Striving for Asian Beauty Leads to a Universal Standard

On global stage, Asian beauties have been making a splash in the catwalks, Hollywood, and US mass media. Evidently, these Asian women have been judged on their attractiveness based on a Western notion of beauty. The highly touted occidental beauty norm has inevitably infiltrated not only the Asian-American community, but also Asia - mainly, Korea, China, and Southeast Asia.

 

In recent years, the influence of Western perceptions of beauty has been sweeping aside classical Asian ones as faces of oriental celebrities appear on the big screen and spread across the glossy magazines - with the crossbred look of East meets West. Undoubtedly, the current trend of beauty mixture in Asia is a result of the longstanding influence of Western images in movies and television, accelerated by the advent of the Internet.

 

To uphold the claim that beauty has a universal standard, Dr. Stephen Marquardt, a former plastic surgeon in Huntington Beach, California, believes that ideal beauty can be reduced to a facial geometry based on the Golden Ratio - "the recurring measurement in nature of 1.618 to 1 that shows up on everything from snail shells to tree leaves." He said, "People have tried to understand a beautiful face. It's an image that is mathematically quantifiable. All life is biology, all biology is chemistry, all chemistry is mathematics." The ideal feminine beauty features include wide-set eyes, high cheekbones, large eyes, full lips, clear light skin, a short nose and a relatively small lower face.

 

In an attempt to replace the old adage, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", the notion of universal beauty is making its way around the world as the new beauty standard, being pushed by the mass media and film industry. In fact, as the film industry becomes more globalized - blending cultural and ethnic differences, fusing cinematic styles and diverse techniques, and homogenizing on-screen performances and off-screen talents - the more the audience identifies with the projected cinematic definition of beauty.

 

In addition, what makes possible for pursuing that ideal appearance lies in the development of techniques and technologies of cosmetic surgery. As plastic esthetic becomes more widely available and affordable, more and more women, as well as men - in pursuit of an emerging global beauty standard - are choosing to go under the knife or for the recent popularity of noninvasive surgery. Consequently, an esthetic trend of blending ethnic features into seamless, ambiguous form has been growing rapidly and transforming cultures around the world.

 

In Asia, cosmetic surgery not only has soared in demand but also spiraled out of control with poor safety regulations. It is alleged that the number of cosmetic operations performed in the past several years in China alone has reached millions. Many illegitimate so-called :practitioners" churned out almost as many beasts as beauties. In the past decade more than 200,000 lawsuits have been filed by patients who claim they've been victims of botched operations. The malpractice has become so widespread that the government finally decided last year to issue regulations in order to control the industry for the first time.

 

To grasp the explosive growth of the cosmetic surgery business, South Korea boasts more than 1,200 plastic surgeons who perform roughly half a million procedures a year (the highest per capita in the world). Interestingly, the Global research group AC Nielsen conducted a survey in 42 countries and found the following results:

 

-         60 percent of Americans had cosmetic surgery operations

-         cosmetic surgery surged 35 percent in Britain in 2005 compared with a year earlier

 

Consumers would consider cosmetic surgery to maintain their looks:

 

-         48 percent Russians, 30 percent Irish, 28 percent Italians and Portuguese, 25 percent Americans, French and British

 

Recently, some experts claim that greater travel and cultural exchange among Asian countries is creating more of a Pan-Asian standard of beauty. In the spirit of the time, the attempts to imitate or look "White" are now chastised - as an affront to your racial/ethnic group by denying the physical features you were born with.

 

More importantly, several detrimental problems may arise when everyone could physically obtain a universal beauty standard. The concept of uniqueness and originality in looks would no longer exist - that is, cosmetic surgical procedures based on existing models are no different from producing replicas (similar to cloning).

 

Furthermore, the superficial "outer" beauty would undermine the "inner" beauty of a person - the development of character, strengths and virtues. This in turn would transform social mores that could certainly lead to an everlasting undesirable effect on civilizations.

 

On a scientific basis, altering facial and body types may change the way our brains perceive beauty. By nature, our sense of beauty served an evolutionary function to choose the best mates to procreate for the survival of our species. In other words, the course of human beauty was determined by natural selection to ensure the survival of the strong. Undoubtedly, the onslaught of cosmetic surgical alterations will definitely dull our human senses for natural selection.

 

In conclusion, before jumping in for a cosmetic surgery procedure, remember the old saying: "Nature knows her business better than we do." We are what we are and not pretend to be what we are not. 

(First published on UniOrb.com, June 25, 2007)

Colored Hair Out — Black Hair In

Since the latter half of the 1990s, dyeing hair has become a rage in Japan, spreading to other parts of Asia. For a decade, a bobbing sea of fashionable colored hair women and young men has strolled through the central areas of major cities. Recently, the tide has turned — the hair-coloring craze is ebbing and the glossy black hair is back in vogue.

Coloring hair, known as chapatsu (tea hair), covers a wide range of choices from yellow to brown, including the conspicuous shades of orange, green and purple. Some of the most popular hues among women sound like names of exotic beverages — caramel mocha, mocha tea, jasmine tea, pink ash, and sugar pink. Despite a spectrum of colors available at hair salons and stores, most Japanese prefer lightening their hair with various hues of brown. At the extreme end, Ganguro, women with bright blonde locks and dark faked tans, offset by white lipstick, epitomize the overhaul physical oriental appearance for the fun, daring trendy looks.

Dyeing one’s hair can immediately transform one’s self-image as well as project one’s desired image to others. For the elderly, concealing graying hair under a black coat presents an image of being younger. On the other hand, lightening black tresses makes a young face appear larger and livelier. In addition, unmarried adults claimed that brown hair conveys casualness, while black hair promotes seriousness. Both men and women commented that they prefer playing the field with brown-haired dates but settling down with black-haired spouses.

Customarily, a Japanese opts for a different hairstyle right after a romantic breakup, marriage, or divorce, as a step to a fresh beginning in life. The ones who altered their hair color associated dyeing hair with wearing a new hairstyle.

Although wigs could be a quick fix for switching to a different hairstyle, changing hair color or concealing thinning hair, most Japanese compared putting on a wig to wearing a rug. Unfortunately, the idea of donning a wig has never been a positive one as though the wearer has something to hide. Worse still, tabloid papers tend to make fun of celebrities who wore wigs in “wig allegations,” with the same zest as reporting speculations of extramarital affairs.

Hair color has always been a statement in the Japanese culture. In the past, natural black hair was considered the social norm; even the elderly dyed their hair black as an expected tradition. Bleached hair was exclusively reserved for a minority who consistently sought attention — celebrities, musicians, bar hosts and juvenile delinquents.

At the turn of the 21^st century, young adults and middle-aged women have eagerly embraced hair dyeing as a hairstyle fashion, whereas the traditional society has never really welcomed it. In fact, most schools still ban colored or tinted hair, while corporations and government ministries tend to resist hiring someone with dyed hair for any responsible position. Politicians, company presidents, bank officials, police officers, and salary workers continue to uphold a conservative black-haired culture.

The social phenomenon for coloring hair could be attributed to the following reasons: to seek individuality; to go against the social norm; to try something different; and to be trendy.

When the Japanese government attempted to promote creativity in classroom activities under the slogan “my own pace,” its efforts spilled over to the mainstream consciousness — seek freedom of expression. Dyed hair portrays a model of the modern, independent individual. In a conservative male-dominated society, it’s not surprising that largely women and young men who have yet to enter the corporate world so readily embraced a novel hairstyle against the social norm. Furthermore, the expression ‘nai-mono nedari’ best sums up the Japanese obsession with occidental looks — ”to want something you don’t have.” Moreover, in a trend-setting nation, fear of being left behind on Japan’s fashion revolving door sees many just following the leader, in which most imitated their idols.

The irony of seeking individuality and being different among trend-conscientious Japanese is that they ended up as the majority looking the same. Maybe, that is one of the causes for the dwindling interest in dyeing hair.

In addition, the waning of the craze has much to do with the media touting black hair as “natural beauty,” hyped in numerous fashion magazines and in the hit commercial advertising Asience shampoo with a catchy phrase — “Hair that is the envy of the world.” Furthermore, international Asian celebrities with silky straight black hair, such as Choi Ji Woo of South Korea and Zhang Ziyi of China, added to the media’s big push for natural hair color. More significantly, people whose tresses have been damaged from dyes over the years now want to restore the luster of natural black hair.

Still, some fashion enthusiasts, unsatisfied with plain black hair, use black coloring treatments that include highlights of other hues. With these treatments, the black hair reveals other shades (pink, blue, or dark brown) when it reflects light. Black with highlights has surged in popularity, for it simultaneously gives the joy of coloring hair and the appeal of natural oriental hair.

Perhaps, the fading Japanese trend of coloring hair other than black will spill overseas. Only time will tell if black hair will regain its ubiquity throughout Asia.


(First published on UniOrb.com, April 1, 2006)

Maid Cafés - The Expanding Industry in Japan

As a nation known for spawning cultural phenomenon, Japan has given a new twist to the meaning of “maid” in the land of “maid café” catering to social outcasts known as “otaku” (geeks). As the shadowy part of the cute culture boom, the emerging legions of otaku have been boosting the lucrative markets for anime (cartoons), manga (comic books), and video games. By living in their virtual world, the otaku enthusiasts have developed the concept of moe — attraction or affection for characters in the anime, manga or video games. Thus, coffee shops, employing cute young girls decked in maid garbs or outfits right out of a manga page to wait hand and foot on otaku, have provided just the right touch for these anti-social technophiles to play out their fantasies in the real world.

It’s not surprising that Akihabara, the home of the world's cutting edge technologies, gave birth to the first maid café, Cure Maid Café, ran by Masato Matsuzaki in March 2001. Over the past few years, the Akihabara district in Tokyo has been transformed into an exclusive hangout with a string of coffee shops frequented by male otaku, while the Ikebukuro district has become a center for their female counterparts. Akihabara now features around 30 maid cafés catering to geeks as well as tourists. Furthermore, maid cafés have spread to other major cities as the otaku culture moves into the mainstream.

Although the majority of otaku are men, ranging from 18 to 45 years old, an increasing number of women are joining their ranks. The Moe Guide to Tokyo (Moe Rurubu Tokyo Annai) published by JTB Corp. became an instant hit for both men and women. When Biblos put forth the first Otaku Certificate examination aimed at geek’s knowledge of otaku culture, more than 500,000 Internet users tried to access it in the space of two weeks, causing Biblos’ computer to crash last year.

According to Nomura Research Institute, the annual spending power of an estimated three million otaku living in Japan is $5 billion. While entertainment and electronic businesses have been reaping enormous profits from otaku, maid cafés, in a way, have opened a window to otaku's world with the media coverage.

Otaku, nowadays, conveys a different image. No longer seen as shy, awkward, introverted social misfit, the male otaku has inspired a trend of geek fashion and a positive image of a trust-worthy mate. Identified by the common attire of tracksuit, knapsack, and glasses, the otaku appears sincere, relaxed, and modest — all are attractive characteristics by Japanese standards. Even a web community, “Spectacled Guy Lovers,” has sprung from Japanese women dedicating their feelings for men with glasses. Perhaps, one of the reasons why women are so willing to serve as maids has to do with the recent romantic appeal of otaku.

One major attraction for working in maid café is the opportunity for adult women to play dress-ups. "Cosplay" (costume play) has become a fad among ladies in metropolitan areas to engage in role-playing while wearing a variety of eye-catching costumes.

Many maids, who are devoted fans of comics and video games, view the job as a kind of fantasy world. They not only enjoy acting as make-belief characters but also they immersed themselves as these characters. Clad in manga-inspired or saucy French maid fashion, a waitress greets patrons at the door with a curtsy and the words, "Welcome home, master.” The menial maid services could include getting down on their knees to stir the customer’s coffee, spoon-feeding customers at the table, and providing grooming services, such as cleaning ears, after a meal.

To please their largely male clientele, maid cafés hire cute young women, emphasizing the look of innocence as a priority. Royal Milk is one such example — the average age of employees is 20. Cafe & Kitchen Cos-Cha offers costume-changing event where its young employees wear skimpy suits three times a month. Little BSD allows its waitresses to don a different costume every day.

Other types of business are also cashing in on the trend by having female employees dressed as maids. It is believed that workers in maid uniforms have a therapeutic affect on customers. The impression that maid gives is service and obedience. Hair salons, such as Moesham, have stylists decked in maid garbs giving shampoos and cuts to male customers. The masseuses clad in maid costumes at Cutie Relax provide massages for relaxation while girls dressed as angels in Holy-land offer foot massages and manicures to weary salarymen.

Although maid café is considered to be in the service sector, two coffee shops in Kyushu raised suspicion of violating the adult ‘entertainment’ laws when they first opened for business. Providing VIP service and the practice of waitresses accompanying customers in chats by request could be seen under the banner of "entertainment." However, the two maid cafés applied for a special license to avoid running foul of the law.

For female otaku, Swallowtail coffee house is their answer for a similar concept — a “butler café.” Dressed in a black tailcoat, the waiter greets woman customers with "Welcome home, Madam" and performs quality butler service. As the first butler café, Swallowtail has been quite successful — drawing more than 100 customers per day and taking only reservations for tables. More than 80 percent of the customers that come to Swallowtail are female, with a core group of  20 - 30 year olds.

A twist to the butler café is the latest “princess restaurants” where waitresses in maid outfits treat their customers like royalty as they are shown to their “throne chairs.” Targeting female customers in their 20s and 30s, Princess Heart is becoming a hot spot in Tokyo Ginza, providing service to only women and couples.

This type of servile market is showing signs of expansion as it has already extended to neighboring countries, such as South Korea, China, and Taiwan. As long as otaku culture becomes more accepted in the mainstream, so will the spread of maid and butler cafés in other parts of Asia.


(First published on UniOrb.com, June 15, 2006)

Congress' Role in Constitutional Crisis

Since September 11, 2001 attacks, Congress has evidently debilitated its own powers as the legislative branch by allowing the Bush administration to chisel away the doctrines of democracy. Even Senator Reid, the Minority Leader, admitted that the legislative branch has become impotent, for Congress lacks oversight and willingness to “hold this administration accountable for its mistakes and misjudgments”.

Instead of challenging George W. Bush’s assertion that there are no limits on his powers as commander in chief at a time of war, Congress has continuously empowered the executive branch by approving Bush’s policies. Undoubtedly, Congress has played a self-destructing role by helping Bush dismantle the Constitution to realize his vision of “regime change” in the United States.

Against Established Constitutional Laws

Over the last five years, Congress passed major bills that lodged direct assault on the long established constitutional laws: 

• USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 - Oct. 25, 2001 Senate voted to pass 98-1; Oct. 24, 2001 House voted to pass 357-66. The legislation granted vast unwarranted power to the executive branch to use it against ordinary American citizens in criminal investigations, unrelated to terrorism, against immigrants legally living in the U.S., and against those whose First Amendment activities are deemed as threats to national security.
• Extended USA PATRIOT ACT due to expire in December 2005 - Senate voted to reject extension; July 21, 2005 House voted to pass 257-171. The legislature extended 2 and made 14 sections permanent for the secret surveillance provisions.
• Renewed USA PATRIOT Act - Mar 2, 2006 Senate voted to pass 89-11; Mar 7, 2006 House voted to pass 280–138.

Issues at stake: Attack on civil liberties (Bill of Rights): USA PATRIOT ACT Section 216 – monitoring computer use, including web surfing; Section 206 – warrantless “roving” wiretapping of individuals; Section 203 – gathering ‘foreign intelligence information’ (targeting immigrants); Section 208 – American citizens, not terrorist suspects, at any time could have their homes searched and communications monitored without probable cause.

Results: The warrantless National Security Agency (NSA) program has been keeping surveillance of telephone calls and e-mails of private citizens. More recently, CIA has been conducting “data mining” through the private financial records of thousands of Americans. Hundreds of immigrants have been arrested, detained, deported and incarcerated without charge of any crime.  

• A bill to require a report on the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (S.1966) – July 16, 2003 Senate voted to reject 52-42. A measure that would make public a report on the status of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Issue at stake: Violate detainee’s Fifth Amendment right of due process within American chartered territory: Guantanamo Naval Base.

 

Results: Amnesty International reported ongoing abuse and torture at the U.S. detention facility where recently 89 detainees went on a hunger strike, and in the last few weeks, 3 detainees committed suicide.  

• Community Solutions Act of 2001 (H.R.7) - July 19, 2001 House voted to pass 233-198. The Legislature allows the creation of government-funded religion, removing restrictions on religious organizations to incorporate their beliefs into taxpayer-funded social services.
• To amend the Community Service Block Grant Act to provide for quality improvements (H.R.3030) - February 4, 2004 House voted to reject 183-232. An amendment to a bill prohibiting employment discrimination based on religion in publicly funded programs run by churches and requiring CSBG programs to be run in a "lawful, secular manner".

Issue at stake: Separation of church and state ordained in the First Amendment that declares: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

 

Results: "Faith-based" groups have received billions of dollars in grants from federal agencies while federal programs have been experiencing drastic funding cuts. 

• Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002 (H.R.4965) - July 24, 2002, House voted to pass 274-151. The legislation would ban safe and common methods of abortion called "partial-birth abortions”.
• Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R.1997) - February 2, 2004, House voted to pass 254-163; March 25, 2004, Senate voted to pass 61-38. The legislation gives legal rights to the fetus as a separate individual from the woman who has been injured. By establishing the status of a fetus as an individual with fundamental rights in federal law erodes the very foundation of the woman’s right to choose abortion. 

Issue at stake: Attack on the “right to privacy” for woman to choose abortion. Established as a woman’s constitutional right in the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade case is now facing real possibility of being overturned by Bush’s newly appointed “pro-life” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Results: So far two U.S. states, South Dakota and Louisiana, have signed into law a bill banning most abortions while 14 other states are pursuing the same course of action.

Executive Branch Usurping Power

The Constitution is crystal clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Since 2001, Bush has so far disobeyed more than 750 laws with his signing statements, asserting that he can ignore any act of Congress that conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Worse still, Bush has broken so many existing constitutional laws — lying to Americans into fighting his wars, ignoring international treaty obligations at his discretion, authorizing torture of detainees in American custody, and approving warrantless domestic phone tapping — all of which are impeachable offences. Yet, this group of Congressmen wouldn’t even consider putting impeachment of Bush on the table.

Conclusion

The record shows that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have continuously supported Bush's policies and given him a "blank check" to conduct his increasingly unpopular wars with rising defense budgets. One conclusion could be drawn — Congress share the blame with Bush for creating a constitutional crisis in the United States of America. 

(First published on UniOrb.com, July 1, 2006)

The President Who Wants to Be King

The American democracy that was once exemplary to the world is now under siege by a power-hungry president with an insatiable lust for global dominance. For more than five years, George W. Bush has continuously violated the law of the land by ignoring the Constitution, by rewriting laws passed by Congress with his signing statements, and by issuing more than 200 executive orders as new directives for fine-tuning the government to suit his policies. The United States is now facing a regime change -- from democracy to autocracy.

Incidentally, the last monarch of England to rule the American colonies was also named George. Known as the mad King George III, he suffered bouts of insanity until he was considered unfit to rule. The oppressive autocracy of King George III gave birth to democracy in the United States.

It is precisely abhorrence for dictatorship that our forefathers fought for independence and created a democratic government with separation of powers. In James Madison’s words written in The Federalist Papers, No. 47:

"he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

To put it succinctly, Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense:

"In America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."

However, Bush believes he is above the law. Like a medieval Christian king, he claimed that God chose him to rule, as he once commented, "I believe that God wants me to be president."

Surrounded by conniving neoconservative courtiers, sycophantic Republican ministers, loyal military soldiers, and obedient press corps jesters, President Bush has taken surreptitious steps to anoint himself king in the White House where greedy corporate leaders stood in line, bearing donations in exchange for political favors. While the unaware public subjects have descended to serfdom, King Bush and his henchmen have amassed power and control over the land, tracking everything from Internet to telephone calls. While ordinary citizens have been worrying about rising gasoline prices, impending global warming disasters, or losing their jobs to outsourcing, King Bush's clan and heads of oil and military-related conglomerates have been reaping profits under the new kingdom of ill-gotten wealth at the expense of Americans, Afghanistanis and Iraqis. While the nation shows that every sector is suffering across the board, from homeland security to economics, the military has nevertheless gained grounds on war fundings and productions of deadly nuclear weapons to pursue King Bush's endless war on terror.   

Dismantling the Constitution 

 

 Since he took office, Bush has been consistently disobeying the Constitution, racking up a long list of violations, some of which have been revealed recently, ranging from illegal war to prisoner torture to domestic warrantless spying. He has not only trampled on our Constitution but also made a concerted effort to remove checks and balances in our democratic system by making Congress irrelevant and the courts tilted in his favor with appointed judges advocating his policies.   

Citing Unitary Executive 

To justify his right being "king" in a democracy, Bush believes he has "unitary executive" authority stemming from his role as commander in chief, which grants him license to overrule and bypass Congress or the courts, and even violate long-established laws and treaties. Ironically, by claiming his authority of "unitary executive," Bush violates his own presidential oath of office, which explicitly states that the president’s role is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Citing "unitary executive" authority as commander in chief, Bush overruled or bypassed Congress with his signing statements at least four times:

--Overruled Congress to forbid U.S. troops from engaging in combat to assist the Colombian government in its fight against rebels. (Bush wrote that he didn’t have to obey Colombia restrictions.)

--Bypassed Congress twice to forbid the military using intelligence for "illegal searches" in violation of the Fourth Amendment (before and after the disclosure of warrantless domestic spying) in August 2004 and December 2005. (Bush declared that he is the Decider whether such intelligence can be used by the military.)

--Bypassed Congress' set of new 2004 rules for military prison regulation -- calling provisions for military lawyers to advise on torture, retrain military prison guards, perform background checks on civilian contractors in Iraq, and ban contractors from "security, intelligence, law enforcement, and criminal justice" duties. (Bush wrote that he could ignore them all.)   

Making Congress Irrelevant 

Since 2001, Bush has silently countered more than 750 laws passed by Congress with presidential signing statements, by far a record for any president. Bush believes he can ignore any law passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. The record shows that he has ignored many laws that are related to military regulations, affirmative-action provisions, Congress awareness of immigration services problems, whistle-blowing protections, and federally funded research.

In an attempt to keep Congress in the dark, Bush deliberately bypassed numerous laws that involved requirements to provide congressional oversight committees information about government activities. In 2003, Congress tried to keep track of his out-of-control signing statements by passing a Justice Department spending bill with a requirement that the department informs Congress whenever a legislative provision is ignored. In response, Bush signed that spending bill with a signing statement, nullifying the notification requirement.

According to Presidential Studies Quarterly, Phillip Cooper, who is the leading expert on signing statements, recounted Bush’s abuse of signing statements in his first term:

• 2001: 23 signing statements
• 2002: 34 signing statements, raising 168 constitutional objections
• 2003: 27 statements, raising 142 constitutional challenges
• 2004: 23 statements, raising 175 constitutional criticisms

In fact, Bush is the first president since Thomas Jefferson to remain in office without ever issuing a veto. He never once gave Congress a chance to override his judgments. Instead, he continues the quiet maneuver of penning his opinion in a signing statement to override a bill that Congress passed. 

  

Challenging Court Decisions 

Bush has also tried to weaken the judicial branch. Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly backed Congress to create positions for executive branch officials to act independent of the president, like special prosecutors free of Justice Department oversight and the board of the Federal Trade Commission free of political interference, Bush has declared in his signing statements that every executive official falls under his control.

 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has always supported minorities in affirmative-action programs. At least nine times in the past, Bush has endorsed provisions that could be construed as representing reverse discrimination against whites. 

By placing his handpicked Supreme Court judges, Samuel A. Alito (creator of signing statement) and John G. Roberts, both of which are conservative and supportive of his policies, Bush has evidently tipped the balance of the judicial branch in his favor.   

Conclusion 

It looks as though America will come full circle, from autocracy to democracy, back to autocracy. Unbelievably, on February 17, 2005, Congress delivered the Bill #HJ24IH, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22^nd amendment to the Constitution, on a silver platter to Bush to continue serving as President beyond two terms.

Perhaps, President Bush may get his wish after all — to be King of the United States of America!


(First published on UniOrb.com, June 1, 2006)

On Trial — Saddam Hussein or Iraqi Special Tribunal?

Out of 500 possible charges, prosecutors in the acclaimed “trial of the century” have narrowed it down to 12 documented cases to be presented against the former leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Since October 19, 2005, the slow progress of Saddam's first trial has descended into mayhem. The circumstances surrounding the trial and the court proceedings have raised serious doubts about the fairness and legitimacy of the Iraqi Special Tribunal.

 

Like the Nuremberg Trials and the Milosevic Trial, the Iraqi Special Tribunal attempts to carry out justice against Saddam Hussein for the atrocities committed during his reign. Unlike the previous war criminal trials conducted by international tribunals, Saddam is facing a tribunal of his people. Ironically, the Iraqi tribunal, funded and supported by the United States that ousted the leader, was formed by the Iraqi government consisting largely of Shiite and Kurd groups who had once been victims of Saddam's oppression.

 

A Fair Trial

 

To legitimize any court trial is to grant the defendant a fair trial, following legal procedures according to law.

 

Established in 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirms the rights of everyone — "to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law" (Article 8), "to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal" (Article 10), and "to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence" (Article 11). International law recognizes that a fair trial must be based on decisions made by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.

 

Moreover, those rights have been enshrined in various international and regional human rights treaties, including the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Even Iraq ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1971, which explicitly states in Article 14 — "everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law." Thus, the Iraqi government is still bound by it.

 

First Trial of Saddam

 

Saddam and seven co-defendants have been on trial for the 1982 killings of 148 Shiite villagers in Dujail after a failed assassination attempt against the head of Iraq. A guilty conviction could warrant a death penalty. Future cases will likely include Saddam's Anfal Offensive that killed 180,000 Kurds in late 1980s, allegedly poison gas attack on Halabja that killed supposedly 5,000 Kurds in 1988, suppression of Kurdish and Shiite revolts in 1991, and invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

 

In the eyes of the world, Saddam's first trial is seen, at best, as courtroom drama entertainment and, at worst, a parody in executing judicial justice. Since the beginning, the trial has been plagued by delays, courtroom brawls, hunger strikes, walkouts in protest, boycotts by the defense team, no-shows by witnesses or defendants, assassinations of two defense lawyers, departures of numerous defense attorneys, resignation of a chief judge, removal of another judge, installing a temporary biased chief judge — and the trial is not over yet. Even Saddam denounces the court as a "comedy."

 

Legality in Question

 

The mounting illegal proceedings in the trial only affirm the standards of a kangaroo court. The Iraqi Special Tribunal, created in 2003, appears to be operating under its own set of rules — half-heartedly embracing international laws while upholding some old Iraqi laws.

 

Laws for establishing an independent and impartial tribunal for a fair trial have been blatantly ignored:

 

—  A five-judge panel that consists of only Shiites and Kurds was selected to pass judgments on defendants. Sunni, the ethnic group of the defendants, was excluded.

—  Lowering the standard of proof, judges can now issue a guilty verdict for being "satisfied" by the evidence instead of "convinced beyond a reasonable doubt."

—  The Iraqi government has been involved in political manipulation of the court, forcing Chief Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin "for being too lenient" to resign and appointing Raouf Abdel Rahman from Halabja, a Kurd with a conflict of interest to Saddam, as the temporary chief judge.

Laws for ensuring safety to those involved in the case and due process for a fair trial have been breached:

 

—  The occupation forces, along with the Iraqi administration, are unable to ensure security for judges, lawyers, witnesses and others who attend the trial. In fact, about 1,100 out of 1,500 lawyers withdrew from the defense team after the slayings of two attorneys and injuring one other in the increasing violent and chaotic turmoil in Iraq. (Violating the International Humanitarian Law)

—  Saddam's attorneys are denied the same rights and resources as the prosecutors in his trial. The U.S. troops and dozens of American lawyers have been assisting the prosecution team. In contrast, foreign attorneys from different countries for the defense team haven’t been able to enter Iraq to visit their clients regularly, while attorneys in Iraq have been working without access to phones, faxes, computers, or books. Worse still, legal notes from the defense members are subjected to American officials' approval before they are passed on to the defendants. [Violating the UDHR, Article 11; ICCPR, Article 14(3b)]

—  Chief Judge Rahman continued the trial for hours in one session, examining witnesses without the required presence of the main defendants and their defense lawyers who were either removed or walked out in protest.  [Violating the ICCPR, Article 14(3d)]

 

In addition, the irregular presentation of evidence by the prosecution team raises suspicion: unseen witnesses testifying or their testimonies read in court; silent videotapes played with read transcripts; and witnesses on the stand claimed that they didn’t want to be witnesses.

 

Furthermore, the heavy-handed approach by Chief Judge Rahman calls into question about the legality and impartiality of his conduct: summoned defendants to be physically dragged into court while their attorneys stayed away in a boycott; silenced Saddam's testimony on the stand by turning off his microphone and throwing the press out; and continued the trial with court-appointed attorneys to replace defendants’ chosen lawyers who walked out in protest for a month.

 

Legitimacy in Question

 

To legitimize any court is to ensure independent establishment with impartial judges to conduct a fair trial according to law. The Iraqi Special Tribunal has raised doubts about its legitimacy for the following reasons:

 

—  It is the product of an illegal U.S.-led invasion.

—  The U.S. has been the driving force behind the tribunal and the trial by providing logistical and financial assistance.

—  Along with the United Nations, Amnesty International declared: "The statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal currently in place is not consistent with international law."

 

Saddam, charged with crimes against humanity, should be held in an international tribunal with experienced judges and prosecutors in a transparent trial with adequate due process. From the outset of the trial, the defendants and their lawyers accused the tribunal as illegitimate. It's no wonder that Saddam and other defendants rebelled with outbursts, insults, tirades, walkouts, hunger strikes, and other behaviors in court.

 

Conclusion

 

The "trial of the century" is an apparent attempt to establish the credibility of the rule of law and give legitimacy to the Iraq's democratically elected government. However, as the first important and crucial case winds down in May, the verdict on Saddam and other defendants will soon be known — as will the world's verdict on the Iraqi Special Tribunal. 

(First published on UniOrb.com, May 1, 2006)

Frontal Assault on Freedom of the Press

The Bush administration is the first in history to launch a direct assault on journalists for violating the Espionage Act by releasing or publishing leaks of classified information. Although Congress originally passed the Espionage Act to prosecute government employees who divulge classified information to a foreign nation, it is now extended to reporters for doing their job — informing the public of our government wrongdoing, including breaking the law.

In times of war or anticipated war, our nation’s leaders supported by much of the populace have been too willing to surrender the First Amendment — our fundamental rights at the heart of democracy — for the illusion of greater security. Our civil liberties have been most endangered precisely when they should have been most protected to prevent our leaders from persecuting ordinary citizens.

In 1798, Congress passed the first federal Sedition Act to prosecute members of Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party who challenged President John Adams’ Federalist policies. In World War I, the 1917 Espionage Act and the 1918 Sedition Act were enacted to silence opposing views from political dissenters, pacifists, and labor radicals. Not one single traitor was found in more than 2,000 cases. In World War II, about 112,000 to 120,000 West Coast Japanese-Americans were relocated and confined to internment camps. The U.S. government eventually issued a public apology and doled out financial retribution to survivors and their descendants. In the early 1950s, congressional McCarthyism fueled the “red scare” — myth of communist governmental infiltration — by conducting “witch-hunts” for communist sympathizers.

Before 9/11 attacks, immigrants working and residing in America enjoyed the protection of the Bill of Rights as much as American citizens. However, under the 2001 USA Patriot Act, the government arrested and detained Arab and Muslim non-citizens, deporting or incarcerating hundreds of people on immigration violations and arresting more than a dozen “material witnesses” without charge of any crime. According to American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the U.S. government is violating the Constitution and federal law by whisking away 1,000 people as detainees without releasing their names or their locations. Congress has just renewed the Patriot Act in March 2006 to continue the battle of the illusory "war on terror."

The erosion of Bill of Rights has now emboldened the Bush administration to attack press freedom. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, as emphasized in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights: "the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments."

The media’s sole obligation lies squarely with the public’s right to know. The utmost duty of a journalist should be to pursue the truth. Reporters who use their professional status for self-serving purposes at the expense of those whom they serve violate a trust. As carriers of public information, the media acts as a conduit for the whistleblower to alert the public of government wrongdoing.

Such reports as uranium purchase forgery that drove U.S. to Iraq war, prisoner tortures, secret CIA prisons, warrantless surveillance, and other topics have prompted the Bush administration to plug the leaks at the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies. The aggressive efforts to suppress leaks on federal employees include FBI probes, polygraph tests and warning letters from the Justice Department prohibiting discussion of classified issues. For George Bush to claim that leaks have endangered the nation during a time of war doesn’t conceal the fact that he and his minions have consistently violated our constitutional laws in conducting his war.


In the New York Times, the CIA director Porter Goss asserts that the "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) was enacted to ensure that current or former employees could petition Congress, after raising concerns within their respective agency, consistent with the need to protect classified information." However, to submit a petition to Congress requires an approval from an agency’s head that might not want Congress to hear the allegations of wrongdoing. Another obstacle lies in neither the House nor Senate Intelligence Committees are "cleared enough" to hear closed testimony of NSA’s classified information.

Worse still, a report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on December 30, 2005 concluded that national security whistleblowers are unprotected. Cases in point: Russell Tice, a former intelligence officer at the NSA, charged that "illegalities and unconstitutional activity" operated in the 'special-access programs' (domestic eavesdropping without warrants); Mike German, a former FBI agent, reported records were falsified to cover-up mishandling of a major counterterrorism case in 2002; and Richard Levernier, a retired senior Department of Energy nuclear security specialist, testified that America’s nuclear weapons sites showed a 50 percent failure rate to defend against a terrorist attack. Those courageous employees who had spoken out and followed the chain of command for reporting wrongdoing suffered retaliation for disclosing the truth.

It’s no wonder that federal employees would rather leak vital government wrongdoing to the media than face ruin careers. More importantly, acting as whistleblowers, they are patriots serving the American people by informing the public of our government malfeasance.

The irony of it all, Special Council Patrick Fitzgerald is now investigating the same issue on the Bush administration — leaking sensitive classified information on a former CIA agent, Valerie Plame. In October 2005, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about how he became aware of Plame's CIA status and what he told the reporters.

In his defense for outing a CIA agent, Libby testified to a federal grand jury that Cheney and his "superiors" had authorized him to leak classified information, before and after the start of Iraq war in making the case for the U.S. invasion. Lawyers for Libby have subpoenaed several news reporters to testify again on how much they knew about the Plame’s undercover CIA status before her identity was publicly exposed. Libby’s trial will be held in January 2007.

Even if Libby could clear himself from being the first one to leak Plame’s identity, he has, nevertheless, committed a series of criminal offenses — obstruction of justice, lying to a federal grand jury, and more significantly, leaking classified information to drive U.S. to war with Iraq.

The Plamegate case was quite clear: a serious crime was committed — the law was broken to expose an undercover CIA agent, jeopardizing our national security. The New York Times former reporter, Judith Miller went to jail for 85 days to protect her sources. Miller’s protection of a government source that was suspected of committing a national security crime is definitely not the same as a journalist's obligation to protect a federal whistleblower revealing government wrongdoing. Like any journalist, Miller is bound to serve the public welfare. Any sound journalist could see that Miller was abetting a national security crime by withholding pertinent information to a criminal investigation. Fitzgerald understood that difference well enough to throw her in jail.

The Justice Department now applies the Espionage Act against journalists and their possible government sources, not to silence dissension like in the past — but to hide the criminal activities of the Bush administration. In reality, this administration wants to continue breaking the laws and violate our constitutional rights. By smothering freedom of the press, the Neocons would be one step closer to turning the United States into a dictatorship.


(First published on UniOrb.com, April 1, 2006)

Defense Budget Preparing for Nuclear Global War

What is obvious in the fiscal 2007 defense budget are the drastic reductions or eliminations of 141 domestic programs in favor of nearly seven percent increase to $439 billion in defense spending. What is not obvious are the omission of the total cost of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the enormous potential profits to defense contractors and corporations, and the hidden reasons behind escalating research and development of “smart bombs” and nuclear weapons.

 

Although the defense budget tally is for $439 billion, the estimate on war costs for Iraq and Afghanistan this year alone comes to $120 billion. Since fiscal year 2003, Americans have been burdened with a monthly average of $6.8 billion for Iraq-Afghanistan conflicts. Worse still, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that the war costs are surging — taxpayers could be paying an average of $10 billion a month this year.

 

To put the wild spending by the Bush administration in perspective, the CBO, in January 2001, projected a federal budget surplus greater than $5.6 trillion for the following ten years. Now, the CBO projects a deficit of $423 billion — nearly the same amount as the defense budget for this fiscal year.

 

As their stocks continuing to surge since 2002, defense contractors — Raytheon Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing and Northrop Grumman Corp. — have been granted lucrative defense projects in the United States from building missile defense systems to remote-controlled vehicles and aircrafts. In fact, defense contractors and companies that manufacture products or provide services for the military usually end up making a killing, even in times of economic deterioration.

 

To make any sense of the defense budget proposal, one must turn to its defense guidelines, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). As a regular military planning policy, QDR is put forth every four years. The Bush Administration has sent two QDRs to Congress, one released just after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the other in February 2006, the year of midterm elections. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted to transform the U.S. military for the 21^st century by making the armed forces “lighter, smarter, more lethal.”

 

The 2001 QDR laid the foundation for this administration’s defense policy — global dominance. It declares, “The United States is not abandoning planning for two conflicts to plan for fewer than two. On the contrary, Department of Defense (DOD) is changing the concept altogether by planning for victory across the spectrum of possible conflict.”

 

The term “conflict” not only implies combating terrorist networks as in al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but also extends to fighting nations for economic or political reasons, as in the invasion of Iraq, the looming war against Iran, followed by Syria and North Korea next in line; and the list of targets is growing.

 

The review entailed rapid response capabilities on the battlefields, the establishment of worldwide bases (“rearrangement of bases” where some closed, others built), the development of new technologies (missile defense systems and attack drones), including space and cyberspace programs for information warfare (controlling the media and Internet), and the horrific display of the U.S. military supremacy (shock and awe) to suppress or thwart any rivalry.

 

The 2006 QDR delivered in February calls for enhancing the ability of U.S. forces to conduct a “long war” against terrorists worldwide, to improve homeland security capabilities, and to prepare for conflict with the emerging rival, China. It describes four main types of threat — “traditional challenge” as in a competitor against the U.S.; “catastrophic challenge” as in a hostile nation with possession of WMDs; “irregular challenge” as in terrorists carrying out acts of terrorism; and “disruptive threats” as in interference with U.S. economic and political operations in the world.

 

More significantly, the review singles out China as the impending threat to the U.S. economy and military. It states, “China is likely to continue making large investments in high-end, asymmetric military capabilities….These capabilities, the vast distances of the Asian theater, China’s continental depth, and the challenge of en route and in-theater U.S. basing place a premium on forces capable of sustained operations at great distances into denied areas.”

 

As the 2001 QDR introduced U.S. imperialism, the 2006 QDR continues its plan for execution — “to promote constructive bilateral relations, mitigate anti-access threats and to offset potential political coercion designed to limit U.S. access to any region.” Words such as these in a QDR report have nothing to do with international diplomacy but everything to do with the military.

 

With the world’s most advanced and imposing military spread across the globe, the Defense Department not only wants an increase in production of conventional weapons for its ongoing wars but also in development of nuclear weapon systems. According to a report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), "The United States spends several times more on its military than any conceivable adversary, and together with its allies accounts for more than two-thirds of total worldwide defense spending."

 

Although Congress and the mainstream media are pretending that the ongoing wars are limited to fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2007 defense budget shows otherwise, calling for massive spending on hi-tech fighter jets, warships, missile defense systems and nuclear weapons for low-tech confrontations now engaged in these two countries. Imposing tight restrictions on journalists and outsiders, the Pentagon is using the occupied territories as a testing ground for its new hi-tech weapon systems, in preparation for a more formidable opponent with advanced weapon systems and nuclear weapon capabilities.

 

The increased funding for military Special Forces has drawn quite a bit of attention. What is not transparent is that the Army has a budget for only 482,400 active-duty soldiers and anything beyond that limit is being paid for with emergency funds. The Army actually has 492,000 troops at present and plans to increase to 512,000 in a few years. It’s now clear that Bush has no plans for troop withdrawals in the coming years.

 

As Rumsfeld demands increased funding for robot-controlled weapons systems, unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) precision bombs, he is turning the military into a war machine with the ability to kill indiscriminately. The Pentagon officially admits that 10 percent of “smart bombs” can be expected to fail owing to mechanical malfunctions or human error. The JDAM, steered by satellite-guide GPS data, can be accurate within 13 meters of a target. Of course, the U.S. military has denied any responsibility for numerous innocent civilians, including children, killed or injured in Afghanistan, Iraq, and even in Pakistan by these remote-controlled weapon systems.

 

Despite protests from many countries, the U.S. is using the Predator, a modified version of UAV, to kill suspected terrorists with drone-fired missiles outside of combat zones. When a Predator was involved in the assassination of suspected terrorists in Yemen in 2002, the U.N. called it "an alarming precedent, a clear case of extrajudicial killing" in violation of international laws and treaties.

 

More troubling, the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review proposed research and development of nuclear weapons to be used preemptively against threats from weapons of mass destruction by any terrorist group or nation, including China and Russia. George W. Bush pushed Congress for approval to develop new low-yield nuclear weapons as well as Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), an underground weapon that is seventy times more powerful than the uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Although Congress approved the review in 2002 to conduct research in developing new low-yield nuclear weapons, it has repeatedly denied Bush the funding to develop new nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the 2007 budget has included $1.73 million “to improve nuclear command and control and upgrade existing systems,” the White House said.

 

The dreadful fear is that Bush could go against the Congress, like the way he did on torture ban, with a presidential signing statement to get the budget he needs for new nuclear weapons. Who could stop him? After all, he has used presidential signing statements (at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone) more than all previous U.S. presidents combined.

 

It only takes one nation to trigger a nuclear global war.

 

With the U.S. leader who’s disconnected from reality, supported by his cabal of warmongers and followed by the military-machine, the madness to march towards Armageddon has already begun. 

(First published on UniOrb.com, March 1, 2006)

Ghost of Osama bin Laden Sending Tapes

Since December 22, 2001, U.S.-backed Hamid Karzai became the head of Afghanistan (first as the “interim” leader and later as the President), Osama bin Laden’s videos and audiotapes have mysteriously surfaced from time to time, sending the world reeling in fear and confusion. Headline news stories have continuously hyped the CIA’s claims that these recorded bin Laden appearances and voices were indeed from the most-wanted-man in the world, despite the odds against their authenticity.

Death of Osama bin Laden in 2001

Although the corpse of bin Laden would never be found, various sources alluded to the circumstances that led to his death in the Middle East.

 

According to United Press International (Oct. 31, 2001), bin Laden underwent clandestine kidney treatment by Dr. Terry Calloway (Canadian urologist) for 11 days in July at the American Hospital in Dubai. During his hospital stay, bin Laden met with a U.S. CIA agent, according to French daily Le Figaro and Radio France International. The day before the infamous September 11 terrorist attacks, bin Laden entered a military hospital for further kidney dialysis treatment in Raqalpindi, Pakistan, reported by CBS (Jan. 28, 2002).

 

In an interview with CNN (Jan. 19, 2002), Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf hinted, “He (bin Laden) is dead for the reason he is a ...kidney patient.” Musharraf also mentioned that bin Laden took two dialysis machines with him into Afghanistan.

 

A few days later, Dr. Sanjay Gupta on CNN (Jan. 21, 2002) gave his professional assessment of bin Laden’s medical condition based on the videotape broadcasted by al Jazeera on December 27, 2001. He explained that bin Laden’s ghastly appearance — “grayness of beard, paleness of skin, very gaunt sort of features” — is often associated with chronic kidney failure or renal failure. He also noted that bin Laden couldn’t move his left arm probably due to a stroke because people suffering from kidney failures have a higher risk for stroke. Dr. Gupta pointed out that dialysis machines require electricity, clean water and a sterile environment to function properly. Without an operational machine, a patient could only survive for less than a week.

 

During December 2001, the U.S. Air Force, after cornering the Taliban combatants in the mountainous Tora Bora, relentlessly blasted the area for days, unleashing an estimated 1.8 million kg of explosives, including the deadly bunker-busting bombs to implode caves. According to the Pentagon, radio transmissions of bin Laden's voice were detected regularly until December 14, 2001.

An Egyptian paper posted on December 26, 2001, ran an obituary on Osama bin Laden whose death resulted from lack of proper medical care for “serious lung complications.” A Taliban official told the Pakistan Observer that he saw bin Laden’s face before the burial in Tora Bora where some members of bin Laden’s family, friends and al Qaeda fighters gathered for his funeral. Asked whether he could pinpoint the spot where bin Laden was buried, he answered, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora that particular place too must have vanished," implying that it was obliterated by U.S. aerial bombing.

 

According to Washington Post (Oct. 28.2002), the Arabic-language al-Majallah obtained bin Laden’s will from a “very reliable” source in Afghanistan. The will — typed, signed by bin Laden and dated December 14, 2001— includes verses of Koran and the words of a man “who appeared desperate and on the verge of death.”

 

Tapes — Authentic vs. Fake

It is certain that all videos of bin Laden released in 2001 were authentic, except the one found by anti-Taliban forces, which was an obvious fake. It was difficult to determine the exact time the real videos were made but they were all filmed outdoors. More importantly, the sequential release of videos was showing bin Laden’s health deteriorating before our eyes. Bruce Lawrence, a Duke professor, who authored Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden (Verso, 2005) based on 20 complete speeches and interviews of bin Laden, pointed out that authentic tapes contain several key elements: 

• verses quoted from the Koran because bin Laden was a devout Muslim;  
• references to past Western atrocities against Muslims;  
• lengthy taped messages (shortest one was 18 minutes).

The fake one, released by Pentagon on December 13, 2001, was conveniently left in a deserted house in Jalalabad. The poor-quality video not only showed a well-fed man posing as bin Laden, resembling nothing like the al Qaeda chief, but also writing with his right hand (bin Laden was left-handed). At a small gathering, the imposter was laughing and joking about how he had carried out the September 11 atrocities, except he got the names wrong on two hijackers.

Another fraudulent video of bin Laden aired by al Jazeera on October 29, 2004, occurred just four days before the U.S. presidential election. Besides missing key elements, this particular tape (shot indoors) depicted a blurry image of supposedly bin Laden (contrast to his previous sharp images), standing behind a podium against a brown canvas backdrop. In a new twist, the speaker (fully recovered from poor health) claimed direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States. (Although bin Laden praised the September 11 hijackers, he never took credit for their attacks in any of his 2001 videos.) Even Walter Cronkite, the well-known retired news reporter, suggested that the whole scenario was a concoction by Karl Rove to secure the re-election for George W. Bush.

As for audiotapes, they started to appear in 2002 almost on a regular and politically-timed basis, some of which claimed to be voices of al Qaeda members, while others were attributed to al Zawahiri or bin Laden. Strangely, the fact that al Qaeda adopted new tactics for relaying messages has never raised any public suspicion. More troubling, al Qaeda has a history of secrecy and deception — never giving warnings or claiming responsibility for any attacks; yet, the emergence of numerous taped messages suggests that al Qaeda has broken away from its usual practice of silence by claiming responsibility for various global terrorist attacks.

One audiotape purported to be from bin Laden (released on November 12, 2002) was confirmed by U.S. intelligence to be genuine after completing a technical and linguistic analysis. However, IDIAP, the world’s foremost voice identification experts in Switzerland, reached a contrary conclusion — the voice on the tape didn’t belong to bin Laden but to someone whose voice patterns resembled bin Laden. Swiss researchers declared their scientific voice analysis to be 95 per cent accurate, with risk of error just five per cent. This audiotape was the only one analyzed by an independent group of experts.

Behind Fake Tapes

Obviously, to release a “terrorist” video or an audiotape would have an explosive impact on society. There is no rational explanation for al Qaeda to release fake tapes. Some argue that it has been done to keep the myth that bin Laden is still alive. If so, there would be no need to have taped messages of other al Qaeda members speak for bin Laden if he really were alive. Furthermore, there would be no reason for al Qaeda to make a fake tape when they could make a real one to draw attention to its future and past terrorist acts or even call forth a coordinated attack.

The fact that the fake tapes do exist implies only one possibility — the party responsible for releasing such tapes wanted to incite public fear and confusion, instill blame on the targeted enemies, and justify the fight against terrorism anywhere in the world. As clearly demonstrated in the recent appearance of bin Laden audiotape (Jan. 19, 2006), President Bush told reporters: “When he says he’s going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it.” Homeland Security spokeswoman Michelle Petrovich pitched in: “we recognize that al-Qaida remains committed to striking the homeland.” Vice President Cheney stated: “I think you have to destroy them (terrorists). It’s the only way to deal with them.”

The next time a bin Laden tape surfaces, it must be from the ghost of Osama bin Laden. 

(First published on UniOrb.com, February 1, 2006)

Two Distinct Wars in Iraq

It is widely known that President Bush led the United States into an "unjustified war" against Iraq based on deceptions and lies linking Hussein Saddam with ties to 9-11 attacks and al Qaeda terrorists, and with possession of WMDs. It is also vastly accepted that Bush has initiated a "global war" against terrorism. However, it is not commonly acknowledged that these two wars in Iraq are distinct and different. The U.S. Congress only authorized Bush to remove the supposedly impending threat of Saddam in the Authorization for Use of Military Force: "to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."

Why did the U.S. start a war in Iraq?

For the last two and a half years, unfolding events have revealed the startling Bush administration's true motives for war. Behind the false reasons given for attacking Iraq, the neoconservatives' ambitious agenda was to dominate the Middle East, and eventually the world. By removing Saddam, the U.S. could control the flow of Iraq's oil, change regime by installing a puppet government, and establish a footing for launching future wars within the region.

Despite the Bush administration's claim that the invasion of Iraq was not for oil by turning the oil fields over to the Iraqi puppet government, the U.S. government supported by oil conglomerates plan to seize control of Iraq's economy by privatizing Iraq's oil, which was backed by senior figures in the Iraqi Oil Ministry, under the Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) that will be put into effect as soon as an apparent "legitimate" government is established. According to the Crude Design report, 64 percent of Iraq's oil reserves so far have been promised to multi-national companies for oil development, which will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue. With less than half of its own oil in control, the Iraqi government will face a daunting task of rebuilding its war-torn country for years to come.

Ever since Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003, not one single U.S. military unit has been withdrawn, while more than ten "coalition of the willing" nations have already left. He has repeatedly stated that the U.S. military would depart when Iraq became free, self-governing, and safe from terrorists. As a free nation, three official Iraqi elections have already been held in 2005 (January, July and December), yet American soldiers are still on Iraq soil. In fact, the U.S. troops, the bulk of the international coalition, have increased from around 100,000 to 160,000 for "security reasons" to fight rising insurgency. Evidently, the insurgents, who have been waging guerilla warfare against the coalition patrols and the Iraqi police forces (perceived as American stooges), are 90 percent Iraqi patriots against the U.S. occupation. The so-called "foreign terrorists" didn't even exist in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion. As long as the coalition forces remain in Iraq, the insurgency will definitely grow and intensify because the Iraqi combatants and the foreign fighters are battling the same archenemy - the U.S. troops.

Lately, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to withdraw from 5,000 to 9,000 troops in March of 2006 - the gesture is nothing more than a political ploy to pacify rising discontent from the public and some Congressmen about the war until after 2006 U.S. elections. After all, Bush as the Commander-in-Chief, not Rumsfeld, has repeatedly refused to set a timetable for troop withdrawal.

By establishing the U.S. military presence in Iraq, the Bush Administration could now conveniently launch wars against its opposite-end neighbors, Iran and Syria, both of which are surrounded by the U.S.-friendly Arab nations. On the political front, the U.S. has been demanding the U.N. to take action against Iran for developing suspected nuclear weapons and Syria for allegedly being involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Recently, Bush, leveling the same accusations that incited a war against Iraq, called Iran and Syria "outlaw regimes" with "a long history of collaboration with terrorists." (Reuters, October 28, 2005)

Why has Iraq descended into such chaos?

Although the Bush administration has been criticized for being "incompetent" or "inept" in executing the Iraq war, upon a closer scrutiny, the chaos that has followed the invasion was actually part of a larger scheme to maintain the U.S. military indefinitely in Iraq.

From the outset of the war, General Tommy Franks drew up the attack plan Operation Iraqi Freedom, emphasizing speed and agility to topple Saddam. Unlike the 1991 Gulf war campaign with massive 500,000 U.S. troops, 150,000 coalition troops and artillery strength, Franks led much smaller American forces of about 100,000 to a swift victory, capturing Baghdad in three weeks. Soon he retired on July 23, 2003 as a four-star general and published his war experiences in American Soldier (Regan Books, August 2004). In his book, Franks warned before the invasion that a quick victory would lead to a "catastrophic success" in dealing with postwar anarchy in Iraq. 

The first thing the U.S. troops did when they marched into Iraq was to seize the oilfields, neglecting to secure other important sites - hospitals, museums, and nuclear facilities. Thus, major cities descended into chaos as American soldiers stood by watching Iraqi looters made off with palace furniture, cultural treasures, medical equipment, and highly sensitive lab materials.

Scenes of regular U.S. military nocturnal raids on family homes, street-to-street battles between soldiers and insurgents in broad daylight, and blown-up cars and collapsed buildings caused by either suicide bombers or U.S. missiles - all of which impart fear and confusion in the daily lives of the civilians. In addition, the Pentagon hiring of mercenaries and thugs to work undercover, conducting routine tortures of thousands of prisoners (90 percent were innocent according to Red Cross) in secret jails, and using depleted uranium, napalm and white phosphor on a civilian population - all of which have hastened the Iraqi populace to foment hatred towards the Americans.

The Bush administration, notably known for dividing not unifying America, is using the same strategy of instilling fear, intimidation and hatred among the people in order to exacerbate the chaos in Iraq. By encouraging anarchy, the neoconservatives essentially force Congress to continue funding the war under the waving flag for "supporting the troops" while they prepare to launch other wars in the Middle East.

Why is the U.S. military still in Iraq?

Behind the smokescreens and dubious claims that the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) has been propagandizing - to stabilize Iraq against insurgency, to help establish a democratic government, and to provide security for the Iraqi civilians - the U.S. military is now in Iraq to advance Bush's second goal - fighting a global war on terrorism.

Instead of preventing a civil war from occurring by forging unification, the U.S. military has intensified sectarian differences among three groups - Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. The U.S. Occupation first purged the Ba'athists (mainly Sunnis), later re-enlisted some of them in the security forces. Imposing a media blackout, the U.S. marines waited until Bush was re-elected as president to move into Sunni territories - Tal Afar for destruction and Fallujah a second time to wreak havoc, damaging two-thirds of the buildings in the holy city. Consequently, rebellions broke out nationwide, especially among the Sunnis who later refused to participate in the January 2005 election. By placing security forces of Kurds in Tal Afar and security forces of Shiites in Fallujah, the U.S. authority has not only deepened the rift among the groups but also allowed the Kurds and the Shiites to exact revenge on the Sunnis. As a result, the Shiite security forces run death squads and secret torture chambers that rival the brutality of Saddam's secret police.

To impose democracy on any nation is in fact an undemocratic act - suppressing freedom of choice for self-governing. As for the success of establishing a democratic Iraqi government, each of the three elections  was considered "fraudulent" and the elected lawmakers "illegitimate" by these different groups.

The fact that chaos reigns in Iraq says it all about the U.S.-led coalition providing security for the populace. The American and British forces have violated the Geneva Conventions for not providing protection for the civilians and not preserving civilian health with sufficient food, water, electricity and medical supplies in some areas of the Occupied Iraq. The total number of Iraqi casualties in military actions and terrorism ranges from 100,000 to 120,000 people, according to "Patterns of Population Discontent" (May 2005), a research on Project on Defense Alternatives. The 2004 data on post-invasion under-5 infant mortality was 122,000 (about 334 children died daily) from deprivation- or malnourishment-related causes, according to UNICEF (December 12, 2005).

Echoing the principles of Pax Americana for American imperialism, the National Security Strategy set forth by the Bush administration on September 20, 2002, outlines the U.S. approach to defending the country - embracing pre-emptive attacks against terrorism, ignoring international decisions if not in sync with U.S. interests, transforming the U.S. military with updated programs and weaponry, and establishing permanent global U.S. military bases and economic dominance disregarding international treaties. Every step of the strategy, so far, has been pursued as a foreign policy by the American government.

As early as September 7, 2003, Bush admitted in his Address to the Nation - "Iraq is now the central front" (in the global war on terror). It's not surprising that the largest U.S. embassy ever built is in Iraq as a symbol of the future American military and economical power in the Middle East. Although the Pentagon denied constructing permanent military bases, GlobalSecurities.org has identified at least twelve long-term encampments across Iraq. When Rumsfeld proposed a global "rearrangement" of U.S. forces to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, a radar facility learned that as many as 890 U.S. military installations exist in foreign countries.

Why Congress must withdraw the U.S. military NOW?

Rep. John Murtha, a highly decorated vet who voted for the Iraq War, is now denouncing the ongoing war not for the "cut and run" reason but for finally acknowledging the distinction of the two wars - the war against Saddam supposedly posing a threat to the U.S. and the global war against terrorism. The congressional approval for war against Saddam had already ended as he declared in his November 17 speech: "Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates...It is time to bring them (troops) home."

Besides the illegality of the war, mounting casualties for Americans and Iraqis, deteriorating domestic situation, and tarnished American image in the world, the U.S. Congress must call the troops home NOW - for it has the constitutional right and the power to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The Congressmen who are sitting on the fence must act NOW because the majority of Americans (60 percent) and Iraqis (80 percent) want the U.S. troops out for a very good and simple reason - the world wants global peace not a global war on our planet!

(First published on UniOrb.com, January 2, 2006)