it.’ ”
In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called “O.G.A.,” or other government agencies—that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees—was brought to his unit for questioning. “They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away.” The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison’s inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, “and therefore never had a number.”
Frederick’s defense is, of course, highly self-serving. But the complaints in his letters and e-mails home were reinforced by two internal Army reports—Taguba’s and one by the Army’s chief law-enforcement officer, Provost Marshal Donald Ryder, a major general.
Last fall, General Sanchez ordered Ryder to review the prison system in Iraq and recommend ways to improve it. Ryder’s report, filed on November 5th, concluded that there were potential human-rights, training, and manpower issues, system-wide, that needed immediate attention. It also discussed serious concerns about the tension between the missions of the military police assigned to guard the prisoners and the intelligence teams who wanted to interrogate them. Army regulations limit intelligence activity by the M.P.s to passive collection. But something had gone wrong at Abu Ghraib.
There was evidence dating back to the Afghanistan war, the Ryder report said, that M.P.s had worked with intelligence operatives to “set favorable conditions for subsequent interviews”—a euphemism for breaking the will of prisoners. “Such actions generally run counter to the smooth operation of a detention facility, attempting to maintain its population in a compliant and docile state.” General Karpinski’s brigade, Ryder reported, “has not been directed to change its facility procedures to set the conditions for MI interrogations, nor participate in those interrogations.” Ryder called for the establishment of procedures to “define the role of military police soldiers . . .clearly separating the actions of the guards from those of the military intelligence personnel.” The officers running the war in Iraq were put on notice.
Ryder undercut his warning, however, by concluding that the situation had not yet reached a crisis point. Though some procedures were flawed, he said, he found “no military police units purposely applying inappropriate confinement practices.” His investigation was at best a failure and at worst a coverup.
Taguba, in his report, was polite but direct in refuting his fellow-general. “Unfortunately, many of the systemic problems that surfaced during [Ryder’s] assessment are the very same issues that are the subject of this investigation,” he wrote. “In fact, many of the abuses suffered by detainees occurred during, or near to, the time of that assessment.” The report continued, “Contrary to the findings of MG Ryder’s report, I find that personnel assigned to the 372nd MP Company, 800th MP Brigade were directed to change facility procedures to ‘set the conditions’ for MI interrogations.” Army intelligence officers, C.I.A. agents, and private contractors “actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses.”
Taguba backed up his assertion by citing evidence from sworn statements to Army C.I.D. investigators. Specialist Sabrina Harman, one of the accused M.P.s, testified that it was her job to keep detainees awake, including one hooded prisoner who was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis. She stated, “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Graner and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”
Another witness, Sergeant Javal Davis, who is also one of the accused, told C.I.D. investigators, “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section . . . being made to do various things that I would question morally. . . . We were told that they had different rules.” Taguba wrote, “Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: ‘Loosen this guy up for us.’ ‘Make sure he has a bad night.’ ‘Make sure he gets the treatment.’ ” Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. “The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, ‘Good job, they’re breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They’re giving out good information.’ ”
When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about the abuse, Sergeant Davis answered, “Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing”—where the abuse took place—“belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse.”
Another witness, Specialist Jason Kennel, who was not accused of wrongdoing, said, “I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes.” (It was his view, he added, that if M.I. wanted him to do this “they needed to give me paperwork.”) Taguba also cited an interview with Adel L. Nakhla, a translator who was an employee of Titan, a civilian contractor. He told of one night when a “bunch of people from MI” watched as a group of handcuffed and shackled inmates were subjected to abuse by Graner and Frederick.
General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen “who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ which were neither authorized” nor in accordance with Army regulations. “He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse,” Taguba wrote. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had “received no formal communication” from the Army about the matter.)
“I suspect,” Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel “were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib,” and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.
The problems inside the Army prison system in Iraq were not hidden from senior commanders. During Karpinski’s seven-month tour of duty, Taguba noted, there were at least a dozen officially reported incidents involving escapes, attempted escapes, and other serious security issues that were investigated by officers of the 800th M.P. Brigade. Some of the incidents had led to the killing or wounding of inmates and M.P.s, and resulted in a series of “lessons learned” inquiries within the brigade. Karpinski invariably approved the reports and signed orders calling for changes in day-to-day procedures. But Taguba found that she did not follow up, doing nothing to insure that the orders were carried out. Had she done so, he added, “cases of abuse may have been prevented.”
General Taguba further found that Abu Ghraib was filled beyond capacity, and that the M.P. guard force was significantly undermanned and short of resources. “This imbalance has contributed to the poor living conditions, escapes, and accountability lapses,” he wrote. There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained—indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski’s defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers “routinely” rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners.
Karpinski was rarely seen at the prisons she was supposed to be running, Taguba wrote. He also found a wide range of administrative problems, including some that he considered “without precedent in my military career.” The soldiers, he added, were “poorly prepared and untrained . . . prior to deployment, at the mobilization site, upon arrival in theater, and throughout the mission.”
General Taguba spent more than four hours interviewing Karpinski, whom he described as extremely emotional: “What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers.”
Taguba recommended that Karpinski and seven brigade military-police officers and enlisted men be relieved of command and formally reprimanded. No criminal proceedings were suggested for Karpinski; apparently, the loss of promotion and the indignity of a public rebuke were seen as enough punishment.
After the story broke on CBS last week, the Pentagon announced that Major General Geoffrey Miller, the new head of the Iraqi prison system, had arrived in Baghdad and was on the job. He had been the commander of the Guantánamo Bay detention center. General Sanchez also authorized an investigation into possible wrongdoing by military and civilian interrogators.
As the international furor grew, senior military officers, and President Bush, insisted that the actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the military as a whole. Taguba’s report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.
The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib may have done little to further American intelligence, however. Willie J. Rowell, who served for thirty-six years as a C.I.D. agent, told me that the use of force or humiliation with prisoners is invariably counterproductive. “They’ll tell you what you want to hear, truth or no truth,” Rowell said. “ ‘You can flog me until I tell you what I know you want me to say.’ You don’t get righteous information.”
Under the fourth Geneva convention, an occupying power can jail civilians who pose an “imperative” security threat, but it must establish a regular procedure for insuring that only civilians who remain a genuine security threat be kept imprisoned. Prisoners have the right to appeal any internment decision and have their cases reviewed. Human Rights Watch complained to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that civilians in Iraq remained in custody month after month with no charges brought against them. Abu Ghraib had become, in effect, another Guantánamo.
As the photographs from Abu Ghraib make clear, these detentions have had enormous consequences: for the imprisoned civilian Iraqis, many of whom had nothing to do with the growing insurgency; for the integrity of the Army; and for the United States’ reputation in the world.
Captain Robert Shuck, Frederick’s military attorney, closed his defense at the Article 32 hearing last month by saying that the Army was “attempting to have these six soldiers atone for its sins.” Similarly, Gary Myers, Frederick’s civilian attorney, told me that he would argue at the court-martial that culpability in the case extended far beyond his client. “I’m going to drag every involved intelligence officer and civilian contractor I can find into court,” he said. “Do you really believe the Army relieved a general officer because of six soldiers? Not a chance.”