International Day to Support Victims of Torture

"He entered my cell at night, woke me up, made me sit up on my bed and began questioning me. When he failed to achieve any results and his attempts to persuade me proved to be futile, he told one of the prisoners to boil some water and began pouring it on me. My arm was in a sling, broken from previous beatings. The water was poured on my bare flesh. The pain was terrible. I began to scream, but even that required energy. I felt very weak. In short, I could hardly tolerate the torture with boiling water."

"When he did not achieve anything by scalding me, he got mad at his assistant, accusing him of not having heated the water properly and asked him if he had actually boiled the water. I laughed to myself as it would have been impossible for the water to have been hotter than it was; that he thought it was because of the water not being hot enough that he had not had any results. In fact, that boiling water had almost killed me, it was very hard to endure it. You are always on the verge in such a case. And the verge keeps shifting further and further, thank God, but you are on the verge of your endurance, feeling that you can not stand it any longer."

This brief excerpt of a torture survivor's story, taken from the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, just scratches the surface of the terrible physical harm man can inflict on others. There are thousands, if not millions, of stories just like this, of people who may or may not have something to hide being beaten and abused, tortured, either for that information or whatever other reason the torturer decides. While this tale comes from the early 1990's, it would be ignorant to assume these kinds of acts don't continue all over the world today. All to often though, the horror of these acts focuses our attention on the wrong person as we become consumed with catching and punishing the torturer while forgetting the pain and terror of the victim.

That is why this Saturday is so important. Designated the first International Day of Support for Victims of Torture by the United Nations, June 26th serves to remind us that for every conflict, every horror, there are the human victims to remember.

For more information on the day, visit http://www.un.org/events/torture/bkg.htm.

"This is a day on which we pay our respects to those who have endured the unimaginable. This is an occasion for the world to speak up against the unspeakable. It is long overdue that a day be dedicated to remembering and supporting the many victims and survivors of torture around the world."

Secretary-General Kofi Annan

Global Labor Issues Highlighted by the World Cup

South Africa has worked hard to keep the spotlight surrounding the 2010 World Cup focused on the games and players, though the referees are doing a good job of stealing the show. This desire though has deeper, and much more selfish, roots than most international commentators are revealing. While it’s known to many that most South Africans are far too poor to afford attending a single World Cup match, the exploitation of local labor populations has received scant attention.

This is best evidenced by the plight of staffers who are working as security at the stadiums. BBC covered the story on Wednesday, June 16th (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/10329679.stm), but it has since fallen out of the headlines. The article explains how workers are suffering 15- to 18-hour shifts, being paid wages below their contracted amounts, and even having paychecks withheld by their employer, Stallion. For a company that prides itself for “[caring] about the wellbeing and safety of its staff,” these allegations should be even more embarrassing.

But it gets even worse: since the reporting of the strikes, Stallion has fired thousands of these workers, many of who believed these jobs were their chance to benefit from the country’s and continent’s first World Cup. Stallion blames the workers for trying to hold the World Cup ransom and accusing them of “not being patriotic [sic].” Honestly, Stallion thinks they should just suck it up not to embarrass their nation? I for one believe it is Stallion and the South African officials who are doing their country the disservice.

At a time when world attention is drawn upon a global celebration of talent, how shameful is our collected failure to address these conditions. Though South Africa has ended apartheid, the country remains segregated as the vicious cycle and realities of poverty continue to hold most of the country’s black population.

We must not let the abuses continue unquestioned. If we don’t speak up when a company violates the principles enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we may find our protests fall upon deaf ears when they come for any of the other 27 rights enshrined in the declaration.

But maybe it’s just me who believes 15-hour work days are unreasonable?

A follow up to Collateral Murder

When the Collateral Murder story first broke, I posted some initial thoughts. Below is my full article I published with the Retriever Weekly. (http://www.retrieverweekly.com/?module=displaystory&story_id=5512&format=html)

All rights are retained by the author.

Collateral murder: can you win a war you perpetuate?
By Gavin Way Editorial Staff

What is worse: a war crime or the organized effort to conceal it? This is the question Americans must ask themselves after Wikileaks published a video it has labeled "Collateral Murder." It is purportedly a decrypted video feed from an US Army Apache attache helicopter in Iraq, dated to the summer of 2007. The video's content has ignited a muted storm of anger, active among the blogosphere and human rights campaigners but surprisingly quiet among the domestic American media. More importantly, and dangerously, the video has had a consistent presence on stations like Al Jazeera, a widely-watched news source in the Middle East. Just as happened with Abu Ghraib, these images have the potential to stoke the flames of hate around the world.

But what exactly does the video show? Depends on who you ask, actually. To the casual observer, it shows the callous and unfounded execution of 11 Iraqis whose only crime was gathering in a courtyard while a battle was fought a couple of blocks away. To others, especially military commanders busy with damage control, the video shows the justified firing on a suspected group of insurgents in an active war zone. The truth, as always, is much murkier.

What we can see clearly is a group of men gathering. We can see at one point what does appear to be an assault weapon held casually by one member of the group. We learn later that the group contains two Reuters news employees, whose photography equipment appears to be confused by the pilot as RPGs or more assault weapons. After the group gathers, the helicopter crew gets permission from ground troops to engage the target, at which time they then open fire with their 30 mm chain gun. The first burst kills or injures all but one of the group of men standing around, but another burst stops his attempt to escape. The helicopter circles, watching over the scene as the ground element moves to the location to confirm the kill. Before they arrive, the Apache sees one of the men struggle and start to crawl away. The gunship crew can be heard begging the man to pick up a weapon so that they may fire again and "extinguish the threat." Before they can get permission to engage, a van shows up and begins to try and help the man, trying to remove him from the scene presumably. The helicopter asks and receives permission to fire on the van, which it does just as the van tries to leave the scene. Later, the video shows the ground element reach the scene, where among the 11 dead men they discover two wounded children inside the van. The helicopter crew can be heard saying, after hearing that two children were wounded, "Well, it's their fault, bringing their kids to a battle."

Several issues are raised by this video, to none of which is there a simple answer. The context of the video, however, is a key point identified by military officials. That summer was one of the worst for the scale and violence of attacks against American forces in Iraq. The day of the video, it is reported by Army sources, and debated by Reuters, that American forces had been engaging insurgents for about four hours before the video starts. The gunships had been on-site providing fire support for some time before this group was spotted. As journalists and photographers, it would make sense that these men would have a legitimate reason to be in the proximity of an ongoing conflict. From sources within the journalistic community, it also sounds like journalists are routinely accompanied by armed security.

In reality though, this is all beyond the point. In war, accidents happen. What really matters is the organized effort to cover up the evidence of what happened that day. Four days after the incident, Reuters openly questioned the Army's version of events and demanded access to video and document evidence about the events of that day, including any information about weapons recovered at the scene. A year later, Reuters complained that it had still received no answers and that the Army was still "processing" their request. Two failed Freedom of Information Act requests later, they finally got some of the answers they were looking for when Wikileaks posted the video feed from the gunship and several supporting documents.

For the human rights experts out there, the video revealed two specific acts that constitute war crimes under the Geneva Conventions: firing on a wounded or disabled combatant and firing on a provider of aid. The Army has disputed these claims, arguing that the van did not bear a red cross, the international sign of aid required of ambulances, and that similar vans were known to be assisting in the movements of insurgents. Thus, the killing of the wounded combatant was just collateral from the effort to stop a valid target. But if the Army really believed this, why would it not have released this information soon after the action, admitting to the unfortunate loss of life in the fog of war? American law allows material to remain classified if it is believed it could harm American national security. The unfortunate killing of 11 Iraqi civilians, including two journalists, is regrettable, but in itself it seems far from a threat to American security. As possible evidence of a war crime, however, these materials become much more explosive.

For America's sake, the Army and the government needs to take account for the events of that day. The families deserve the truth and reparations for their loses. Among Americans, we need to ask what this video tells us about the American Rules of Engagement. We often hear about the loss of civilian lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, but how many other cases like this exist for which the evidence has been buried under labels of secrecy? In a war on terror, how can we ever win when we are perpetuating the terror abroad?

You can find the video at http://www.collateralmurder.com. Please do the country a service and watch it first and then start asking questions.