My Thesis - The Crime of Honor

I am going to post my undergrad thesis that I finished this past May. I have some ideas for adding onto it, changing it, extending it, etc. But as of now this is where it stands. If there are any questions just send out an email and I'll reply asap.

INTRODUCTION

Dawn will come and the girls will ask about her
Where is she? And the monster will answer,
We killed her.
A mark of shame was on our forehead
And we washed it off.
Her black tale will be told by neighbors,
And will be told in the quarter even by the palm trees,
Even the wooden doors will not forget her,
It will be whispered even by the stones.
Washing off the shame… Washing off the shame.
O neighbors, O village girls,
Bread we shall knead with our tears
We’ll shear our plaits and skin our hands,
To keep their clothes white and pure,
No smile, no joy, no turn as the knife so waiting for us
In the hand of father or brother.
And tomorrow, who knows which desert
Swallows us, to wash off shame?
- al-Malaika (Lang 43)

My interest in this work initially began when I chose to study abroad throughout the fall of my junior year at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. After pursuing various opportunities I finally settled on a program through Student International Training (SIT) that was centered in Amman, Jordan and fanned out to cover the entirety of the country, as well as Syria. I chose this program, because it was one of only two offered in the region, and it was the only one that focused primarily on the social and economic aspects of the area. The work contained a variety of subjects that ranged from language (Modern Standard Arabic and dialect), to Islamic banking, to Royal NGOs, to minorities within the community, to Islamist social groups (such as the Muslim Brotherhood), to student organizations and religious movements/belief groups.

On top of this programming a cumulative independent study finished off the semester. A combination of what was learned through course work and field excursions, as well as three weeks of independent interviews and research with an advisor who was a specialist in our chosen field of research came together to form a 30-50 page ethnographic paper.

I chose to research the social phenomenon known as honor crimes or honor killing. Previously I had been involved with a domestic violence shelter as a volunteer Rape Victim Advocate, in addition to a number of other projects on campus and throughout the local community in Missouri that dealt with women’s issues, so this struck me as a natural fit.

The summer leading up to my study abroad experience I began to research honor crimes. I didn’t know the availability of internet in Jordan, and I wanted to get a large amount of preliminary information before I began my journey. I became disappointed as hours of work discovered only dismal amounts of usable information that was not steeped in shock value story lines. Very quickly it became evident that honor crimes were something that only a handful of people in academia had dedicated time to researching. The majority of information available came from stories in teen and women’s magazines looking only for a sensational story. There was extremely little available that relayed accurate information about the simple facts of women’s lives or what factors played into honor crimes without a thick layering of cultural bias.

At the time what I didn’t know was actually my largest stumbling block; without a general knowledge of the social workings of the Middle East it was next to impossible to find viable works on the subjects that I needed. I lacked the words to place in the search engines, and the experience to spot things that could have bearing on the subject from an indirect angle. There is little in Middle Eastern culture that is simply explained by its surface appearance. It holds varied cultures with numerous layers and connections that are dictated by countless rules and regulations that help keep the society functioning within its predefined boundaries and markers.

Without a doubt being female in the Middle East gave me the greatest advantage in learning about the lives of women. In a culture that is strictly gender segregated it would have been nearly impossible to have gained as much first hand knowledge had I been a man. Surprisingly, my second biggest asset was my nationality. When I first arrived and mentioned my intentions to my director and others that were interested I was immediately told that doors would be slammed in my face – This was not a subject to be discussed. Yet, the fact that I was young and foreign gave me an advantage over someone who may have investigated within their own community and gained the censure of everyone around them. I was not seen so much as meddling into other’s personal affairs, as a curious innocent who was merely trying to finish her required assignment.

Since my return to the United States I’ve discovered that despite all of the media exposure available there is still little knowledge as to what constitutes an honor crime or how widespread the phenomenon actually is throughout the world. While the media expressly focuses on the Middle East and Islamic traditions there have been cases of honor crimes covering the globe for as long as there have been structured culture and society. For example, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), a practice that has ancient roots, falls into the category of honor crimes committed against women throughout Africa and the Middle East and is more widely recognized in the West, as such there have been great strides taken at education of villages and tribes to bring eradication of this practice.

Muslim Women: My Headscarf is not a Threat

Editor's note: This is part of a series of reports CNN.com is featuring from an upcoming, six-hour television event, "God's Warriors," hosted by CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour.

(CNN) -- Last year at Christmastime, Rehan Seyam, a Muslim living in New Jersey, went to pick up some things at a local Wal-Mart. Seeing her distinctive traditional Muslim head covering called a "hijab," a man in the store, addressing her directly, sang "The 12 Days of Christmas" using insulting lyrics about terrorism and Osama bin Laden.
She was stunned.

"Do I look like a terrorist to you?" Seyam said she asked the man.
According to Seyam, the man replied, "What else does a terrorist look like?"

Such stories are not altogether uncommon for Muslim Americans. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 53 percent of Muslims living in America said it has become more difficult to be a Muslim in the United States since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Fifty-one percent said they are "very worried" or "somewhat worried" that women wearing the hijab are treated poorly, according to the poll.

A simple headscarf generally used by women to hide the hair from view, the hijab has become so controversial among some that several countries have banned or considered banning Muslim women from wearing them in public places. In light of this contentiousness, why do Muslim women choose to wear the hijab? Watch the making of CNN's TV special "God's Warriors" »

Gayad al-Khalik lives in Egypt and says the hijab is a focus on inner beauty.
"I want to shift the attention from my outer self to my inner self when I deal with someone, I don't want them to look at me in a way that wouldn't suit me," she told CNN in an upcoming documentary called "God's Warriors."

Al-Khalik is fluent in English and German; studied in Europe; plays Western music on her guitar; and spent time working for a women's rights organization.

She wears the hijab -- and says it's not just for religious reasons.

"My own conclusion was it is debatable whether it is a religious obligation or not, but I chose to keep it on because I do believe in modesty and you shouldn't be showing off yourself," al-Khalik said.

The Quran calls for women to be modest in their dress but interpretation of the edict varies widely, according to religious experts who spoke with CNN. An author who has written widely on Islam told CNN the Quran does not require women to wear the hijab.
"There's nothing in the Quran about all women having to be veiled or secluded in a certain part of the house. That came in later [after Prophet Mohammed's time]," said religious historian and author Karen Armstrong.

For Seyam, the hijab is a religious duty. "It's God's wish," she said.
"It's a requirement by God. He wants us to cover. He wants us to be modest," Seyam said.
But as important as the hijab is to her, Seyam's decision to cover her face wasn't one she made easily.

"It was very dramatic for me. And I remember, even now thinking about it, it really does make my heart beat a little bit faster," she said, "I was making a decision I knew was permanent. You put on hijab, you don't take it off."

Through her childhood growing up in Long Island, New York, Seyam prayed with her devout Muslim parents, but says she was just "going through the motions." It wasn't until college that she decided to wear a hijab consistently.

Influenced by her more devout friends, Seyam decided being a good Muslim meant covering her head.

"My sole purpose is to be here for the sake of Allah, and I'm doing something that he specifically says that you should be doing."

Seyam said there were practical factors in her decision as well. "I'm sick of guys catcalling. It was just driving me crazy. I felt like a piece of meat."

But Seyam says she traded in catcalling for a different kind of negative attention. People "look at me as if I am threatening and I do not feel like I am threatening looking. I don't feel I should instill fear in anybody's heart, but I do feel like I get dirty looks," she said.

Still, Seyam says her faith sustains her and that wearing the hijab is an important part of that faith.

"I'm not here to live my life and do whatever I want. I'm here to worship God," Seyam said. "I don't think that everybody has that, and I think that I'm lucky for it."

By Brian Rokus CNN 08/21/2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/21/hijab.godswarriors/index.html

Jordan Yields Poverty and Pain for the Well-Off Fleeing Iraq

AMMAN, Jordan, Aug. 9 — After her husband’s killing, Amira sold a generation of her family’s belongings, packed up her children and left behind their large house in Baghdad, with its gardener and maid.

Now, a year later, she is making meat fritters for money in this sand-colored capital, unable to afford glasses for her son, and in the quiet moments, choking on the bitterness of loss.

The war has scattered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis throughout the Middle East, but those who came here tended to be the most affluent. Most lacked residency status and were not allowed to work, but as former bank managers, social club directors and business owners, they thought their money would last.

It has not. Rents are high, schools cost money, and under-the-table jobs pay little. A survey of 100 Iraqi families found that 64 were surviving by selling their assets.


Now, as a new school year begins, many Iraqis here say they can no longer afford some of life’s basic requirements — education for their children and hospital visits for their families. Teeth are pulled instead of filled. Shampoo is no longer on the grocery list.


“My savings are finished,” said Amira, who is 50. “My kids won’t be in school this year.”
It is a painful new reality for an important part of Iraq’s population, the educated, secular center. They refused to take sides as the violence got worse. And their suffering augurs something larger for Iraq. The poorer they grow and the longer they stay away, the more crippled Iraq becomes. “The binding section of the population does not exist anymore,” said Ayad Allawi, a former prime minister, who now spends most of his time in Jordan. “The middle class has left Iraq.”


Iraqis streamed into Jordan and Syria in 2005 and 2006, with the professional class picking Jordan. The signs on the second floor of Al Essra Hospital, a private hospital in central Amman, display only Iraqi doctors’ names. The Jordanians have been relatively lenient, registering doctors in their medical unions and allowing the vast majority to live in their country without residency permits.


But by early this year Iraqis were weighing so heavily on this small country that the Jordanian authorities sharply reduced the numbers they accepted. (Rejections became so common that Iraqi Airways now offers a 30 percent discount to returning passengers who have been turned away.)


Many thought Jordan would be a stop on the way to Australia or Sweden, or a brief vacation from Baghdad’s inferno. But as the months wore on, it became clear that most countries were closed to Iraqis, the war was only getting worse, and families were left stranded, burning through their savings. The Australian authorities twice rejected Hassan Jabr, a Spanish teacher who left his elegant home and garden in Baghdad after his 12-year-old son was kidnapped and killed last year. Now, with his savings gone, badly dented before he left by a $10,000 ransom that he paid to try to get his son back, he is living off his family’s food ration cards that his mother sells in Baghdad.


“We saw reality in Amman and we were shocked,” he said, sitting in his spare one-room apartment in eastern Amman. “We planned for two months.”
Iraqis here have never been formally counted. A survey by a Norwegian group, Fafo, which has not been made public, is expected to report there are less than half of the 750,000 commonly estimated to be in Jordan.


But that is still 10 percent of the population of two million in Amman, where most of the Iraqis live, and aid agencies have stepped up activities.
This month the Jordanian government, under pressure from the United States, agreed to let Iraqi children without residency attend public schools, a right not extended to any other foreigners.


But the schools are crowded and the government has not yet prepared for the change, arguing that it should receive aid to accommodate it. United Nations agencies are asking for extra money to expand, at first by adding new shifts to existing schools.
Save the Children, a humanitarian group, says it has referred 4,000 Iraqis to schools recently, but the referrals do not guarantee acceptance. Amira went to the public school in her neighborhood, but was told that there was no room for her children. Private school cost her $5,000 last year, a third of her savings.


As the middle class becomes poor, new patterns form. Zeinab Majid’s okra stew no longer has meat. She buys her vegetables just before sunset, when the prices are the lowest. A stranger offered her the use of a washing machine, a gesture that nearly brought her to tears.

She came to Amman last September after her husband, a painter, had received two threats, and the studio he used had been bombed. They sold everything. Now her husband, a quiet man in small round glasses, spends his days jabbing paint onto small canvases while their boys, ages 7 and 4, watch cartoons on an old TV. “There are days when I’m penniless completely,” she said, serving juice to visitors. A Catholic relief organization, Caritas, helped pay for first grade for her older son last year.

The pain of the war closes people, and recent arrivals tend to live isolated lives, dividing the community into small, sad pockets. Amira moves mechanically through her days like a stunned survivor of a shipwreck. Tears come easily when she remembers the belongings she sold, the photo albums she did not take. Her husband, a Sunni, died five days after men in police uniforms took him from his shop last year. His face was bruised and his body broken. It was 22 years to the day since they first met.

“They were after the happiness,” she said, her face wet with tears. “They wanted to kill the happiness.”

The United States promised to increase the number of Iraqi refugees it takes, and the United Nations has referred 9,100 Iraqis to it this year. But so far fewer than 200 have arrived, according to the State Department. Several hundred more are expected to arrive in the coming weeks.


Running out of money is frightening, and some families choose to move to Syria, where things are cheaper, or, in some cases, back to Baghdad and the war.


Aseel Qaradaghi, a 25-year-old software engineer, was pregnant when she brought her small daughter here last summer after receiving threats from Islamic extremists. Her husband, a translator for a South African security firm, stayed in Baghdad to earn money. But when he did not call on her birthday, she knew something was wrong, and only after pressing his friends on a crackling phone line did she learn that he had been kidnapped.

Now, eight months later, she is earning a small wage at a nursery, but without his salary it is not enough, and she has applied for refugee status. If she is rejected, she will have to return to Baghdad. She does not know her husband’s fate, but worries that it will be the same as her brother’s, killed for working as a translator for the American military.

“I cannot allow myself to think about him,” she said, bouncing her baby boy on her lap. “The moment I start to allow feelings, my life will stop. I’m afraid of the moment that I collapse.”
Last week, Amira had a guest. Nada, a mother of three, whose husband worked as a deputy director of a prestigious social club in Baghdad, was preparing to move to Syria. The thousands of dollars from the sale of several cars and a house are almost gone.

“My daughter was second in her class,” Amira said, her words coming hard and fast. “I traveled all over the world. I want to tell the Americans what has happened to us.”

Yusra al-Hakeem contributed reporting. New York Times 08/10/07
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/world/middleeast/10refugees.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Olmert, Abbas meet on Palestinian soil

Israeli PM is first to visit a Palestinian city since fighting began 7 years ago

JERICHO, West Bank - Ehud Olmert on Monday became the first Israeli prime minister to visit a Palestinian town since the outbreak of fighting seven years ago, meeting under heavy guard with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Jericho to talk about the creation of a Palestinian state.

Olmert took a security risk in coming to the biblical desert town, but also gave a symbolic boost to Abbas, who stands to gain stature by hosting Olmert on his own turf.
Accompanied by two helicopters, Olmert arrived by motorcade at a five-star hotel just a few hundred yards from a permanent Israeli army checkpoint on the outskirts of Jericho.

The meeting was held in one of the West Bank’s most peaceful areas. However, it still posed a challenge to Olmert’s security detail, since the West Bank cities are controlled by Abbas’ weak police forces, which in June failed to prevent Hamas militants from seizing the Gaza Strip by force.

The meeting also tested renewed Israeli-Palestinian security coordination in the West Bank, following the fall of Gaza to Hamas. The Israeli army sealed checkpoints around Jericho, while Palestinian police blocked roads around the hotel.

Conflicting expectations
The Abbas-Olmert meeting is one in a series of sessions, meant to prepare for an international Mideast conference in the U.S. in November.
However, both sides appear to have conflicting expectations.

The Palestinians hope the two leaders will sketch the outlines of a final peace deal, to be presented to the U.S. conference, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Monday.
The four core issues of a future peace deal are the final borders of a Palestinian state, a division of Jerusalem, a removal of Israeli settlements and the fate of Palestinian refugees.
“What they need to do is to establish the parameters for solving all these issues,” Erekat said. “Once the parameters are established, then it can be deferred to experts” for drafting.
However, David Baker, an official in Olmert’s office, said the core issues would not be discussed now.

The leaders will discuss humanitarian aid to the Palestinians and Israeli security concerns, as well as the institutions of a future Palestinian state, Baker said.
Baker said the meeting is a signal of Israeli good will, adding that Olmert “intends for this to be a productive meeting to enable progress with the Palestinians.”

Effort to ease West Bank life
Both sides said the meeting also will deal with easing daily life in the West Bank, including the removal of some of the checkpoints erected after the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising in September 2000.

Abbas and Olmert previously agreed to try to restore the situation to what it was before the uprising, including returning full Palestinian control over West Bank towns and cities.
However, the Israeli military has been slow to dismantle roadblocks or ease control over Palestinian towns, citing concerns that Abbas’ forces are not strong enough to prevent attacks on Israelis.

Illustrating the issue, Olmert’s motorcade passed through one of the army’s checkpoints, at the entrance to Jericho. The checkpoint was erected after the outbreak of the uprising, and has controlled Palestinian traffic in and out of the town ever since, often causing long delays for motorists.

Symbol of a bygone era of optimism
The Abbas-Olmert meeting place is surrounded by symbols of a bygone era of optimism, as well as the failures of peace talks. Across the street from the Intercontinental Hotel is the Aqabat Jaber refugee camp, a reminder of a problem that has festered for decades.

The hotel was built in the late 1990s, when peace between Israelis and Palestinians appeared close. The hotel is next to the Oasis Casino, which opened at the same time. The casino was hugely popular with Israeli gamblers until the Israeli military prevented all Israelis from entering West Bank cities at the start of the uprising. Palestinian militants later used the building for exchanges of fire with nearby Israeli troops.

The last meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Palestinian soil was in 2000, when then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak held talks with Abbas’ predecessor, the late Yasser Arafat, in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

Palestinians in Jericho appeared to have low expectations from Monday’s meeting.
Mahmoud Santarisi, 35, said he would be pleased if the meeting led to the removal of one Israeli checkpoint and allowed him to visit Jerusalem, off-limits because of Israeli security restrictions.
“We hope for a good life, to be able to go to Jerusalem, to make money, and live in peace together. But Israel and the Americans will never give us a state,” Santarisi said.

Flurry of peace efforts
Monday’s meeting is part of a recent flurry of peace efforts sparked by Hamas’ takeover of Gaza in June, after a five-day rout of Abbas’ Fatah movement. The Hamas victory led Abbas to form a moderate government in the West Bank which has received broad international backing, while Hamas remains largely isolated in Gaza.
In an effort to shore up Abbas, Israel has released 250 Palestinian prisoners, resumed the transfer of Palestinian tax money and granted amnesty to Fatah gunmen willing to put down their weapons.

The efforts have also seen a visit to the region by new international Mideast peace envoy Tony Blair, an unprecedented visit by an Arab League delegation to present an Arab peace plan to Israel, and the U.S. plans for a regional conference.

In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri criticized Abbas for meeting Olmert, saying the meeting was “aimed at beautifying the ugly image of the Israeli occupation before the world.”
“All meetings will be of no benefit to the Palestinian people,” Abu Zuhri said.

Children of Iraq

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/interactive.aspx?type=ss&launch=19714431,3042924&pg=8

I found this slide show on MSN and it really touched my heart. Nearly all of the children wanted to be doctors... It breaks my heart and I wish there was more I could do.

AIUSA MIDDLE EAST NEWSLETTER - Issue:2 June 2007

From the Editor
This newsletter is published by the AIUSA Middle East Coordination Group (the country specialists) for all the members of the AI local, student and MERAN groups that work on Action files , MERAN actions, or any other Amnesty work in the Middle East. We will feature regional background, news, and action. We hope this will help create a sense of community, the “big picture”, and that we are all in this together, as many of the issues and themes overlap the entire Middle East. We would also like the members to be able to share their successes, events, ideas with everyone. So, please email me and they will be in the next newsletter!
Pat Gerencser, Editor- pgerencser@igc

Israel/OPT: Forty years of occupation -- no security without basic rights

On the eve of the 40th anniversary of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Amnesty International today called on the Israeli authorities to end the land-grabbing, blockades and other violations of international law carried out under the occupation. These have resulted in widespread human rights abuses and have also failed to bring security to the Israeli and Palestinian civilian populations.A 45-page report published today, Enduring Occupation: Palestinian under siege in the West Bank, illustrates the devastating impact of four decades of Israeli military occupation. The report documents the relentless expansion of unlawful settlements on occupied land that deprives the Palestinian population of crucial resources and documents a plethora of measures that confine Palestinians to fragmented enclaves and hinder their access to work, health and education facilities. These measures include a 700km fence/wall, more than 500 checkpoints and blockades, and a complicated system of permits."Palestinians living in the West Bank are blocked at every turn. This is not simply an inconvenience -- it can be a matter of life or death. It is unacceptable that women in labour, sick children, or victims of accidents on their way to hospital should be forced to take long detours and face delays which can cost them their lives," said Malcolm Smart, Director for Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Programme."International action is urgently needed to address the widespread human rights abuses being committed under the occupation, and which are fuelling resentment and despair among a predominantly young and increasingly radicalized Palestinian population," said Malcolm Smart. "For forty years, the international community has failed adequately to address the Israeli-Palestinian problem; it cannot, must not, wait another forty years to do so."Amnesty International is calling for the urgent deployment of an effective international human rights monitoring mechanism to monitor compliance by both parties, Israeli and Palestinian, with their obligations under international law. This must be backed up with a commitment to investigate and prosecute, through the exercise of universal jurisdiction, those who commit war crimes or other crimes under international law."We do not underestimate the difficulties of establishing such an independent monitoring system, whether by the UN or another appropriate body, but it is vital that the international community should become more engaged in finding a solution, and in holding the parties to their obligations under international law," said Malcolm Smart.In its report, Amnesty International acknowledges Israel’s legitimate security concerns and the government’s obligation to protect the population within its borders, but says this does not justify blatant violations of international law, such as construction of much of the fence/wall inside the West Bank on Palestinian land."If the intention was simply to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from entering Israel, the barrier would be located on the Green Line, the border between Israel and the West Bank," said Malcolm Smart. "Yet, the reality is that most of it is being built on Palestinian land, in defiance of the International Court of Justice, and is separating Palestinian towns and villages in the West Bank."In addition to the fence/wall, the movement of Palestinians is several constrained by a host of other restrictions, including over 500 checkpoints and blockades, and a network of roads for Israeli settlers to use and off-limits to Palestinians. The barrier, together with these roads and roadblocks, benefit continuously expanding but unlawful Israeli settlements and make them territorially contiguous with Israel."Harsh Israeli restrictions have caused the virtual collapse of the Palestinian economy and are exacerbating the increasingly fragile conditions in which Palestinians live and work -- resulting in levels of despair, poverty and food insecurity never before seen in the Occupied Palestinian Territories," said Malcolm Smart."Most Palestinians are now relying on aid for subsistence, with families reducing the quality and quantity of the food they consume and selling assets essential for their livelihoods."Amnesty International is calling on the Israeli authorities to:* lift the regime of blockades and restrictions on Palestinians in the OPT, which constitute collective punishment, and ensure that restrictions imposed in response to specific security threats only target the individuals concerned -- not entire communities.* halt the construction of the fence/wall inside the West Bank, and remove the sections already built there;* cease the construction or expansion of Israeli settlements and related infrastructure in the OPT as a first step towards removing Israeli settlements and "outposts";* cancel all demolition orders on homes in the OPT, and provide reparation to Palestinians whose homes and properties have already been destroyed.The organization is also reiterating its call on Palestinian armed groups to end immediately attacks on civilians and on the Palestinian Authority (PA) to take effective action to stop and prevent such attacks and bring to justice those responsible. To see a full copy of the report, please go to http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde150332007

Egypt Closes Door on AI Trial Observers
The Egyptian government June 3 refused to allow human rights groups to observe the military trial of 33 leading members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, undercutting the government's claims that civilians will have a fair trial before military courts, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today. Along with mass arrests of political opponents and democratic activists in the days preceding the June shura legislative council elections, the closing of the military court trials is indication that human rights are moving in the wrong direction in Egypt.Amnesty International, the Arab Commission for Human Rights, the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, and Human Rights Watch had sent observers to monitor the trial of 33 leading members of the Brotherhood. None of the groups was allowed to attend. Among the accused is Khairat al-Shatir, the organization's deputy supreme guide, who was arrested on December 14, 2006, along with 16 other prominent Muslim Brotherhood members in predawn raids. They were subsequently charged with membership in a banned organization, providing students with weapons and military training. On January 29, 2007, a Cairo criminal court dismissed all charges against al-Shatir and his co-defendants and ordered their immediate release. Security forces re-arrested the men moments after the ruling, and on February 4, President Hosni Mubarak, ignoring the court's verdict, ordered the cases, and those of 23 other alleged members of the Brotherhood, transferred to a military court. On May 8, a Cairo administrative court ruled that President Mubarak's order was invalid, but on May 14, the Supreme Administrative court reversed that decision after the government appealed. After the June 3 session, the court adjourned until July 15. "Twelve years ago the court granted me unfettered access when I observed the military trial of senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood," said Palestinian lawyer Anis Kassim, Amnesty International's senior trial observer. "I am extremely disappointed in the government's attitude this time." Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said that trying civilians before Egyptian military courts flouts international standards for fair trials.

TAKE ACTION: Amnesty International Member Fighting Forcible Return and Likely Torture in Egypt
Time is running out for Amnesty International member Sameh Khouzam. Khouzam, an Egyptian native who faces forcible return to Egypt, has received a 12-day stay of deportation. This is due to expire on 18 June, leaving him at risk of torture or ill-treatment if he is then returned to Egypt.

Sameh Khouzam, who is currently a member of the AIUSA chapter in York, Pa., fled Egypt in 1998 after reportedly being tortured and ill-treated by the Egyptian police because of his Coptic Christian religious beliefs. He alleges that he and his family had been subjected to a sustained campaign of intimidation and abuse on account of his refusal to convert to Islam. On one occasion in 1997 he alleges that he was beaten and sexually abused in a police station. The Egyptian authorities have reportedly told the US State Department that he is wanted in Egypt on a murder charge.

Sameh Khouzam was held in US immigration detention until February 2006, when he was released on condition that he report regularly to the immigration authorities. However on 29 May 2007, he was taken into custody again and told that he could be returned to Egypt within days. He is believed to have received a letter from the US Department of Homeland Security stating that it had received diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian authorities that he would not be tortured on his return.

Amnesty International does not take a position on the murder charges. What does concern us is that a U.S. court ruling staying his deportation because of the torture concerns has been quietly overruled by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security without any public process. What does concern us is that the decision was based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government that he wouldn't be tortured, assurances that Amnesty's documentation and the Department of State's own reports indicate can't be trusted. What concerns us is international and U.S. law says a prisoner cannot be returned to a country where it is likely he will be tortured.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible:
- welcoming the stay of deportation granted to Egyptian national Sameh Khouzam, but expressing continued concern that he may face torture or ill-treatment if returned to Egypt when the current order expires on 18 June;
- calling on the US authorities to halt his deportation;
- urging them not to rely on diplomatic assurances when deciding whether a person is at risk of torture or ill treatment if transferred to another country;
- calling on them to reaffirm the absolute nature of the obligation under international law not to transfer any person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment.
APPEALS TO:
The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20520, USA
Fax: 1 202 261 8577
E-mail: secretary@state.gov
Salutation: Dear Secretary of State

The Honorable Michael Chertoff
Secretary of Homeland Security
US Department of Homeland Security
Washington DC 20528, USA
Fax: 1 202 456 2461
Salutation: Dear Secretary Chertoff


Women in Iran have been at the forefront of the human rights movement in that country, advocating on a broad spectrum of issues, such as for reforms in the legal system that would revise provisions that hamper women’s rights, for an end to execution by stoning, and for better pay and working conditions for teachers and others. Although their advocacy has consisted of peaceful activities such as participating in non-violent demonstrations and circulating petitions, they have been met with harsh repression from the Iranian government, as part of a recent pervasive crackdown on a wide range of activists, who have suffered arrest, detention, torture and ill-treatment, imposition of prison sentences and fines. As one activist Jila Baniyaghoub told the Associated Press, over the past year, the Iranian security forces have "become more and more aggressive even as women's actions have become more peaceful and more tame.”

Amnesty International is concerned that Minister of Intelligence Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie has publicly accused the Iranian women’s movement and student activists of being part of an enemy conspiracy for a “soft subversion” of the Iranian government on 10 April 2007. Despite the repressive conditions and real threats to their safety, fearless women activists persevere in their human rights work. Amnesty International has been working to support the many initiatives taken by these brave Iranian women.

One campaign spearheaded by Iranian women is the “Campaign for Equality,” also known as the “Million Signatures Campaign,” which seeks to reform the Iranian legal system. Although women in Iran have achieved success in education and in many professions—the majority of university students in Iran, for instance, are women—they are subject to discriminatory family laws involving divorce, inheritance and custody rights. Women activists launched the campaign in August 2006 and have been circulating petitions with the goal of collecting at least a million signatures calling for an end to these inequitable laws. Their campaign involves going door to door and talking to other women in their homes, in schools and universities and in factories. They have also held peaceful demonstrations and have been active on the Internet, setting up a number of Web sites dedicated to women's issues. Amnesty International is supporting this campaign and issued a joint statement calling for equal rights for women in Iran on International Women's Day on 7 March 2007 with Iranian lawyer and prominent human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.
One of the leading activists in this campaign has been Zeinab Peyqambarzadeh. She was arrested on 8 May 2007 for her participation in a peaceful protest on 4 March 2007. She had reported to the Revolutionary Court after receiving a summons and was then arrested and sent to the notorious Evin Prison in Tehran. Her family and lawyer attempted to post bail but the court would not authorize her release. Five other women active in the “Million Signatures Campaign” had been arrested on 2 April 2007 while collecting signatures. Three were released after one day in detention, but Mahboubeh Hossein Zadeh and Nahid Keshavarz were taken to Evin Prison and were released on bail on 15 April 2007. They were reportedly accused of “acting against state security through propaganda against the system.” And on 10 June 2007 Ehteram Shadfar, a 62-year-old member of the Women’s Cultural Center, who has been active collecting signatures for the campaign, was arrested and taken to Niloufar police station and then transferred to the Vozara Detention Center, where they are believed to be still held. No charges are known to have been brought against them, but activists believe they have been detained in connection with their collection of signatures for the campaign.
Two women who had been prosecuted for their participation in a peaceful demonstration on 12 June 2006 calling for equal rights for women were sentenced to prison terms on 18 April 2007. That June 2006 demonstration had been violently dispersed by security forces who arrested at least 70 people. Fariba Davoudi Mohajer was sentenced to four years, three of which were suspended, and Sussan Tahmasebi was sentenced to two years, eighteen months of which were suspended. The two are currently free pending an appeal of their sentences. Also on 18 April, Behareh Hedayat, a university student, was tried, without the presence of her lawyer, on charges of “acting against state security”, “participating in an illegal demonstration on 12 June 2006” and “disturbing public order”. Earlier, on 11 April, Azadeh Forghani, a university student, was given a two-year suspended sentence in connection with the same demonstration. Several days later, she was summoned to court where she was questioned and informed that she was facing new charges in connection with a peaceful gathering on 4 March 2007 held to protest against the prosecution of five other activists in connection with the demonstration in June 2006.
Over 30 women activists were arrested on Sunday, 4 March 2007 while staging a peaceful demonstration in Tehran. The arrests were apparently intended to deter activists from organizing events to mark International Women's Day on 8 March. The women were arrested outside Tehran's Revolutionary Court, where they had gathered to protest at the trial of five women charged in connection with a demonstration held on 12 June 2006 to demand that women be given equal rights with men under the law in Iran."Rather than arresting peaceful demonstrators, the Iranian authorities should be taking seriously women's demands for equality before the law and addressing discrimination against women wherever it exists in the Iranian legal system," said Irene Khan, Amnesty International's Secretary General.” In their joint statement of 7 March 2007, Shirin Ebadi and Irene Khan stated, “as long as women are denied human rights, anywhere in the world, there can be no justice and no peace. Recognizing women's equal rights, therefore, is an essential requirement for the creation of strong, sustainable and stable societies and ensuring that women enjoy equality with men in all areas of life is a key step to making human rights a universal reality.” Unfortunately, due to the failure of the Iranian government to recognize the basic human rights of its citizens, as noted by Shirin Ebadi in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, "harassment is a fact of life for someone pursuing human rights in Iran."
Appeals to be sent to:
Leader of the Islamic Republic
His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei, The Office of the Supreme Leader
Shoahada Street, Qom, Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: info@leader.ir
istiftaa@wilayah.org
Salutation: Your Excellency


Head of the Judiciary
His Excellency Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi
Ministry of Justice, Park-e Shahr, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: Please send emails via the feedback form on the Persian site of the website: http://www.iranjudiciary.org/contactus-feedback-fa.html
Salutation: Your Excellency

President
His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Presidency, Palestine Avenue, Azerbaijan Intersection, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: + 98 21 6 649 5880
Email: dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir
(Or via website) http://www.president.ir/email

SAMPLE LETTER
Dear:I am writing to you to express my deep concern about the prison sentences recent imposed on a number of women activists as well as the arrests and harassment of a number of other women in the last few months, including students, teachers, and academics—some of whom had been involved in peaceful demonstrations calling for reform. I am particularly worried that those arrested could face torture or ill-treatment while in detention.

Zeinab Peyqambarzadeh, an activist involved in the “One Million Signatures” campaign calling for reform of discriminatory legislation regarding women, was arrested on 8 May for her participation in a peaceful protest on 4 March 2007. Five other women active in the “Million Signatures Campaign” had been arrested on 2 April 2007 and Ehteram Shadfar was arrested on 10 June 2007 while collecting signatures. Three were released after one day in detention, but Mahboubeh Hossein Zadeh and Nahid Keshavarz were taken to Evin Prison and were released on bail on 15 April 2007. They were reportedly accused of “acting against state security through propaganda against the system”.

Two women who had been prosecuted for their participation in a peaceful demonstration on 12 June 2006 calling for equal rights for women were sentenced to prison terms on 18 April 2007. Fariba Davoudi Mohajer was sentenced to four years, three of which were suspended, and Sussan Tahmasebi was sentenced to two years, eighteen months of which were suspended. The two are currently free pending an appeal of their sentences. Also on 18 April, Behareh Hedayat, a university student, was tried, without the presence of her lawyer, on charges of “acting against state security”, “participating in an illegal demonstration on 12 June 2006” and “disturbing public order”. Earlier, on 11 April, Azadeh Forghani, a university student, was given a two-year suspended sentence in connection with the same demonstration. Several days later, she was summoned to court where she was questioned and informed that she was facing new charges in connection with a peaceful gathering on 4 March 2007 held to protest against the prosecution of five other activists in connection with the demonstration in June 2006.

The right to engage in peaceful activism is enshrined in a number of international treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I urge your government to cease arresting and detaining those who participate in non-violent protests and human rights activism. I also call on you to release those currently held in detention for their peaceful activism and to reverse the sentences of Fariba Davoudi Mohajer, Sussan Tahmasebi and Azadeh Forgani.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

For every soldier or Marine who dies in Iraq, at least 20 Iraqis are killed. Some of their stories.

By Rod Nordland and Babak Dehghanpisheh
Newsweek

April 2, 2007 issue - Describing Jalal Mustafa to a reporter, the first thing his family mentions is "that long love story of his." The young mechanic's dream was to wed his fiancée, Laila, and "have as many kids as they could." But running a small auto-repair shop, it took Mustafa a long time to save up enough for the wedding, let alone a house. On Feb. 4, he finally went to the courthouse to apply for a marriage license. As he was walking through the gates, a car pulled up next to the building. Before the vehicle came to a full stop, the driver detonated a suicide bomb. Four bystanders died, including Mustafa: burned over much of his body, a piece of shrapnel lodged in his head. The bombing didn't even make the news; it was an ordinary day in Baghdad.

For each U.S. service member killed in Iraq, at least 20 Iraqis die violently. Feb. 4 was no exception. That day in Baghdad, roadside bombs killed four Iraqi policemen in one incident and two soldiers in another, and an Army colonel lost his life to assassins in the southern suburbs. But most of the day's 81 victims of violent deaths—about the usual daily toll this past winter—were civilians like Mustafa, the softest of soft targets. Forty-two of them were gunned down execution style, many of their corpses bearing signs of torture: hallmarks of Shia death squads. Most of the other deaths appeared to be the work of Sunni and Al Qaeda extremists. NEWSWEEK talked to the families of four of the Feb. 4 victims. Among them were a street vendor, a former TV journalist and a truck-parts dealer. Two were Shia, and two were Sunni. And in each case their families lost not only loved ones but breadwinners. None of their killers has been identified:

Jawad Jasem, 44, was serving a customer at his pushcart outside the courthouse when the bomb exploded. The son of a poor Shia farmer, Jasem had wanted to be an engineer. When he was 18, family friends got him into the Air Force, where he earned good money working on jets—until the Army, desperate for infantrymen in the war with Iran, sent him to the front. He was wounded four times. He was not allowed to return to civilian life after the war, even though he had a wife and five children. "He used to tell everyone that the last day of his military service would be the happiest day of his life," says his younger brother, Kareem, a shopkeeper. "He said he'd celebrate with a great party in which he would make a feast for the entire city."


It didn't turn out that way. His last day of duty was April 8, 2003, when U.S. troops entered Baghdad. Jawad was among thousands of Iraqi soldiers who stripped off their uniforms and fled.

He started over, buying his pushcart and setting up in front of the courthouse. He built a good business. It was a predominantly Shia neighborhood, but the bomber killed members of both sects indiscriminately. "Evil has no eyes," says Kareem Jasem. "Jawad's shop had turned into just a big hole ... and his body was smashed into a wall."

Abdul Salam, 47, was a pious Sunni who believed in sectarian harmony. The father of six, he had refused to join Saddam's Army, and worked instead in defense factories. After the invasion, he started a truck-parts business; he hired two Shia apprentices and set up shop in Al Yousifiyah, a mostly Sunni suburb. Driving home from work one night with his two assistants, Salam stopped at a police checkpoint. A van full of gunmen pulled up and abducted all three. Shia friends tried to intercede for Salam at the local Mahdi Army office, but on Feb. 4, Salam's corpse was found dumped in a field a few miles from his home, shot repeatedly in the head and chest. His Shia apprentices were freed. "He was beloved by his friends, colleagues and all of his neighbors, most of them Shiites," says Salam's brother, Naser Zaidan. "He used to say Islam is the unifier of Iraqis."

For Suhad Shakir, 36, her new job was a dream come true. She had always wanted to work with Americans, and she loved helping people. Last September she quit her post as a journalist at state-owned TV and jumped at an opening with the Iraqi Assistance Center, a Coalition-run office in the Green Zone that works with U.S. and Iraqi agencies to provide social services. It seemed safer than reporting, and it paid better.

On Feb. 4 she was on her way to work, waiting in the queue at a checkpoint near an entrance to the Green Zone which is often targeted by suicide bombers. Shakir was in the slow lane, for Iraqi cars that are subject to careful searches. A convoy of armored vehicles came roaring up and got stuck at the checkpoint. One of the bodyguards in the first vehicle threw a bottle of water at the driver in front of Shakir to signal him to move. The driver panicked and backed into Shakir's car. She tried to get out of the way but backed into the car behind her. Someone aboard the fourth vehicle in the convoy, seeing Shakir's sudden move, opened fire, hitting her once. The vehicle slowed and a goateed Westerner in khaki leaned out his window and shot her again in the face at close range. Then the convoy raced off into the Green Zone.

Iraqi cops think Shakir's killer mistook her for a suicide bomber, but they say they're continuing to investigate. "It is very important I know why she is killed and who killed her," said Shakir's mother, Salima Kadhim, dressed in black a month after her daughter's death. Like many Iraqis, she still waits.

With Salih Mehdi and Ahmed Obeidi in Baghdad

Statement at CSW by the Middle East Caucus

Speaker: Amal Mahmoud FayedWhen: Friday, March 2, 2007What time: 3:00 – 6:00 pm, General DebateOrganization: Middle East Caucus (Amal Fayed herself is from the Forum for Women in Development and Karama Arab Group for Ending Violence Against Women)

Topic: Arab Women's Suffering Under Armed Conflict, Economic and Political Situation Threatening Women's Dignity

We are the women in the Middle East Caucus participating in the CSW sessions from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Sudan, Tunisia, Yemen.

We consider women's dignity to be the essence of a woman's right and a woman's life. In Arabic, this word for dignity is 'Karama.' We believe the elimination of discrimination and violence against women is a reclamation of dignity and a defense of human rights.

We urge the formal government delegations at CSW to place a greater focus on prevention of violence against women and protection for children from violence, and conflict resolution in the Middle East region. War brings the maximum escalation of violence into human lives and the greatest violations of human rights and women's rights. War brings obstacles that affront the development process, which enacts a double form of violence against women: 1) traditional practices based on cultural heritage, 2) practices of the occupation force against local women, including rape, prostitution, economic exploitation, and violence.

Women from Palestine, Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon, and Somalia are experiencing the height of victimization by armed forces at war in their countries. Yet there exists no international convention that explicitly protects the rights and safety of women within armed conflict zones, and their survival. Neither is there questioning of those responsible for this military and gender violence in our region.

The cost of war to women and its exponential harm is our concern. To eradicate the roots of war in our region, we must also transform the abuse of global media which stereotypes Arab women as passive, oppressed, and incapable of self-determined rights and liberties. These stereotypes in the global media are used to market so-called democratic reforms as a justification for military action. The democratic reforms do not arrive, instead women and their families suffer increasing injustice and loss of human rights living under armed conflict.

We ask the CSW and UN to focus their efforts to solve the special problems for women and girl refugees, to protect them from the violence and discrimination they face in escaping war and in the countries to which they flee. The resources for UN ANWRA should be increased to offer necessary services and additional program to serve and protect women and girl refugees. They live as some of the most vulnerable and unprotected people in the world.

The World Bank policies such as structural adjustment and privatization in the Middle East are dramatically increasing poverty and economic deprivation and violence, with an exaggerated burden falling on women and their children. Economic crisis makes women more vulnerable and exposes them to many forms of abuse, especially sexual abuse. We demand review of all of these economic policies and insist on a special convention on the economic empowerment of women and girls.

We also take into consideration on our region the position of immigrant women, who suffer double dimensions of violence and violations of their rights: economic violence, sexual violence, psychological violence, and abuse of their civil status and rights in the host country where they have immigrated, as well as male domination and forms of discrimination suffered in their country of origin. We urge a Special Protocol to protect immigrant women in whatever nations they live, and to ensure their rights despite any disparity between the laws of their country of residence and the laws of their country of citizenship/origin.

Violence against women is a crime against all humans. UN member nations and governments must protect all women, and punish those responsible for committing the violence. We want to see the Declaration to End All Forms of Violence Against Women transformed into a UN Convention banning gender violence, to which governments sign their commitment and monitor compliance in their countries.

Because of the expansion of all forms of violence against women and girls in the Middle East in the private sphere, public sphere, or by states, we request a policymaking process with outcomes that are more concrete, more committed, and more enforced with laws, programs, and resources to integrate gender perspective in all institutions, agencies, and governments.

We urge the private sector to implement international criteria and standards for ethics to protect women and girls from exploitation and abuse in workplaces, employment, services, and industry.

We urge the partners in the 1999 UN Global Compact on Corporate Leadership in the World Economy, which upholds social responsibility and human rights principles across the private sector, to implement and enforce these international ethics and criteria that protect women and girls from economic abuses. We encourage national authorities and local governments to impose penalties on any private sector entity that commits violence or discrimination against women and girls.

In the Middle East and around the world, we regard the civil society organizations as essential partners with national and local government bodies in their strategic decisionmaking and policymaking to eliminate violence and discrimination against women and girls. This partnership will ensure that the national and local governments will have strategies that are more diverse, representative, and stronger in their protection of women and girls.

We support the effort for UN reform of the gender architecture to achieve equality and to end all forms of discrimination against women in the UN structure. We call on all UN agencies to support, implement, and integrate the work of UNIFEM, OSAGI, and the Division for the Advancement of Women, and to significantly increase their budgets.

We recommend that UN agencies and member nations invest a greater commitment and more resources to offer shelters and welfare for women victims of violence, to establish legal procedures that protect these shelters and those who work at them, defending women from violence.

We urge UN member nations to enact equality for women and men in both word and deed, enforcing it in the written laws and in the application of the laws, especially in criminal law which has biases that favor men and allow the trafficking and abuses of women.

We need to raise the legal age for marriage to 18 years in all countries, for women and for men, in order to stop violence and forced marriage of girls underage.

It is a necessity to ensure girls' rights to have their mother's citizenship, especially to ensure the mother's right to pass her nationality to her children. We highlight especially the Palestinian women's suffering from Israel Family Unification Law, which denies citizenship and permanent residency to any Palestinian from the Occupied Palestinian Territories who marries an Israeli citizen, a right available to spouses from every other country in the world.

The Secretary General's report on Violence Against Women should follow up with more attention to specific populations of women and girls who suffer double dimensions of discrimination and violence: on one level as women and then again as women with disabilities, girls in armed conflict, women detained or in prison, women suffering mental health disabilities.

http://www.vday.org/contents/vday/press/release/0703011

The Faces of Muhammed

This is a blog dedicated to the Danish cartoons that began the riots over the Prophet Muhammed. You can see the cartoons here -

http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/2006/03/12-muhammed-cartoons.html

Oldie, but a goodie

Editorial Observer: Accounting for the Invisible Casualties of War
>Shouldn’t Be a Matter of Politics
>
>November 14, 2003
> By ANDREW ROSENTHAL
>
>
>
>One of the most enduring memories from the funeral of my
>friend Michael Kelly, who was killed covering the war in
>Iraq for Atlantic Monthly, was standing by his open grave
>in a cemetery in Cambridge, Mass., watching an Army officer
>in dress uniform make his way through the cold, persistent
>drizzle and up the small hill to Michael's wife and boys.
>He spoke to the family quietly and then got down on one
>knee on the wet artificial turf that had been placed there
>in a vain attempt to shield the mourners from the earth. He
>gave the boys a flag and a medal.
>
>Michael Kelly was not one of their own. He was brash and
>brave, but distinctly unmilitary. Yet the Army took pains
>to make this simple gesture that drove home the way the
>military honors death: it endows that inescapable but
>inescapably tragic part of their lives with a sense of
>moment, of ceremony and dignity, and most of all it faces
>death squarely and honestly.
>
>This is a central part of the warrior's culture, but it is
>all too often missing from the way President Bush is
>running the Iraq war. As the toll nears 400, the casualties
>remain largely invisible. Apart from a flurry of ceremonies
>on Veterans Day, this White House has done everything it
>
>can to keep Mr. Bush away from the families of the dead, at
>least when there might be a camera around.
>
>The wounded, thousands of them, are even more carefully
>screened from the public. And the Pentagon has continued
>its ban on media coverage of the return of flag-draped
>coffins to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, denying the
>dead soldiers and their loved ones even that simple public
>recognition of sacrifice. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of
>the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained rather lamely that the
>ban had been in place since 1991 - when another President
>Bush wanted to avoid the juxtaposition of his face and
>words with pictures of soldiers' coffins.
>
>Some Republicans say it would take up too much of the
>president's time to attend military funerals or meet the
>coffins returning from Iraq. "They're coming back
>continually," the conservative commentator Bay Buchanan
>said on CNN on Tuesday. "The president cannot be flying up
>there every single week."
>
>
>But someone of rank from the White House could and should
>be at each and every military funeral. Ideally, Mr. Bush
>would shake the hand of someone who loved every person who
>dies in uniform - a small demand on his time in a war in
>which the casualties are still relatively small. And he has
>more than enough advisers, cabinet secretaries and other
>officials so attending funerals should not be such an
>inconvenience.
>
>The White House talks about preserving the privacy and
>dignity of the families of the war dead. But if this was
>really about the families, the president or Vice President
>Dick Cheney or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be
>handing flags to widows and mothers in the time-honored
>way. And if protecting the privacy of Americans who are
>suffering was such a priority, the White House wouldn't
>call in the cameras to watch Mr. Bush embracing victims of
>every hurricane, earthquake or suburban California
>wildfire.
>
>Along with the coverage of these casualties, the coverage
>
>of combat in Iraq has virtually ceased. The "embedded"
>correspondents who reported on the stunningly swift march
>to Baghdad during the invasion are gone. The Pentagon has
>ended the program. The ever-upbeat Mr. Rumsfeld likes to
>say that the attacks on American soldiers are brief and
>relatively few in number, compared with the number of men
>in arms in the field in Iraq. But without real news
>coverage, it's hard to know the truth.
>
>Letters from American soldiers who have died in Iraq,
>published on the Op-Ed page on Tuesday, suggest that Mr.
>Rumsfeld's accounting may be highly selective. Shortly
>before he died on June 17, Pvt. Robert Frantz wrote this to
>his mother: "We've had random gunfire within a 100-meter
>radius all night, every night, since I have been here. It
>kinda scares you the first couple nights, but you tend to
>get used to it."
>
>The idea of a slow, painful and bloody holding action in
>which gunfire is a nightly occurrence contrasts sharply,
>
>perhaps too sharply for comfort, with the display of
>overwhelming force, low casualties and lightning-swift
>conclusions that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld put on in the
>spring. The administration undoubtedly feels that showing
>coffins on television or having the president attend
>funerals would undermine public support for the war. (The
>ban on covering the arrival of coffins at Dover was in
>effect during the popular Afghanistan war, but was not
>enforced.) That seems like more of an acknowledgment of how
>fragile that support is than any poll yet taken.
>
>The Bush administration hates comparisons between Iraq and
>Vietnam, and many are a stretch. But there is a lesson that
>this president seems not to have learned from Vietnam. You
>cannot hide casualties. Indeed, trying to do so probably
>does more to undermine public confidence than any display
>of a flag-draped coffin. And there is at least one direct
>parallel. Thirty-five years ago, at the height of the
>
>Vietnam War, the Pentagon took to shipping bodies into the
>United States in the dead of night to avoid news coverage.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/opinion/14FRI4.html?ex=1069834045&ei=1&en=660f
>5cd6223c62e2

A Rebirth of "We the People"

By Jim Rough

Draft written for "The Good Society,"
a journal of PEGS, Committee on the Political Economy of the Good
Society
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/pegs/


A good system of governance needs to work for
both individuals and society as a whole. In the
eighteenth century the old forms of governance
headed by a king and hereditary aristocracy were
not working to the benefit of most people, and a
new system was needed. Through what we now call
the "U.S. Constitutional Convention," "We the
People" of the former colonies transformed
themselves from the rule of inherited privilege
to the rule of law. This transformation affected
governance, economics, and all aspects of life,
creating a new version of the "Good Society."
Today, that newer system is having problems, both
for us collectively and for us as individuals.
Another fundamental change is needed.

This article suggests how "We the People" might
transform ourselves once again, using a seemingly
innocuous U.S. Constitutional amendment. This
amendment borrows from the strategy of the
founders to facilitate all of us to become "We
the People" and to manage our system.

The Problem

Currently, our constitutional, rule of law,
majority-voting, free market system is on
automatic pilot managing both itself and us.
Because the system is based on competition, it
encourages each of us to maximize our own
"special interest," while the "general interest"
takes care of itself. When people were
independent farmers, fishers, and craftspeople on
a seemingly infinite planet, this self-oriented
approach automatically served the general
interest. It was a win/win game, where healthy
competition made things better for everyone.

But as we confront the limits of planetary
resources, as technology and trade link us
together, and as transnational corporations hold
sway, we are becoming more interdependent than
independent. Competition within an interdependent
whole does not serve the general interest. It's
more like the heart and lungs competing for blood
within one body. The body can't survive that way.

Consider one element within our system, a
hypothetical defense contractor. It competes for
money against other possible uses of tax dollars,
like education, protecting the environment, or
public health. With deeper pockets than its
competition, it can hire many lobbyists and make
large political donations to spread a message of
fear, emphasizing real and imaginary dangers. It
garners a big part of the budget in this country
and then sells its products to whichever client
can pay, whether or not they are a risk to our
country. The primary aim of this industry isn't
to maximize national security, but to grow the
market for its products.

By design, all companies aim more primarily for
profits than for citizen well being or a healthy
environment, or other human values. But this
design was made for a time when none of us was
powerful enough to manipulate the demand or
supply of labor or resources, ruin the commons,
or manipulate government to serve our ends. With
the shift from being independent to being
interdependent, the competitive stance of our
system now undermines local communities,
increases long-term health problems, exacerbates
global warming, promotes inequities of wealth,
risks war, crime and terrorism, and limits
individual freedoms.

To earn a living today, even if you work for
yourself, you must direct your attention, energy
and talents to serving a special interest. Those
who ignore this imperative and seek to serve
humanity directly, like to help preserve the
commons, will struggle financially.

Even our thinking process is affected by this
competition. Our political system doesn't
recognize the possibility of a "general-interest"
viewpoint, but enforces special interest
battling. Those who try to enact legislation in
the public interest, like most environmentalists,
must pretend they are a special-interest group,
and compete against well-organized, well-funded
groups who really do serve special interests.

Also, because of our competitive mind-frame, we
don't look too deeply at problems. Like someone
in an argument, rather than searching out the
underlying causes, we blame individuals like
"greedy" CEO's, "lazy" welfare recipients,
"bureaucratic" civil servants, "corrupt"
politicians, or "apathetic" citizens. We look to
non-systemic answers like better education,
active citizen involvement, better leaders, more
volunteerism, small group dialogues, fairer laws,
etc. These are vital, but for real change to
happen, we must take charge of our system.

Many people think human nature is a problem. They
imagine people to be naturally competitive and
unable to reach consensus in large groups. The
structure of our system makes it seem this way.

I've asked many people, for example, "Which set
of values should have priority in society:
Corporate values or human values?" I think
everyone has already reached consensus on
this-human values should predominate. But since
our system is in control of society, it directs
us to enact the opposite. Our job is to keep our
heads down, to serve corporate interests, and to
be in denial about what is happening in the big
picture.

"We the People" Are the Solution

How do we take charge of our system so that it
works for individuals, for all of us, for other
species, and for future generations? Key is that
we need to become "We the People." We need to
call "time out" from the system, convene everyone
together, face the big issues, dialogue
creatively, develop new options, and reach
consensus on a shared vision. If we can do this,
many of society's problems would just go away.

Accomplishing this is not as difficult as it
might seem. Once we escape from the
all-encompassing competitive stance imposed by
our system, and we are facilitated to hold a
general-interest conversation, we will find that
people are naturally attuned to this. Adding the
following "Citizens Amendment" to the U.S.
Constitution, would make the necessary change:

Each year, a lottery selects twenty-four
registered voters to form a "Wisdom
Council." This Wisdom Council is a symbol
and proxy for all the people of the United
States. It meets for up to one week to
choose issues, talk about them, and create
unanimous statements. A meeting facilitator
assures a creative, collaborative process.
At the end of the week, the Wisdom Council
presents its "Statements of the People"
to the nation in a new ceremony, like a State
of the Union message. The Wisdom Council
will then disband permanently and the next
year a new Wisdom Council will be randomly
selected.

Before considering how this Amendment would
establish an inclusive and wise "We the People,"
and how it would benefit society, notice that it
poses little risk. Congress, the Supreme Court,
laws, the media, government programs, elections,
lobbyists, and all the other elements of our
system remain unchanged. It makes no change to
our economic system either. Corporations, the
markets and the distribution of wealth are
untouched. The Citizens Amendment simply adds a
succession of different small groups that meet,
make statements, and disband. These groups have
no power of coercion, and there is little cost.
Policy continues to be set in the normal way,
through experts and elected representatives.

Transformational Conversation

Key to understanding how the Wisdom Council would
transform society is to recognize the
transformational quality of talking and thinking
it engenders, both within the Wisdom Council and
among the larger population.

I call it "choice-creating" rather than
"decision-making" because people seek progress
through breakthroughs more than through logic.
With choice-creating, diverse passionate voices
are assets rather than liabilities because they
make breakthroughs more likely. Just from talking
in this way, people change their minds and how
they feel, and they build a sense of community.

The best way for any group to reach consensus on
a difficult issue is for them to have a
breakthrough. Then consensus happens quickly,
individual views are respected, and all are
motivated to help implement the result. Debate
and deliberation, the ideals of our founders,
mute this possibility. These modes are oriented
toward critical thinking and winning the
competition, instead of creative thinking and
seeking what is best for all. Even
"consensus-building," where people are expected
to suppress their own individuality for the
benefit of the group, mutes the possibility for
breakthroughs.

The Wisdom Council is structured for choice-creating in a number of
ways.

* It is a "time out" from the usual political conversation.

* It is a diverse group of ordinary people who speak only for
themselves.

* The group must reach unanimity.

* The group has been symbolically anointed to speak as "We the People.

* And the group is aided by a facilitator-
hopefully, one who uses "Dynamic Facilitation."
Dynamic Facilitation (DF) is a new social
invention oriented to helping groups achieve
choice-creating. [1]

Tom Atlee, the author of "The Tao of Democracy:
Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World That
Works for All" (www.taoofdemocracy.com) says,
"Part of why I love Dynamic Facilitation so much
is that it works with people AS THEY ARE. It
doesn't require that they buy into a set of rules
about how they're going to talk together. They
can be [jerks[ and the facilitator makes sure (a)
that they don't get shut down because of that,
(b) that the people they target -- and the group
as a whole -- continue to feel safe and (c) that
whatever gift they bring gets heard and made
available to the group mind. This alone makes DF
incredibly useful in a pluralistic democracy. Add
to that its power to metabolize conflict into
useful insights and to engender co-creativity
among diverse people, and it's a real
treasure."[2]

The Wisdom Council Can Transform Society

At first glance, a Wisdom Council doesn't seem
like it would do very much. "OK, so the group
determines a unanimous conclusion and presents
it, then what?" The Wisdom Council would identify
a general-interest viewpoint, express it in a
powerful new way and enable all-of-us-together to
have more influence over legislation.

But this is only a minor influence. It would also
educate people about the important issues,
involve more citizens in current affairs, include
minority voices and those who are currently
underrepresented, help overcome the dominance of
corporate controlled media, raise the important
issues and put them on the national agenda, and
raise the quality of the political conversation.

One big impact of the Amendment would be in how
it opens the door to a transformation of how we
make collective decisions. Consider, for example,
what it would mean to have a legitimate,
thoughtful voice of an inclusive "We the People."
This would approximate a true democracy. For
example, as the Wisdom Council process continues,
the Supreme Court [might] build trust in the
dynamic views of "We the People" today. At some
point they [might well] hold those views to be a
more relevant standard for their judgements than
the static positions taken by "We the People" of
the eighteenth century.

Currently, we do not make collective decisions in
a thoughtful way. Special interests buy the
media, politicians, and expert voices to defeat
legislation that is in the public interest.
"Sound bites" generated by highly paid public
relations firms make bad proposals sound good,
and good ones sound costly, bureaucratic, or
stupid. But a Wisdom Council can help all of us
to examine, understand, and appreciate the
underlying issues more deeply, and build the
political will for thoughtful actions.

With the Amendment in place, you and I will
participate in creating a shared vision of what
all people want. To have such a vision is a shift
in leadership style from our current reactive
mode, stopping bad things from happening, to a
pro-active mode, helping good things to happen. A
visionary leadership style requires fewer laws.
It would transform government efficiency, how the
media reports the news, and how individuals
contribute to society.

The Wisdom Council promises to shift the basis of
society from competition for scarce resources,
like a scarcity of jobs, toward cooperation to
enhance our shared abundance. In my community,
for instance, there are limited jobs for teachers
in the local school and the schools are cutting
back because of lack of funds. Yet at the same
time, there are many people who may or may not
have teaching credentials, who would dearly love
to teach kids. Our present system impoverishes
individuals and society alike by keeping this
pressing need and these vital human resources
apart. With a Wisdom Council in place, common
sense can reassert itself over the dictates of
the system.

To enact the Citizens Amendment is to open the
door to a transformation of our selves, as well.
For instance, it would help us break out of our
collective denial about the big problems we face
and our feelings of powerlessness over them. It
provides a way for all of us to become creative
and empowered in serving others and life on this
planet.

An Example from History

The best example of how the Wisdom Council can
transform our society today is how something like
it initiated a world-transformation during the
years 1787-1791. The delegates to the U.S.
Constitutional Convention didn't think of
themselves as "We the People." Most believed in
the benefits of having an aristocracy and were
fearful of democracy. They didn't include slaves,
women, Native Americans, or those who had no
property in their design for governance. But
despite these non-democratic tendencies, the
founders described the U.S. Constitution as
having been written by "We the People."

This phrasing was not what they wanted to say. To
them, it was really the states that were
ordaining and establishing this Constitution. But
since the Convention had already decided that the
Constitution would go into effect after
ratification by nine of the thirteen states, and
no one knew which states would adopt it, the
document couldn't start with a list of states.
"We the People" was a grammatically convenient
phrase.

Besides representing itself as speaking for We
the People, the U.S. Constitutional Convention
was like a constitutionally anointed Wisdom
Council in many ways. It was a small group of
people who took "time out" from the normal course
of events for a high-visibility meeting. It
addressed the big issues of the day, established
a higher than normal quality of conversation,
sought consensus rather than a majority, issued a
near-unanimous proposal and then disbanded. The
final document was signed by 39 out of 42 present.

One might ask about the Constitutional
Convention, as people often do about the Wisdom
Council, "How could there be any real change
without follow-up?" It just presented its
conclusion and disbanded. Action happened because
its conclusions sparked a widespread conversation
throughout the land and initiated a
self-organizing dynamic of change. It was from
this larger conversation that the Constitution
was implemented and the Bill of Rights was added.
The whole process took only one Wisdom
Council-like meeting, plus four and a half years
of talking and thinking. In the end, "We the
People" really did "ordain and establish" the new
system.

The Citizens Amendment would establish annual
symbolic meetings of "We the People." Those
selected for Wisdom Councils would be given more
power to affect change than were the original
founders. These citizens are anointed by the U.S.
Constitution to speak for "We the People." They
are not beholden to various states or
constituencies, but can speak their minds and
hearts freely. They are not limited in what they
can talk about or recommend, but can pick any
issue, and frame it in their own way. In fact,
they need not even propose an answer. They can
just describe a problem and ask their fellow
citizens to solve it. They have the advantage of
a facilitator, the mass media and the Internet to
generate citizen resonance.

Plus, these "constitutional conventions" are not
just one-time phenomena. They are ongoing.

You and I were born into a system that we didn't
design. Nor did we have the chance to critically
examine and approve it before we came under its
control. We say that we live in a democracy
because we live in a rule-of-law system, we have
a large measure of freedom, and we vote for
elected representatives to make the laws.
Although this may be the best system on earth,
without us choosing it, it is not a democracy.

Thomas Jefferson pointed this out in a letter he
wrote to his friend, James Madison. From the
actuarial tables of his time, he had calculated
that a majority of any given generation would be
dead after about nineteen years. With this
statistic in mind, he wrote: "It may be proved
that no society can make a perpetual
constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth
belongs always to the living generation. . . .
Every constitution, then, and every law naturally
expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced
longer, it is an act of force and not of
right."[3]

Going Forward

The Wisdom Council is a new concept that needs
testing. Schools, unions, towns, cities,
counties, states, nations and all large systems
that seek democratic governance can use it.

Consultant, Nancy Rosanoff, established one
Wisdom Council experiment in Pleasantville, NY.
Nine citizens were randomly selected with the
blessing of the Town Trustees. They met for eight
hours-four hours on each of a Saturday and
Sunday. They were dynamically facilitated to
achieve unanimity. In the last half-hour, they
made a presentation to the Town Trustees. A quick
summary of their unanimous conclusions
illustrates how creative and thoughtful such a
group can be:

Theme: We need to have more pride in
Pleasantville. We can't just be a bedroom
community but need to be a real community.

There were three subheadings:

1) We need to set up a community infrastructure
to separate New York City commuter parking from
downtown parking and to redirect traffic. (They
had a design for how to do it and how to pay for
it.)

2) We need to create community spirit by
establishing a real center to the town. (The
group suggested using awnings, landscaping and
lighting, and an ongoing committee to encourage
more diverse kinds of downtown businesses.)

3) Youth should be a priority. (The group
identified an abandoned building that should be
an activity center and described ideas for its
funding. They proposed a weekend bus for youth
activities.)

So far this experiment is missing crucial pieces
that create a "We the People." The people of
Pleasantville should enact the Wisdom Council
through a citizens' initiative. The random
selection should be done in a public ceremony,
everyone in town should be invited to a
large-scale presentation of the results, and
there should be organized opportunities for
people to dialogue about the ideas and add their
views. A more complete experiment is planned for
Ashland, OR in the fall of 2003. [4] [This has
now been successfully held. - Tom Atlee] A
non-profit organization, the Center for Wise
Democratic Processes has been formed to help
communities organize Wisdom Councils.[5]

There is interest from a TV producer in a Wisdom
Council experiment for national television. One
way this might happen is to randomly select
sixteen people each quarter to meet for three
days and to have them present their unanimous
findings to a live local and national audience.
Viewers would be encouraged to watch the show
with friends or in churches and community
centers, and to comment on the results through
the Web. This allows people to experience the
Wisdom Council process and to start building a
general-interest perspective. If the timing is
right, this TV show can help establish a
"people's agenda" for the Presidential debates
and the next election.

A common response of many people when they first
hear about the Citizens Amendment is to dismiss
the concept as unworkable. But it is our current
system that will soon prove itself to be
unworkable without this change. It is on
automatic pilot, programmed with
eighteenth-century assumptions about the nature
of human beings and what is needed in the world.
It directs us to keep our heads down, to stay in
denial about our collective situation, while it
drives us toward a world we didn't choose and
that is unsustainable. The Wisdom Council offers
a way for us to call "time out," to come together
as We the People, and to take charge of our
destiny. The potential benefits are immense and
the risk is low. I hope you will investigate
further and experiment with this proposal.

America's Abu Ghraibs

May 31, 2004

By BOB HERBERT

Most Americans were shocked by the sadistic treatment of

Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. But we shouldn't

have been. Not only are inmates at prisons in the U.S. frequently
subjected
to similarly grotesque treatment, but Congress passed a law in 1996 to
ensure that in most cases they were barred from receiving any financial
compensation for the abuse.

We routinely treat prisoners in the United States like

animals. We brutalize and degrade them, both men and women.

And we have a lousy record when it comes to protecting well-behaved,
weak
and mentally ill prisoners from the predators surrounding them.

Very few Americans have raised their voices in opposition

to our shameful prison policies. And I'm convinced that's primarily
because
the inmates are viewed as less than human.

Stephen Bright, director of the Southern Center for Human Rights,
represented several prisoners in Georgia who sought compensation in the
late-1990's for treatment that was remarkably similar to the abuses at
Abu
Ghraib. An undertaker named Wayne Garner was in charge of the prison
system
at the time, having been appointed in 1995 by the governor, Zell
Miller, who
is now a U.S. senator.

Mr. Garner considered himself a tough guy. In a federal

lawsuit brought on behalf of the prisoners by the center,

he was quoted as saying that while there were some inmates

who "truly want to do better . . . there's another 30 to 35

per cent that ain't fit to kill. And I'm going to be there

to accommodate them."

On Oct. 23, 1996, officers from the Tactical Squad of the Georgia
Department
of Corrections raided the inmates' living quarters at Dooly State
Prison, a
medium-security facility in Unadilla, Ga. This was part of a series of
brutal shakedowns at prisons around the state that were designed to
show the
prisoners that a new and tougher regime was in charge.

What followed, according to the lawsuit, was simply sick. Officers
opened
cell doors and ordered the inmates, all males, to run outside and
strip.
With female prison staff members looking on, and at times laughing,
several
inmates were subjected to extensive and wholly unnecessary body cavity
searches. The inmates were ordered to lift their genitals, to squat, to
bend
over and display themselves, etc.

One inmate who was suspected of being gay was told that if

he ever said anything about the way he was being treated,

he would be locked up and beaten until he wouldn't "want to

be gay anymore." An officer who was staring at another

naked inmate said, "I bet you can tap dance." The inmate

was forced to dance, and then had his body cavities

searched.

An inmate in a dormitory identified as J-2 was slapped in

the face and ordered to bend over and show himself to his cellmate. The
raiding party apparently found that to be hilarious.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Garner himself, the commissioner of the

Department of Corrections, was present at the Dooly Prison raid.

None of the prisoners named in the lawsuit were accused of

any improper behavior during the course of the raid. The suit

charged that the inmates' constitutional rights had been violated

and sought compensation for the pain, suffering, humiliation and

degradation they had been subjected to.

Fat chance.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act, designed in part to limit "frivolous"
lawsuits by inmates, was passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill
Clinton in 1996. It specifically prohibits the awarding of financial
compensation to prisoners "for mental or emotional injury while in
custody
without a prior showing of physical injury."

Without any evidence that they had been seriously physically

harmed, the inmates in the Georgia case were out of luck.

The courts ruled against them.

This is the policy of the United States of America.

Said Mr. Bright: "Today we are talking about compensating prisoners in
Iraq
for degrading treatment, as of course we should. But we do not allow
compensation for prisoners in the United States who suffer the same
kind of
degradation and humiliation."

The message with regard to the treatment of prisoners in the U.S.

has been clear for years: Treat them any way you'd like. They're

just animals.

The treatment of the detainees in Iraq was far from an aberration.

They, too, were treated like animals, which was simply a logical

extension of the way we treat prisoners here at home.

---

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company