Blasphemous 'hood' comes to Pakistan... may Allah guide us n destroy him

Hood comes to Pakistan

By Shireen M Mazari

ISLAMABAD: According to the US Department of Defence News Release of March 13, 2008, Major General Jay W. Hood has been posted as the Chief, Office of the Defence Representative, Pakistan.

General Hood is a former commanding general of Guantanamo Bay prison and according to US National Public Radio (NPR), General Hood's tenure at Guantanamo was marred by a series of scandals and growing controversies relating to policies on detention and interrogation. While controversy has always surrounded Guantanamo, it reached new heights when Hood was there - especially in the aftermath of the scandal breaking out publicly on detentions in Iraq at Abu Ghraib. Interestingly, it was General Miller, Hood's predecessor at Guantanamo, who was implicated in Iraq.

Hood came under intense criticism when he decided to force feed prisoners with the use of a restraining chair. The gruesome means of force feeding have compelled the US to censor a drawing by a Guantanamo Bay detainee where he depicted himself as a skeleton with his head double-strapped down, a tube in his nose, a black mask over his mouth, no eyes visible only giant cheekbones. The detainee, Sami Al Haj is a Sudanese cameraman who worked for Al Jazeera television and the self-sketch was to mark his 431st day on hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay.

It was also during Hood's service at Guantanamo Bay that the Pentagon released details of five confirmed cases of US personnel abusing the holy Quran. In a story published in the Washington Post on 4 June 2005, the US military admitted that soldiers and interrogators had kicked the holy Quran, got copies wet and stood on the holy Book during an interrogation and also sprayed urine on another copy. This was well established by the Pentagon after General Hood, as Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo completed an inquiry into these cases of abuse of the holy Quran. Yet Hood chose to describe these incidents as "largely inadvertent".

The inquiry tried to cover up deliberate abuses of the holy Book that detainees had been reporting to their lawyers, including lawyer Tom Wilner who was representing 11 Kuwaiti detainees. He declared that the number and persistence of reports of the Quran abuse from detainees revealed a much broader problem than indicated by the Hood inquiry. Clearly Hood's main intent was to cover up as much as could be done in the wake of increasing revelations on the issue of Quran abuse.

It is unfortunate that the US Army Chief of Staff has chosen to appoint such a controversial officer to Pakistan, especially given his record and linkage to abuse of prisoners and the Holy Quran at Guantanamo. Guantanamo Bay itself has become a symbol of injustice, torture and abuse of Islam and sending a commanding officer from there to Islamabad begs the question: What is the message coming out of the Pentagon for Pakistanis by this insensitive act?

Equally important, given that host governments always have a choice of refusing a nominee - and many Western countries have exercised that right in the diplomatic nominees of the Pakistan Government - why has the Pakistan government chosen to silently accept what the US military dishes out, with no thought to the sensitivities of its own people?

When asked, a US Embassy spokesperson said:

"Major General Hood was nominated by the US Army and approved through the highest levels of the Department of Defense. His assignment to Pakistan is not related to his previous assignment but rather is a reflection of his standing as a senior military officer.

He was chosen for the assignment to Pakistan because he is a highly qualified officer at the Major General level. Assigning an officer at this level to this position reflects the continued US goal of cooperation with the Armed Forces of Pakistan. He is the second consecutive Major General assigned as Chief of the Office of the Defense Representative Pakistan."

Hood comes to Pakistan :: Dictatorship Watch :: Putting Pakistani Dictatorship in Global & Regional Context

our govt. shld have protested and rejected his appointment in pakistan... the govt shld not give him any protocol... i think he must not be granted visa (if it is required for american citizens)... but our selfish dictator has been promoting moderate islam i.e. besharmi n beghairti ki zindagi... hum aisay gustaakhon ko aram se mulk mein aanay detay hain n unko protocol bhi detay hain... lanat hai hum sab per... hum isi tarah zaleel hongay jab tak hamein deen se pyar nahi hoga n yeh hamari first priority nahi hogi... hum deserve kertay hain k hum zaleel hon, so hum ho rahay hain...

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Corporations the Only Winners in Iraq War

a 2003 article available on Reclaim Democracy.org

By Devin Nordberg
September 13, 2003

"It's not about oil. It's not about oil."

But we're taking their oil. And not just to finance reconstruction.

Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of the Iraqi occupation, made that clear back in July when he declared that Iraq needs to accept foreign investment and privatization of its oil before a permanent government is put in charge of the country. In other words, democracy is welcome only after the most important economic decisions for the future of Iraqis have been decided for them.

You'd think that such a blatant rejection of democracy and obvious grab at Iraq's oil would attract more notice. Bremer made it clear that corporations take priority over people in Iraq, and that the Bush Administration's occupation will continue that.

The Bush occupation of Iraq has an eerie similarity to another intervention in the Middle East that occurred 50 years ago — the CIA-British coup that ousted Iran's democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed the infamous Shah of Iran.

So when Arab nations greet our rhetoric of creating democracy with suspicion or outright derision, we've earned it. Iranians struggled successfully for democracy and U.S. politicians promptly crushed their dream.

Then as now, the United States and Great Britain used violence to prevent Iraq and Iran from controlling their own oil.

This set of priorities contrasts sharply to the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II, when Americans sat down with Japanese scholars and collaboratively designed and implemented one of the most progressive, democratic constitutions in the world*. We can take pride for having helped Japan evolve into a peaceful, stable, and prosperous country that is one of our closest allies. Today, Iranian and Iraqi people resent our support of their previous corrupt regimes and, understandably, don't trust our intentions now.

The differences between American occupations of 1945 Japan and 2003 Iraq reflect the rise of corporate power here and abroad, and within the Bush administration in particular. Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, is already cashing in on Iraqi "rebuilding" contracts that it obtained from the U.S. government. The oil companies that donated so heavily to the Bush campaign will reap huge profits if they are allowed to take over oil production in Iraq. The weapons makers profit from Bush's policies as well, and even telecommunications companies stand to benefit, since Bremer intends to give foreign corporations license to operate mobile phone networks in Iraq.

It's no surprise that Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld have been advocating an invasion of Iraq since at least 1998 through the Project for a New American Century. It could be argued that Saddam Hussein has been a marked man since he nationalized Iraqi oil back in 1973, but that's another story.

Meanwhile, the American occupation of Iraq increasingly resembles the cycle of violence between Palestinians and Israelis: American soldiers are ambushed and killed, and the U.S. military retaliates by rounding up and imprisoning Iraqi "suspects," including civilians, women, and children as young as 11. More Iraqi violence results, and the cycle continues. Iraqis have little hope that American troops will withdraw anytime soon and have not been treated with dignity or human rights by their occupiers.

How did the American ideals of liberty and justice become hollow slogans for presidents to use to justify military attacks abroad? Ever since Eisenhower warned us of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, it has become steadily more powerful. Corporations should not be allowed to influence foreign policy.

Yet the Bush administration's foreign policy, like domestic policy, often seems to come directly from corporate board rooms. For example, Executive Order 13303 grants complete legal immunity to transnational oil companies operating in Iraq. While U.S. soldiers attempt to establish law and order in Iraq, Bush has put oil companies above the law.

The time to end the occupation of Iraq is overdue. We should pull our troops out before more of them die, hand the temporary administration of Iraq over to the United Nations, let the U.N. weapons inspectors back in Iraq, fund the rebuilding of Iraq through the U.N., and allow Iraqis to choose their own government.

The best way for us to fight terrorism is to advance justice; and justice will not be possible as long as corporations are prioritized over people.

Corporations the Only Winners in Iraq War - Reclaim Democracy.org

Blogged with the Flock Browser