Update on "An Ethiopian in Guantanamo"

UK Guantanamo detainee near suicide after years of torture, doctors warn

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor

Published: 18 December 2007

I am sure many have heard the recent verbal skirmish between the two Democratic presidential candidates, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hilary Clinton. Although it appears that the corporate media finally found the dirt it had been seeking for long in order to start a knock-down drag-out dirty fight between the candidates, it can be argued that the Hillary camp may have purposely started this race controversy in order to goad Obama, who, up until that point, had intentionally avoided talking about race for fear of being labeled "another black rebel" as others before him were.  Of course, this is my own opinion based on past observations of the Clintons' skillful manipulation of the African American community, so much so that Bill Clinton was dubbed "the first black president of the US" by the African American community.

However, this recent fight which stemmed from a comment made by Hillary Clinton about Martin Luther King needing Lyndon Johnson in order to get the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, seems to have touched major nerve in the African American community and has created a division among these communities. While there is of course truth to Mrs. Clinton's statement, it nevertheless smacks of white arrogance and even tinge of subtle racism in that it perpetuates that old stereotype that black people will always need white people to hold their hands to cross that street to a place called "freedom".

In the context of this presidential race, the obvious be it cynical conclusion one can make is that, Sen. Clinton is saying black people will always need white people, especially in the White House, in order to have anything accomplished. Translation? It is still not the time for a black man to become president of the United States.  So Barack, please stay in the back of the campaign bus wait for your turn; it's still not your time yet. This may sound like a harsh analysis to some, but how else can one interpret Sen. Clinton's unsolicited remark about Martin Luther King and Lyndon B Johnson, especially so close to the celebration of Martin Luther King's birthday?  The timing of the incident also re-enforces my theory that this may have been a calculated and well-timed hit job by the Clintons in order to start a controversy which looks like it achieved its intended purpose. The obvious question then is, why would Sen. Clinton say something controversial that would create a division in the African American community and risk support from the African American community? Well, my answer is that, after Obama's win in Iowa and his close second place finish in New Hampshire, Clinton's camp may have been worried about South Carolina, the next big primary state with 54 delegates and a huge African American population, and that may have put them in a position where they had to take a drastic measure to stop that freight train called Obama. 

The Clintons are no saints when it comes to power.  Remember Ricky Ray Rector the mentally incompetent African American whose execution Mr. Clinton resided over in 1992 while he was governor of Arkansas and a Democratic presidential candidate? Mr. Clinton suspended his campaign to make sure that he was present during the execution just to make a political statement about the death penalty. How about the infamous " Sister Souljah Moment " when President Clinton compared her to David Duke, the white supremacist?  And how about the incarceration of 100,000 more African Americans under Bill Clinton than Ronald Reagan, and his inaction in the Rwanda genocide which he refused to get involved in until it was too late? There's more, but who's counting? In the last couple of weeks, the Clintons have shown that they are willing to go to any length, including the use of surrogates, to smear opponents whom they consider impediment to their ambition.  Some of these surrogates even included prominent African Americans like Bob Johnson, founder of BET and members of Mrs. Clinton's staff.  

How is that for a birthday present to Dr. King on his 79^th birthday? I am sure he is spinning in his grave.

Well, as a reminder of what MLK stood for I present to you his "Beyond Vietnam" speech that he gave on April 4th 1967 at Riverside Church in New York city. This speech is just as true and timely today as it was back in 1967. Events and issues today are very much similar as they were in the 1960's, not just in the US, but also around the world.  Many believe that this speech may have been the death nail to Dr King's dream and his life because of the harsh criticism he laid on the US government and its role in Vietnam.  Exactly a year to the day, in 1968, he was killed by an assassin's bullet in Memphis Tennessee.

Here is the " Beyond Vietnam " speech.


Happy Birthday MLK!

Unless you've been living under a rock the last few weeks, you probably have heard the horrible news from Pakistan about the assassination of the former twice Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.  It is not still clear as to who was behind this assassination, although the Bush Administration and the current president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf were quick to point their fingers at the usual suspects Al Qaeda and Islamic extremists. As the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live would say, "hmmm, how conveeeeenient."  Of course it is not beyond the realm of possibility that either one of these groups could have been the perpetrator, especially given Bhutto's record in ‘opposing' Islamic extremism and her attempt to bring in some form of ‘modernity' to the country. But it is also not entirely inconceivable that Musharraf himself could have had a hand in it with some help from the US administration. After all, John Negroponte made a trip to Pakistan recently under the guise of a ‘diplomatic mission'. Of course, those who know Mr. Negroponte's background  can deduce what that mission could have been about.  Strangely enough, a visit from Mr. Negroponte in any country is followed by a sudden taste for blood by some groups, emergence of death squads everywhere, assassination of political leaders, instability in the country etc.... very strange. Well, I guess the guy just has bad luck following him everywhere he goes.

It may not be an over statement to say that the repercussion of Benazir Bhutto's assassination could very well be a catastrophic one the likes of which can be compared to the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria , which was the spark that lit the flames of World War I.  After all, Pakistan is one of the few countries that have nuclear weapons in one of the most volatile regions in the world and is also safe haven to some of the most militant Islamic extremists.

In the process of following Bhutto's story last month, I came across an interview she did with ‘Sir' David Frost, a well respected journalist on "Al Jazeera English". In this 14 minute interview, Frost was asking Bhutto about the first assassination attempt on her life back in October and the former twice PM of Pakistan, who probably had solid and trustworthy sources in the region, made a rather startling...no wait...an earth shattering revelation.  About 5 minutes into the interview, Bhutto, in describing who she thought were behind the first assassination attempt, mentions the name Omar Sheik as the man who "murdered Osama Bin Lade"...WHAT????  Murdered Osama Bin Laden????   What was more interesting was that Frost does not even pause to ask a question about what Bhutto said. Was David Frost, whose program is ironically called "frost over the world", putting the Osama story, which really is the bigger story here, on ice? Or better yet, is Osama's body being kept on ice somewhere already to be brought out at the appropriate time by the ‘good guys' who are fighting this so called ‘war on terror'?  The appropriate response from Frost at that point should have been, ‘Wait wait wait...one bloody second...back up a bit.  Did you just say the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden?' Any sensible journalist would have asked that question, because the Osama murder story trumps all the other peripheral stories, including Bhutto's assassination attempt and her bid to un-sit her opponent Musharraf, whose only reason for being in power is his ties with the US administration to fight the so called war on terror whose very symbol is none other than Osama Bin Laden. 
 
This also raises another question about the Western world and its media.  If David Frost, a well know and reputable journalist, lets this nugget of information go by without so much as a blink of an eye, how can we take what these journalists have to say about anything seriously? What could be more important than this?  Is Frost covering something up or does he think that this is a non-story?  And how about the US media?  Did anyone of the major US media outlets pick this up?  You would think this is would be a front-page news around the world.  It's been over 2 months since the interview was conducted, but not one news outlet has even said a word about it.
 
And finally, is there any doubt that the Bush administration, and maybe perhaps even the British counter parts, with the help of their lap dog media, have been playing people around the world with this Emanuel Goldstein like face of terror which is Osama Bin Laden? And could Mrs. Bhutto let something slip out that the US administration did not want to get out? Makes you wonder, doesn't it? 

Well, watch the video and see for yourself.



Chereka