U.S. Attempts at Destabilization: The Peace Movement Stands in Solidarity with Venezuela

The United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) and the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) have issued a strong statement calling for the U.S. government to stop its attempts to destabilize the Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro. The statement serves notice that the U.S. antiwar movement will oppose any attempts on the part of the U.S. government at “regime change” in Venezuela, whether by economic pressure, coup attempts, or military intervention.

According to Ajamu Baraka, National Organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace,

“The U.S. led destabilization project in Venezuela is an attack on all progressive peoples and movements in the Americas, including the over 150 million Black people in the region. The Black Alliance for Peace understands that there can no peace without justice, and so we stand in solidarity with the people of Venezuela who are defending their project for social justice, self-determination and national sovereignty. In our joint statement with UNAC, we are calling on the Trump Administration to immediately cease its subversive activities in Venezuela.”

Joe Lombardo, Co-coordinator of UNAC, stated,

“Today the U.S. has military bases in over 130 countries. It has around 20 times the number of military bases as all other countries in the world combined. Through military force, economic sabotage and other means, it seeks to impose Wall Street’s will on all countries. The brave people of Venezuela have resisted these attempts in their country, and so UNAC and BAP stand with them.”

UNAC will use its upcoming national conference (http://UNACconference2017) to express support for Venezuela.

*     *     *

Statement on Venezuela by the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) and the Black Alliance for Peace 

The United States has been conducting a brutal, 20-year-long campaign of destabilization against Venezuela in an attempt to cause “regime change” in that country.  This has taken the form of economic sabotage and financial manipulation as well as support for the mobilization of right-wing forces in increasingly violent demonstrations.

This is not a recent policy but one that has also been carried out under the Obama and Bush administrations as well as the present Trump administration. In 2002, right-wing forces inside Venezuela attempted a coup against then-President Hugo Chavez. Many sources have confirmed that the U.S. gave the go-ahead to the opposition to orchestrate the coup and promised support.  Soon after the coup, the people of Venezuela turned out in the streets in massive numbers and restored Chavez to the presidency.

Barack Obama continued the assault on the Venezuelan revolution by imposing crippling sanctions and asserting that Venezuela was a “security threat” to the United States. These attacks from the U.S. exemplify attempts to realize full-spectrum dominance, the epitome of imperialist intervention which has brought so much suffering to the world.

Some of the very same opposition leaders who were involved in the 2002 coup attempt are today behind the present unrest, which has seen well-financed opposition forces leading violent protests against the government of Nicolas Maduro. The U.S. corporate media has reported on these actions but has blamed the violence on the Venezuelan government and has not reported the huge mobilizations in defense of the Maduro government.

Now a bipartisan bill has been submitted in the Senate (S.1018) with the intention of further destabilizing Venezuela.  For more information on this bill and some actions you can take to oppose it, please go to

The economic crises in Venezuela is severe. The Venezuelan economy is dependent on its large oil resources.  The oil has been nationalized since 1976, but there has been a continual push from U.S. interests as well as wealthy Venezuelans to privatize it. Though the oil remains nationalized, the refining, transportation, and markets are all private and have been used to undercut the ability of the oil industry to support the economy. Additionally, in the past few years, with the encouragement of Wall Street, oil production around the world has been kept high, driving down the price, which hurts oil-dependent economies, including those of countries that the U.S. opposes, such as Russia and Iran, in addition to Venezuela.

The U.S. media also has been full of stories of Venezuelan supermarkets with near-empty shelves and long lines of people seeking basic necessities. What hasn’t been reported is that the privately owned food corporations are deliberately hoarding supplies intended for working-class neighborhoods while making sure that food and other goods are readily available in the wealthier areas.

The Bolivarian Revolution has always endeavored to be an ally of the people of United States and to extend a hand of friendship and solidarity.  When the U.S. government turned its back on the people of the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Venezuelan government offered humanitarian aid but was rebuffed. Venezuela provided fuel assistance to low-income Black and Brown people when the U.S. government would not.

These acts reinforced the strong support that many in the Black community had for the process in Venezuela and deepened the commitment of Black activists to stand in solidarity with the people of Venezuela and their process. This support is in line with the long-standing Black radical tradition of defending nations under imperialist attack by the U.S. government.

The defeat of the Bolivarian Revolution at the hands of U.S. imperialism and its reactionary right-wing allies in Venezuela would be a defeat for progressive forces all over the world and a disaster for the people of Venezuela and its people, as it has been in Libya and Ukraine and Haiti and every nation that has lost its sovereignty to the two-party commitment to imperialist intervention.

UNAC and the Black Alliance for Peace demand:

End US interference in the affairs of Venezuela!

Self-determination for the Venezuelan people!

End the sanctions and economic warfare now!

Posta under Politikk, samfunn | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Critisism, Critisism, What Critisism?

Critiquing Maduro from the Left

With the intensification of political conflict and economic deterioration in Venezuela, harsh all-encompassing criticism of the government is originating not only from the right side of the political spectrum, but also from the left. Gone are the days when late President Hugo Chávez could boast of having unified the nation’s notoriously fragmented leftist movement, ranging from Trotskyists and Communists to social democrats.

One feature of the anti-Chavista position coming from the left is the “plague on both your houses” argument that condemns both sides – government and opposition – with nearly equal force. University professor Gabriel Hetland appears to defend this line of thinking in a recent NACLA article, though grounding his argument in some of the early achievements of the Chavez government. He ends the piece by citing the slogan that he claims represents the view of the popular classes toward Venezuelan politicians: “Que se vayan todos!” or “Throw them all out!”

Another line of argument – common with regard to nations under socialist rule – is that Maduro’s policies depart from a rational socialist model, which in effect is based on classroom calculations of so-called “cybernetic socialism” divorced from socio-economic and political realities (as discussed below.) A third perspective of the leftist analysts focuses on world power politics that eclipses struggles at the national and grassroots levels.

All three tendencies characterize the thinking of Heinz Dieterich, a long-time Mexican resident and university professor of German descent. As an advisor to Hugo Chávez, Dieterich helped coin the term “twenty-first century socialism,” the title of a book he published in 2005, around the time that the Venezuelan president began calling himself a socialist. The book advocated Latin American integration, while denying that twentieth-century communist governments could serve as an inspiration.

In 2007, Dieterich famously broke with Chávez over his decision to seek reelection and abolish presidential term limits. Dieterich has escalated his criticism under Chávez’s successor Nicolás Maduro, who he calls as “inept and mafioso” as the nation’s opposition.

Dieterich’s attacks on Maduro pass over government decisions with far-reaching implications that Dieterich, as a leftist, should not have overlooked in his analysis. Despite deepening the country’s extractivist model, Maduro has rejected neoliberal-promoted privatization, deregulation and agreements with the IMF as a way out of the current economic crisis. The Venezuelan government has encouraged worker takeovers of factories that cease to produce, such as Clorox and Kimberly-Clark, both of which have left the country. The government has also created neighborhood organizations known as CLAPs that sidetrack private commercial food chains by distributing basic commodities at subsidized prices. (According to CLAP’s national coordinator, nearly two million families benefited from the program last year.) Dieterich harshly criticizes bold policies and actions promoted by Chávez and Maduro – such as worker input in decision making, worker takeover of factories, and community self-governing bodies known as “communes,” calling them “fantasies” and “the road to the abyss.”

The Chavista government’s strengths must be factored into an analysis that also takes into consideration the negatives: corruption, overly-centralized leadership and the government’s failure to devise a viable system to regulate prices for basic goods and currency exchange rates. More recently, the government provoked the opposition by forbidding the electoral participation of governor and former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles for 15 years on allegations of corruption. It has also put off regional electoral contests slated for December 2016; an ongoing delay of elections would certainly cast doubt on the government’s democratic commitment.

But criticisms of the government must be placed in the broader context of the continued, unproductive hostility coming from powerful groups both within and outside Venezuela. These and other criticism of the Maduro government’s shortcomings and errors should not be off-limits for progressives, nor should their seriousness be played down. Elsewhere, I have criticized those on the Left who caution against critical analyses by academics in the North of leftist governments in the global South. But criticisms of the government must be placed in the broader context of the continued, unproductive hostility coming from powerful groups both within and outside Venezuela. The most recent examples of the international campaign waged against the Maduro government include the OAS’s secretary general Luis Almagro’s insistence on the holding of general elections and the threat of Venezuela’s expulsion from the organization. Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate unanimously-passed Resolution 35, urging the Trump administration to hold Venezuelan officials accountable for human rights violations and to work with the OAS to ensure “democratic solutions,” while Mercosur (The Common Market of the South) has refused to allow Venezuela to assume the organization’s rotational presidency.

The violent confrontations in Venezuela of recent weeks are another example of the need to contextualize, and to reject a “plague on both your houses” view. The bellicose behavior of opposition street brigades (as Hetland describes,) including the destruction of public property and the killing and wounding of numerous security forces, would be labeled terrorism in the U.S. and elsewhere. While by no means can we defend extrajudicial abuses, police responses must be seen in the context of this violent behavior by groups belonging to the opposition.

Concurrent with his abandonment of the Chavista camp, Dieterich has embraced a version of leftist thinking that privileges the importance of international power politics, specifically the confrontation between the United States, China and Russia. In 2015, Dieterich wrote “The conquest of the state… as a strategy… to supersede capitalism is today futile, unless it is done in alliance with the world’s superpowers.” As a response to Washington’s recent pushback in Latin America, Dieterich calls on China to implement a sort of Marshal Plan that would be conditional on the Chavista military’s dumping of Maduro and the adoption of a “scientifically-based, political-economic program of national salvation.” Dieterich’s China proposal to prop up progressive Latin American governments by injecting massive sums of money would, in his view, safeguard that nation’s “legitimate economic” and “geostrategic interests” in the face of U.S. efforts to undermine them. At the same time, China would be “serving the people of Latin America and humanity in general.” Dieterich sees the proposal as a win-win situation.

The one missing element in this quasi-Marxist strategy for achieving socialism is social mobilization based on class conflict. Dieterich’s sense of realism translates into a preference for power politics and decisions originating from above. He thus ignores the fundamental principal of the inevitability of class struggle that Marx and Engels laid out in the Communist Manifesto. In the case of Venezuela, the role of the Chavista rank and file in both defending the government and shaping policy cannot be left out of any analysis of the Chávez and Maduro administrations.

By focusing on the realpolitik of potential world powers, however, Dieterich overlooks the transformations that progressive Latin American nations like Venezuela have initiated.There is an element of truth in Dieterich’s assertion that China and Russia favor the economic and political interests of progressive Latin American governments over those of the U.S. and could be natural allies, although their political and economic systems – not to mention human rights records – are nothing to emulate. Certainly China and Russia have not pressured nations into adopting neoliberal policies, as has Washington and the IMF. Furthermore, outside of their border areas which they consider to be vital to their national security, Russia and China do not display military might throughout the world in opposition to governments considered “unfriendly,” as is the case of the United States.

Dieterich’s primary economic theory, laid out in Socialism of the Twenty-First Century, advocates cybernetics-style, or computer-based, socialism to replace the market economy. Dieterich argues that only computers can systematically determine the real value of labor as defined by Marx (value is loosely defined as work hours). This calculation is necessary in order to establish a relationship between the purchasing power of a worker’s salary and his/her working hours, and to set prices on the basis of a product’s real value.

Dieterich states that prior to the era of computers, socialist governments were doomed to fail because making these calculations was literally impossible. The theory smacks of “technological determinism,” namely the notion that technological developments determine historical change. This reasoning is another example of how Dieterich underestimates, if not ignores, the fundamental role of popular struggle in bringing about change.

The real struggle for socialism is a much more complicated process. In developing nations, one of the major challenges is the informal economy – in Venezuela, over 50% of the workforce works informally. How can progressives mobilize and unite this sector? Dieterich’s computer-based scheme is unlikely to serve as a rallying cry for these workers, particularly because applying it to the informal economy is hardly feasible.

In accordance with his computer-based model for socialism, Dieterich sees the middle class as replacing the working class as the key agent in favor of “the model of anti-capitalism and liberation of humanity proposed by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Ho and Fidel.”

Dieterich argues that the cybernetic system will render the market economy unnecessary and obsolete, but until that time it is a reality. He applies this dictum to Venezuela by arguing that the government’s price and currency exchange controls should be lifted in order to allow for market freedoms. Such a proposal ignores external machinations that have threatened to destabilize Venezuela from the outside – the economic war being waged against the Chavista government. Without currency controls, business interests will be in a better position to buy dollars and send them abroad in order to speculate and destabilize. Regardless of their motivation, the outflow would deplete Venezuela’s already reduced foreign-exchange reserves.

Dieterich is often criticized for his caustic and aggressive style and name-calling used against leftists he disagrees with. In employing this language, Dieterich loses sight of the fact that the democratic road to socialism is complex and the problems that arise lack simple solutions.

Beyond style, Dieterich’s failure to highlight the inevitability of conflict between powerful economic groups and the popular sectors is a major shortcoming in his analysis. Popular organization and grassroots movements have been essential elements in all revolutions throughout history, but even more so in the case of the democratic road to socialism. Dieterich ignores this fundamental principal and instead comes up with simple solutions – some derived from computers – for complex issues in the achievement of national liberation and socialism.

Dieterich’s “plague on both your houses” approach to the Venezuelan conflict fails to recognize the complexity of the challenges the Maduro government faces. In this sense, a distinction needs to be made between two positions. One is critical support for the Chavista government that in no way underestimates its errors. The other is what Dieterich does: placing opposition and Chavista leaders in the same sack.

The latter line of reason is largely incompatible with international solidarity work, which defends Venezuelan sovereignty and presupposes that the Venezuelan government is worth defending.

Source: NACLA
Posta under Politikk, samfunn | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Referendum and peoples voice must be important in Venezuela – Not violence!

Constitutional Changes to Be Put to Referendum, Maduro Confirms 2018 Elections

Posta under Latin-Amerika, Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Another journalist killed in Mexico – Javier Valdez Cárdenas

Mexico: Journalist Javier Valdez shot dead in Sinaloa

Veteran reporter, who covered drug trafficking and organised crime, was the fifth journalist killed in Mexico this year.

Al Jazeera – 16. May 2017

Mexican journalists protest after the killing of three of their colleagues in March [File: EPA]
Mexican journalists protest after the killing of three of their colleagues in March [File: EPA]

Javier Valdez, an award-winning reporter who specialised in covering drug trafficking and organised crime, was murdered in the northern Mexico state of Sinaloa, the latest in a wave of journalist killings in one of the world’s most dangerous countries for media workers.

Valdez’s killing on Monday makes him at least the fifth journalist to be murdered in Mexico in just over two months, and the second high-profile reporter to be slain in the country over the past few years after Regina Martinez Perez, who was found strangled in her home in 2012.

A Sinaloa state government official said Valdez, 50, was shot dead in the early afternoon in the state capital, Culiacan, near the offices of the publication he had co-founded, Riodoce. The official was not authorised to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, the Associated Press news agency reported.

Riodoce confirmed Valdez’s killing on its website, saying he was driving about a block from its offices when he was intercepted by gunmen.

He was also a correspondent for the national newspaper La Jornada, which reported that he was pulled from his car and shot multiple times.

READ MORE: Double standards: Do all journalist lives matter?

Valdez was a nationally and internationally-recognised journalist who authored several books on the drug trade, including «Narcoperiodismo» and «Los Morros del Narco». The latter chronicled the lives of young people swept up in Mexico’s underworld.

President Enrique Pena Nieto said on Twitter that he had ordered an «investigation of this outrageous crime».

Valdez’s brother, Rafael, said the reporter had been «very happy» in recent days and had not indicated that he had received threats.

«He was very reserved when it came to his work. He never talked about it so as not to drag people into it,» Rafael Valdez told the AFP news agency.

«I asked him several times whether he was afraid. He said «yes»; he was a human being. So I asked him why he risked his life and he replied: «It is something I like doing, and someone has to do it. You have to fight to change things.'»

According to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, Valdez had told them he was concerned for his safety just weeks before his murder.

«Living in Sinaloa is a threat, and being a journalist is an additional threat,» Valdez said in an interview with the CPJ, according the group’s website. «We learned how to live in times when bullets are flying around us.»

«The Committee to Protect Journalists honoured Javier Valdez Cárdenas with an International Press Freedom Award in 2011 to recognise his bravery and uncompromising journalism in the face of threats,» said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon.

«His loss is a blow to Mexican journalism and to the Mexican public, who see a shadow of silence spreading across the country.»

Valdez’s murder came less than two weeks after a CPJ delegation met in Mexico City with Pena Nieto and other top government officials, and about a month after the killing of veteran reporter Maximino Rodriguez Palacios in La Paz on the Baja California peninsula.

Mexico ranks third in the world for the number of journalists killed, after Syria and Afghanistan, according to media rights group Reporters Without Borders.

Last Wednesday, the federal Attorney General’s Office replaced the head of its division responsible for investigating journalist killings. Ricardo Sanchez Perez del Pozo, a lawyer with a background in international law and human rights, took over the post.

In a 2017 report titled «No Excuse», journalist Adela Navarro Bello wrote for the CPJ that«covering corruption in Mexico means living with impunity».

«Between 2006 and 2016, 21 journalists were murdered with complete impunity in Mexico, putting the country sixth on CPJ’s annual index that measures cases where perpetrators remain unpunished,» Bello wrote.

«The system seems to be corrupt down to its very foundation; either that or it’s simply incapable of achieving justice.»

Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies

Javier Valdez Cárdenas, journalist killed (April 14, 1967 – 15 May 2017)


Posta under Latin-Amerika, Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Biggest world wide hacking ever – NSA and USgov to blame?

NSA Tools, Built Despite Warnings, Used in Global Cyber Attack

Disruptions reported in at least 74 countries, including Russia, Spain, Turkey, and Japan, with some reports of U.S. infiltration as well

Published on Common Dreams

At least two hospitals in London were forced to shut down and stop admitting patients after being attacked by the malware, which operates by locking out the user, encrypting data, and demanding a ransom to release it. (Photo: Tim Wang/flickr/cc)

Apparent National Security Agency (NSA) malware has been used in a global cyber-attack, including on British hospitals, in what whistleblower Edward Snowden described as the repercussion of the NSA’s reckless decision to build the tools.

«Despite warnings, @NSAGov built dangerous attack tools that could target Western software. Today we see the cost,» Snowden tweeted Friday.

At least two hospitals in London were forced to shut down and stop admitting patients after being attacked by the malware, which operates by locking out the user, encrypting data, and demanding a ransom to release it. The attacks hit dozens of other hospitals, ambulance operators, and doctors» offices as well.

The Blackpool Gazette in the northwest reported that medical staff had resorted to using pen and paper when phone and computer systems shut down. Elsewhere, journalist Ollie Cowan tweeted a photo of ambulances «backed up» at Southport Hospital as the staff attempted to cope with the crisis.

Other disruptions were reported in at least 74 countries, including Russia, Spain, Turkey, and Japan, and the number is «growing fast,» according to Kaspersky Lab chief Costin Raiu. Security architect Kevin Beau said it was spreading into the U.S. as well.

The malware, which Microsoft tested briefly earlier this year, was leaked by a group calling itself the Shadow Brokers, which has been releasing NSA hacking tools online since last year, the New York Times reports.

Times journalists Dan Bilefsky and Nicole Perlroth wrote:

Microsoft rolled out a patch for the vulnerability in March, but hackers apparently took advantage of the fact that vulnerable targets—particularly hospitals—had yet to update their systems.

The malware was circulated by email. Targets were sent an encrypted, compressed file that, once loaded, allowed the ransomware to infiltrate its targets.

Reuters reported that the National Health Service (NHS), England’s public health system, was warned about possible hacking earlier in the day, but that by then it was already too late.

A Twitter account with the handle @HackerFantastic, the co-founder of the cyber security company Hacker House, tweeted that the firm had «warned the NHS with Sky news about vulnerabilities they had last year, this was inevitable and bound to happen at some stage.»

«In light of today’s attack, Congress needs to be asking @NSAgov if it knows of any other vulnerabilities in software used in our hospitals,» Snowden tweeted. «If @NSAGov had privately disclosed the flaw used to attack hospitals when they *found* it, not when they lost it, this may not have happened.»

Disclosing the vulnerability when it was found would have given hospitals years, not months, to update their systems and prepare for an attack, he added.

Twitter user @MalwareTechBlog added, «Something like this is incredibly significant, we’ve not seen P2P spreading on PC via exploits at this scale in nearly a decade.»

Patrick Toomey, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) National Security Project, said, «It would be shocking if the NSA knew about this vulnerability but failed to disclose it to Microsoft until after it was stolen.»

«These attacks underscore the fact that vulnerabilities will be exploited not just by our security agencies, but by hackers and criminals around the world,» Toomey said. «It is past time for Congress to enhance cybersecurity by passing a law that requires the government to disclose vulnerabilities to companies in a timely manner. Patching security holes immediately, not stockpiling them, is the best way to make everyone’s digital life safer.»

See also:

Posta under Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

How to make a victim in the West˙s «fight» against terrorism – The case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui


Background Of Dr Aafia Siddiqui

Dr. Aafia earned her bachelor’s degree in biology from MIT and earned her doctorate from Brandeis University. Her doctoral thesis was “Learning through Imitation” in which she included her research on improving learning techniques for children. She was totally dedicated to her children and her academic studies revolved around how children learn.

Background of Case

  • Dr Aafia Siddiqui is a Pakistani mother of three , a brilliant scholar, PhD doctor of cognitive neuroscience
  • Majoring in learning and imitation , improving efficacy of learning in children,
  •  An educationist with a dream to revolutionise the educational system in Pakistan,
  • one that would create a generation Of enlightened and intellectual youth in a country that needed it more than others.
  • Dr. Aafia earned her bachelor’s degree  from MIT and earned her doctorate from Brandeis University.
  • Her doctoral thesis was “Learning through Imitation” in which she included her research on improving learning techniques for children.
  • She was totally dedicated to her children and her academic studies revolved around how children learn.
  • Unfortunately, Dr. Aafia became a victim of domestic violence during her marriage.
  • In 2002, Dr. Aafia’s husband moved the family to Pakistan and soon divorced her while she was pregnant with the couple’s third child.
  • In 2003, Dr Aafia became a victim of a rendition operation was kidnapped along with her little kids.
  • Dr. Aafia is now 43 years old, a mother of three children (2 are US citizens), and is a Pakistani citizen. With no other citizenship
  • Currently languishing in a US jail at FMC Carswell military base where her life is in constant threat.

Circumstances Surrounding the Case

Briefly, here are some of the basic circumstances of Dr. Aafia’s case:

In March 2003, Dr. Aafia and her three children, Ahmad (boy), six years old and an American citizen, Maryum (girl), four years old and also an American citizen, and baby Suleman (boy), six months old, kidnapped by unknown authorities in Karachi, Pakistan.

On March 31, 2003 it was reported by the Pakistani media that Dr. Aafia had been arrested and turned over to representatives of the United States. In early April, this was confirmed on NBC Nightly News, among other media outlets.

There was communication to the mother of Dr. Aafia from purported “agencies” that the family members should be quiet if they want to see Aafia returned alive.

By the year 2008, many believed that after five years of being disappeared Dr. Aafia and her three children were most likely dead as was the case with thousands

That were sold and victims of rendition operations by a dictator ruling Pakistan (his biography «in the line of fire»)

  • Then, in July of 2008,  three events occurred:

1. British human-rights reporter, Yvonne Ridley and former Bagram detainee and British citizen, Moazem Begg,

publicly spoke about a woman in Bagram screaming, a woman whom they named the “Grey Lady of Bagram”

2. A petition for habeas corpus was filed with the Pakistan High Court in Islamabad requesting that the court order

the Pakistani government to free Dr. Aafia or to even admit that they were then detaining her.

3.  A wave of International out rage emerged as evidence of illegal detainees in bagram and other secret detention centres

Began piling up. A request from the House of Lords in UK to inspect the Bagram facility and a meeting

With prisoner 650 was sent by various human rights activists world wide echoed.

It was in the midst of this whole scenario that a disoriented Aafia is found in Afghanistan and shot a sinister Plot that makes one shudder.

What Evidence , Investigation has uncovered?

That Dr. Aafia was (and is) an innocent person who was abducted for money or based on false allegations or false conclusions derived from an unknown source.

That, unfortunately, all evidence required for her defense and establishing legal proof of her detention would require full cooperation by the U.S. and Pakistani governments, and intelligence agencies, a cooperation that seems impossible. However the Person who kidnapped her has finally come forward

And confessed to the heinous crime on the behest of her ex husband and the regime that stripped pakistan Off its dignity by selling its own citizens.

That documents incriminating Dr. Aafia are either false documents or produced under torture or threat of harm to her children.

That the Afghan police were looking for Dr. Aafia and her son based on a description given by an anonymous tip with a shoot on sight Order on the day she was detained in Ghazni.

That had Dr. Aafia  been shot on sight on suspicion of being suicide bombers, this would have led to a convenient closure of the case of Aafia Siddiqui at a time when a massive outcry from international community and a petition for habeas corpus was pending in the High Court of Pakistan in Islamabad.

Note that this court had been asked to order then-President Musharraf and the Pakistani government

(which would include anyone working with them) to release her or to reveal her whereabouts.

That Dr. Aafia, who spoke no local language in Ghazni, was dressed so conspicuously in a manner to be easily identified and shoot on sight as a (falsely-accused) suicide bomber as a part of someone else’s plan.

The forensic and scientific evidence presented during the trial in New York proved that Dr. Aafia could not have committed the crimes for which she was charged, still the the judges closing arguments jury disregarded the evidence and chose to agree with the prosecution due to fear and prejudice.

What Dr. Aafia’s detractors want?

We are asked to believe that Dr. Aafia, a respectable Pakistani woman in all ways, has links to terrorists from Pakistan; (NO terrorism charges against her)was voluntarily hiding under cover with three children acting as a terror field operative while at the same time leaving her family to believe for five years that she and her three children were dead.

We are asked to believe that Dr. Aafia arranged this just after her father died, after finding out her husband cheating on her marriage was disintegrating, and after leaving her widowed mother alone in Pakistan. It is absolutely not plausible and does not even fit the traditional profile by law enforcement of female or male terrorists from that part of the world.

Current Situation

In February, 2010, Dr. Aafia was tried and convicted in a US Federal court on charges of attempted murder and assaulting US servicemen in Ghazni, Afghanistan.  The official charges against Dr. Aafia were that she assaulted U.S. soldiers in Ghazni, Afghanistan, with one of the servicemen’s own rifles, while she was in their custody, waiting to be interrogated by them.

No US personnel were hurt but Dr. Aafia was shot and suffered serious injuries including brain damage. Dr Aafia categorically denies these charges. The forensic and physical evidence denies those charges

There were NO terrorism charges against Dr. Aafia.

According to several legal observers, the trial of Dr. Aafia was littered with many inconsistencies and defects, chief among them being

1.No jurisdiction to try the case in the US. This was a result of a rendition operation.

2. Many rulings by the judge that strongly favored the prosecution and prejudiced the case against the defense.

3.These ranged from allowing much hearsay evidence and jury instructions that favored the prosecution.

4. In addition, Dr. Aafia was not represented by lawyers of her choosing and faced constant innuendos of terrorism when she was not charged with any such offence.

5. As a result of Judge Richard Berman’s framing of the case in a negative light, Dr Aafia was convicted despite ALL physical and forensic evidence that showed that she could not have committed the acts she was charged with.

6. On September 23, 2010, Dr. Aafia was sentenced to 86 years in prison by Judge Richard Berman who overruled the jury’s determination that there was any pre-meditation. The judge also added enhancements that were not part of either the charges against Dr. Aafia nor part of the conviction.

After her sentencing, Dr. Aafia aasked that people not take any revenge or get emotional.  She asked that those who have wronged her be forgiven as she forgave Judge Berman. Dr. Aafia remains imprisoned, now at the notorious Federal Medical Center (FMC) in Carswell, Fort Worth, Texas where she is kept in the Special housing unit (SHU) which is the most severe confinement category. She is still not allowed communication with anyone she trusts, including family members.

7. Being a Muslim her religious book the Quran is desecrated, her clothes stripped, food urinated Upon and what could be a worse form of human coercion than tearing away little children from their mother And then threaten the mother of her children’s safety ?

Dr. Aafia’s Children

Dr. Aafia’s oldest son, Ahmed, who is a U.S. citizen by birth, was found in an American detention Centre , Afghanistan after public pressure and, in late 2008, was reunited with Dr.Aafia’s  sister in Karachi, Pakistan.

Dr. Aafia’s daughter, Maryum, also a US citizen by birth, was recovered in April 2010 and dropped off in Karachi after being missing for 7 íyears.  She was traumatized and spoke only American accented English.

Dr. Aafia’s youngest child, Suleman, a boy who would now be about 12 years old, remains missing; and is feared dead.

What Supporters and Family Seek?

Dr. Aafia, an MIT and Brandeis laureate, is now a broken and mere shell of her former self. Under these circumstances,

Family and supporters are asking the U.S. government to repatriate Dr. Aafia back to her home in Pakistan.

The Pakistani government has formally made this request as this matter has become a major public issue and has support across Pakistani political and social spectrums. Supporters and people of conscience should press government officials to get Dr. Aafia reunited with her family as soon as possible.

Aafia and her family seek no revenge as their faith is in vengeance is mine saith The Lord . Aafia’s case Has become a glaring example Of thousands suffering from rendition operations, illegal detentions, false a Accusations and torture tactics that put barbarism to shame.

Dr Aafia’s family and supporters still have hope in fair minded peoples commitment to mercy and justice to raise their voices with theirs so it be heard in the corridors of power. To help end the violations of basic human rights and let freedom ring. Justice for the past, for all Dr. Aafia has suffered, is hard to imagine.All that is asked for the future is for some measure of correction. If Dr. Aafia is repatriated, perhaps she can pick up some fragments of life with her family.


We ask people to look into this case themselves, and to do so with an open mind.

There is a lot of information out there on the Internet, and in the media. Many of the stories demonize Aafia, while some raise her to sainthood. Aafia is neither demon nor saint.

Aafia is simply a mother, daughter and sister with a dream, trapped in an extraordinary nightmare.

What is happening to Aafia and thousands others in the aftermath of 911 and the

resulting «terror war» not happen to other innocents anymore.

Article from

Posta under Asia, Imperialism, Kvinne- og jentekamp, Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Kunstfront – Dikt og Måleri, Ivar Jørdre – 1. mai Bergen — Bjørnar Moxnes 1. mai-tale Oslo – 2017


Image may contain: one or more people, sky and outdoor

Foto: Egil Mathisen – 1. mai Bergen

Image may contain: 11 people, people smiling, shoes and outdoor

Foto: Egil Mathisen – 1. mai Bergen

Posta under Noreg - Norway, Politikk, samfunn, Vår globale verd | Merkt , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget