Ex-Abu Ghraib Interrogator: Israelis Trained U.S. to Use "Palestinian Chair" Torture Device

April 07, 2016, Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org (U.S.)

Eric Fair: Army veteran who worked as a contract interrogator at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. He is the author of the new book, Consequence: A Memoir.

As a former interrogator in Iraq working as a military contractor for the private security firm CACI, Eric Fair was stationed at the Abu Ghraib prison and in Fallujah in 2004. While in Fallujah, he witnessed a torture device known as the Palestinian chair. He writes in his new book, "Consequence: A Memoir," that the chair was a way to immobilize prisoners in order to break them down both physically and mentally. He also wrote that the Israeli military taught them how to use the Palestinian chair during a joint training exercise. For more, we’re joined by Eric Fair, whose new book, "Consequence: A Memoir," has just been published.

 

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Our guest is Eric Fair, Army veteran who worked as a contract interrogator at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq as well as other places. He’s the author of the new book, Consequence: A Memoir. You’ve said that what happened outside Abu Ghraib, what contractors did, in terms of torture, was often worse than

LAS ORGANIZACIONES PRO DERECHOS EN ISRAEL RECURREN CONTRA LA LEY DEL BDS

25 julio 2011, Rebelión http://www.rebelion.org (México)

Nikki Hodgson

Traducido por Cris del Tó para el Centro de Información Alternativa (AIC), Jerusalén.

Después del debate en el pleno del lunes (11 de julio), que duró casi seis horas, el Knéset (Parlamento) de Israel aprobó el "Proyecto de ley para prevenir daños al Estado de Israel por medio del boicot". En esta ley, el "boicot" se define como estar en contra del "Estado de Israel - evitando de forma deliberada lazos económicos, culturales o académicos con una persona u otro factor debido únicamente a su relación con el Estado de Israel, cualquiera de sus instituciones o cualquier ámbito bajo su control, de tal manera que pudiera causar daños económicos, culturales o académicos".

A pesar de las advertencias del asesor jurídico del Knéset, Eyal Yinon, sobre que la ley constituye una violación grave de la libertad de expresión y que probablemente fuera desestimada por el Tribunal Supremo, el Knéset aprobó el proyecto de ley con 47 votos a favor y 38 en contra.

Organizaciones activistas israelíes y palestinas ya están desafiando la ley, cumpliendo así las predicciones hechas durante la comparecencia de Raz Nizri, adjunto del Fiscal General Weinstein, que predijo que si se aprobaba, las organizaciones probablemente interpondrían una demanda. Tras la aprobación de la ley, las organizaciones de derechos humanos en Israel están preparando un recurso de apelación contra la "ley del Boicot" ante el Tribunal Supremo israelí.

Adalah-Centro Legal para los Derechos de la Minoría Árabe en Israel, el Comité Público contra la Tortura en Israel, Médicos por los Derechos Humanos y la Coalición de Mujeres por la Paz exigen que se detenga el proceso de aprobación de la ley. En una carta enviada al portavoz del Knéset Reuven Rivilin, al Ministro de Justicia Yaakov Neeman y al Ministro de Finanzas Yuval Steinitz, las organizaciones sostienen que se trata de "una ley completamente anticonstitucional que limita la libertad de expresión política y que es contraria al derecho internacional".
Los grupos también acusan a la ley de forzar a los ciudadanos a "cooperar con la ocupación".

Paz Ahora advierte que estas limitaciones a la libertad de expresión en Israel convertirán al Knéset en una "policía del pensamiento" y envió 120 banderas negras a cada uno de los miembros del Knéset para resaltar las consecuencias de la ley. Inmediatamente después de la votación, Paz Ahora creó un grupo en Facebook llamado "Procésame, yo le hago boicot a las colonias" como medida directa para desafiar la ley. El grupo ya había atraído a más de 2.000 seguidores el martes por la mañana.

El miembro del Knéset Zeev Elkin (Likud), que propuso la ley, dijo que ésta no pretende acallar a las personas, sino "proteger a los ciudadanos de Israel". Organizaciones activistas se oponen a esta defensa señalando que Israel no está prohibiendo todos los boicots, sino solo aquellos que están en contra de la ocupación. La ley concede ventaja a los colonos en Cisjordania mientras que delimita el trabajo y la posición tanto de ONGs como de ciudadanos particulares contra la ocupación. El grupo que recurre la ley sostiene que ésta "viola el principio de igualdad mediante el intento de defender una posición política a la vez que limita otras posiciones".

El abogado Hassan Jubrin, Director General de Adalah, manifestó que "el Knéset israelí no solo intenta silenciar la protesta contra la ocupación-también intenta imponer sobre las víctimas y sobre aquellos que se oponen a la ocupación, que cooperen y la apoyen de manera activa......[La ley] no cumple con ningún criterio del derecho internacional..."

En una declaración hecha pública por la Asociación por los Derechos Civiles en Israel (ACRI) se arremete contra la ley y la califica como "anticonstitucional y antidemocrática" y declara sus intenciones de "presentar una demanda contra ella ante el Tribunal Supremo israelí pidiendo que la ley sea derogada". La ACRI también publicó un análisis comparando la Ley del Boicot israelí y las leyes de boicot de Estados Unidos, que están siendo utilizadas para reforzar los argumentos usados por aquellos que apoyan la ley israelí. El análisis de la ACRI señala que las leyes de boicot estadounidenses fueron implantadas para disuadir a las compañías de ir en contra de la política exterior de Estados Unidos y que no obstaculizan el derecho de libertad de expresión. Asimismo, Estados Unidos nunca ha procesado a nadie por participar en un boicot.

Más grupos activistas progresistas y ciudadanos individuales en Israel, tanto palestinos como judío-israelíes, están expresando tanto su apoyo continuado al llamamiento palestino al BDS, a pesar de la recién aprobada ley, como su rechazo al discurso público de la izquierda sionista sobre este asunto. "La mayoría de grupos sionistas como Paz Ahora y ACRI se centran casi exclusivamente en las implicaciones que tiene la ley en el boicot a los productos provenientes de las colonias, lo que encaja con su rechazo público al llamamiento Palestino al BDS," afirma Connie Hackbarth del Centro de Información Alternativa. "Su preocupación por la democracia de Israel es interesada dado que Israel no es una democracia y su preocupación por la libertad de expresión de los israelíes forma parte de un discurso interno en el que los israelíes y sus derechos son el centro de atención." El grupo "¡Boicot! Apoyando el llamamiento palestino desde dentro" planea publicar una declaración acerca de la nueva ley.

I FLEW IN TO HELP PALESTINIANS PLANT OLIVE TREES. THE ISRAELIS TOOK ME TO A PRISON IN THE DESERT

13 July 2011, Mondoweiss http://mondoweiss.net (USA)

Elke Zwinge-Makamizile is a member of the German Peace Council as well as The International League for Human Rights. She took part in the "Fly in" protest action to Palestine. She is being interviewed by Gitta Düperthal, a journalist for Junge Welt, in German. Translation by Cynthia Beatt.

Last Friday hundreds of activists attempted to travel to Palestine via Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. [Approximately 124 managed to do so]. You are one of those deported on Sunday. How did the Israeli authorities treat you?

It already began on Friday in Frankfurt/Main: as the plane was to start on time at 11 am, it suddenly braked sharply. After hours we were unloaded onto another machine and we were only able to take off around 5 pm – apparently due to an uneven surface area on the runway! Whoever wishes to believe this can do so; I rather believe this was to give the Israeli authorities time. Therefore we landed in Ben-Gurion Aiport at 11 pm, where they immediately took away our passports. The Israeli security officials seemed to know exactly who belonged to our group.

We had been invited by the Palestinian Peace Movements and there was a program prepared for us. The day of July 9th was chosen because this day in 2004 the International Court of Justice in the Hague declared the construction of the Wall on Palestinian Territories to be illegal. Amongst other activities, we were to visit the “Freedom Theatre”, to take part in the symbolic planting of olive trees and to visit a refugee camp. Instead we were forced to spend hours in detention rooms at the airport until we were taken in the early morning on Saturday to a prison van, in which other activists had already been sitting for four and a half hours. 23 women were inside and 16 men were penned in the other area of the same van. Around 35 security officials, whom we could see through the barred windows, stood outside. To pass the time we began to sing, upon which they threatened to use tear gas on us.

Where were you taken?

We were brought to the Beersheva Ela-Prison in the middle of the Negev Desert, where we were kept from Saturday morning until Sunday midday in a kind of luxury prison – not one of those prisons in which, according to Amnesty International, torture takes place. At our request consular officials of the countries from which the activists originate visited us; that was France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany. They noted our names and asked whether anyone should be notified. The Israelis were obviously at pains to ensure that no one would have reason to complain about their treatment there. Nevertheless we were under surveillance by video cameras the entire time.

How did the security officials react to you?

We used every opportunity to explain to them that we wished to make a contribution to easing the isolation of the Palestinians – the next step should be that Palestine must be recognized as a State and receive membership in the United Nations, to be voted upon in September. They did not comment on our views but my impression was some of them seemed to understand and did not show animosity towards us. They obviously had not been expecting people like us after the unbelievable propaganda campaign that Israeli officials started against us.

Israel’s Home Secretary Yitzhak Aharanovich, for example, described us as "extremists and hooligans", intending to disrupt public order. On the Ynet internet page we were even denounced as potential lawbreakers.

The ships of the second Gaza-Flotilla have been detained in Greece since days and many “Fly In” demonstrators couldn’t reach their destination – the Israelis compelled international airlines to refuse to even carry certain passengers. How do you feel about the success of this action?

We used the situation to make the media aware of how bad the human rights situation is in the West Bank and in Gaza. Through this sharp and totally exaggerated reaction by Israel it has become evident to many people all over the world what the government is prepared to do to isolate the people of Palestine.

Legislation against human rights groups is political persecution

The new legislative initiative which would ban human rights organizations from employing national service volunteers ignores their democratic mission.

13 June 2011, Haaretz הארץ Editoral (Israel)

Kadima MK Israel Hasson's new initiative under which human rights organizations would be denied the right to employ national service volunteers is pure political persecution.

The proposal is based almost entirely on the claim that these organizations "besmirched the Israel Defense Forces, its officers and its soldiers."

According to Hasson, certain organizations - first and foremost, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the local chapters of Physicians for Human Rights and Amnesty, and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel - sought to persuade Judge Richard Goldstone to investigate whether Israel committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in early 2009, and even urged the UN inquiry committee he headed "to accuse Israel of anti-humanitarian activity and of grave violations of human rights."

Hasson is ignoring the nature of the mission that human rights organizations have taken upon themselves - namely, a constant battle to uphold the ethical, humanist values without which a democratic society cannot exist, or, at the very least, could not maintain its democratic image.

Demanding an investigation of the army is neither treason nor slander, as Hasson and his supporters are trying to paint it. Indeed, given that both the army and the political decision-makers shunned a courageous and thorough probe of what happened during Cast Lead - an operation in which hundreds of Palestinians were killed - their application to Goldstone was essential.

Moreover, it's clear that their involvement with the Goldstone Report is nothing but a transparent excuse on which Hasson sought to hang his desire to embitter the lives of these organizations and intensify the delegitimization campaign against them. And he is not alone. He is supported by more than just a handful of Knesset members, most of them from the extreme right.

But Hasson, the bill's sponsor, is not a delusional extremist; he belongs to a party that defines itself as Israel's main centrist party. Yet so far, Kadima chairwoman and opposition leader Tzipi Livni has not responded to Hasson's proposal. Her silence is particularly worrying because she has until now been viewed as a rock standing firm against the recent wave of anti-democratic legislation.

If Livni truly sees herself and her party as an alternative to the present government, she can no longer remain silent in the face of this campaign of silencing and intimidation.