[Peace-discussion] Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Chief Robert Menard legitimizes torture

[John Walsh]

On 9/16/07, henry duke <henryduke2004@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I put this out so that our National and State Green Party media gente wil=
l
> have some balance next time they join the US jump on targets like Venezue=
la
> and Iran for free press rights, human, womyns, or homosexual rights.
>
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE NATIONAL GREEN PARTY HAS CONDEMNED IRAN OR VENEZU=
ELA.




> This RSF secretary general, an organization for freedom of speech set up
> with US CIA/State Department/and covert money, is openly sanctioning tort=
ure
> and mutilation.
>
> Wanna talk about workers, womyns, reporters, indigenous rights, there are
> 1,000 to 1 violations in US Counterinsurgency clients like Colombia, the
> Phillipines, Egypt, Saudi Arabia.
>
> So let our media reps be a little fair and balanced -- go against the gra=
in
> of criticizing Iran and Venezuela...
>
> Was there even one media release about the 30 BILLION dollars of US aid j=
ust
> allocated 2 weeks ago to Israel?
>
> Silence on US violence but speaking out against so-called Al-Queda...
>
> We need to do better.
>
> Henry Duke
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sept. 4, 2007
> Robert M=E9nard, of Reporters without Borders, follows in Washington's st=
eps
> and legitimizes torture
>
> Salim Lamrani
> Rebeli=F3n
> http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=3D55702
>
> Edited by Caty R.
>
> Robert M=E9nard, secretary general of the Parisian organization Reporters
> without Borders (RSF) since 1985, is a professional media figure who clai=
ms
> to defend "freedom of the press" and wraps himself with in a humanist
> discourse greatly appreciated by public opinion. Thanks to the collusion =
of
> the media, M=E9nard has become an unavoidable figure in the world of the
> press.
>
> Nonetheless, his actions don't meet with unanimous approval. The flagrant
> lack of impartiality which RSF shows has been criticized many times. The
> French organization financed by economic and financial corporations as we=
ll
> as by the United States, as its secretary general has publicly admitted, =
has
> carried out media campaigns curiously similar to the political agenda of =
the
> White House. Thus RSF, with the pretext of defending freedom of the press=
,
> has repeatedly shown no mercy with Cuba (1), supported the coup d'etat
> against Venezuelan President Hugo Ch=E1vez in April 2002 (2), implicitly
> approved the bloody invasion of Iraq in 2003 (3) and legitimized the coup
> d'etat against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti (4). Now, RSF
> carries out a spectacular media campaign against China and the Olympic Ga=
mes
> in Beijing (5).
>
> The ideological similarity between RSF and the Bush administration is
> evident to the extent that one questions what Robert Menard's true
> objectives really are. The scandals of Guant=E1namo, Abu Graib and the CI=
A's
> secret jails throughout the world have shown that U.S. troops don't hesit=
ate
> to use torture to obtain their goals. The entire international community =
has
> unanimously condemned these inhuman and unjustifiable methods.
>
> In October 2006 the U.S. Congress took the first step and approved a law
> that legalizes torture, a flagrant violation of the very principles of
> democracy. The Republican majority as well as several elected Democrats o=
f
> the House of Representatives and Senate authorized the use of evidence
> obtained under torture against the "illegal enemy combatant." The text,
> titled "law of military commissions, 2006," recognizes the existence of
> secret courts to judge any alien suspected of attacking United States
> interests. The defendant won't have access to a lawyer or know the charge=
s
> against him. Additionally, the evidence presented against him will remain
> secret. Or course, he will also be detained without the right to be broug=
ht
> before a judge, and all of that indefinitely. He will not be able to
> denounce the illegality of his detention or the torture he might have bee=
n
> the victim of (6).
>
> The law also gives the U.S. president "the authority to interpret the
> meaning and the application of the Geneva conventions" which prohibits
> torture. These will not be able to be used "as a source of law before any
> court of the United States."  Section V of the law stipulates, "no person
> may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas
> corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or=
 a
> current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other
> agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court =
of
> the United States or its States or territories." Additionally, "No court,
> justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an applicat=
ion
> for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by
> the United States who has been determined by the United States to have be=
en
> properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination=
."
> (7)
>
> Not only is this law poisonous to freedom, essentially totalitarian, it
> represents a threat for any citizen of the world who isn't a citizen of t=
he
> United States, but grants complete impunity to those responsible for crue=
l,
> inhuman and degrading treatment. The European Union and France in particu=
lar
> have maintained a scandalous silence with respect to this law. What would
> have happened if China, Cuba, Iran, Russia or Venezuela had adopted a
> similar law? Who can still speak of the United States as of a model of
> democracy?
>
> During the radio program "Contre-expertise" hosted by Xavier de la Porte =
on
> France Culture, August 16, 2007, Robert M=E9nard, the self-proclaimed def=
ender
> of human rights and journalists, followed the steps of his sponsors and
> legitimized the use of torture, saying some extremely alarming things.
> Evoking the murder of U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl, he emphasized that it
> was legitimate to torture suspects in order to save the life of innocents=
,
> reviving the argument of the most horrifying dictatorships and, of course=
,
> of the Bush administration(8).
>
> M=E9nard goes further since he legitimizes even torture against family me=
mbers
> of those kidnapped, or perhaps against the innocent. "If my daughter were
> kidnapped, there would be no limit, I'm telling you, I'm telling you, the=
re
> would be no limit on torture." Here is an extract of what the secretary
> general of RSF said:
>
>  "The Pakistani police kidnap families, listen to me, families of the
> kidnappers and torture these families of those kidnappers in order to obt=
ain
> information.
>
> They are going to obtain information. They will arrive too late to save
> Daniel.  Do you know how his throat was cut and under what conditions=85?
>
> Where do we stop? Shall we accept this logic that consists of=85 since we
> could do it in some cases, 'you kidnap, we kidnap; you mistreat, we
> mistreat; you torture, we torture =85?'
>
> What justifies=85? Perhaps in order to free somebody, can we go there? It=
 is a
> real question.
>
> That is real life, it is that, what Fran=E7ois just said: we are no longe=
r in
> ideas, it is war, we are no longer dealing with principals. I don't what =
to
> think. Because this happens to Marianne Pearl, I'm not saying, I'm not
> saying that they made a mistake because she thought that it was appropria=
te
> to do it, that it was necessary to do that, that her husband had to be
> saved, she was pregnant.. for the sake of the baby that was going to be
> born, everything was permitted.
>
> And it was absolutely necessary to save him and if it was necessary to
> attack a certain number of people, they had to attack a certain number of
> people, physically attack them, you understand, threatening them and
> torturing them, even though we might have to kill some.
>
> I don' know, I am lost. Because sometimes I don't know where you have to
> stop, where you have to put on the brakes. What is acceptable and what is
> unacceptable? And at the same time, for the families of those that were
> kidnapped, because many times they are the people we talk to first, in
> Reporters without Borders; legitimately, I, if my daughter were kidnapped
> there would be no limit, I tell you, I tell you, there would be no limit =
on
> torture"(9).
>
> How can one try to defend human rights when a practice as abominable and
> inhuman as torture is justified? What remains of Robert Menard's and
> Reporters without Border's credibility =96 the two are so intimately conn=
ected
> that it is impossible to disassociate them=97when they justify the
> unjustifiable? The secretary general of RSF showed his true face. He does=
n't
> defend freedom of the press but the hateful practices of the CIA. But, is=
 it
> really surprising when it is financed by the National Endowment for
> Democracy (10), which is no more than an Agency front according to the Ne=
w
> York Times? (11)
>
> Notas
>
> (1) Salim Lamrani, =ABReporteros Sin Fronteras y sus contradicciones=BB,
> Rebeli=F3n, 27 de septiembre de 2006,
> http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=3D38136 (sitio consultado el 2 de
> septiembre de 2007); Reporteros Sin Fronteras, =ABLettre ouverte =E0 ses
> d=E9tracteurs=BB, R=E9seau Voltaire, 12 de septiembre de 2006.
> http://www.voltairenet.org/article143413.html?var_recherche=3DReporters+s=
ans+f
> ronti%C3%A8res?var_recherche=3DReporters%20sans%20fronti=E8res (sitio con=
sultado
> el 12 de septiembre de 2006).
>
> (2) Salim Lamrani, =ABLa guerra de desinformaci=F3n de Reporteros Sin Fro=
nteras
> contra Venezuela=BB, Rebeli=F3n, 6 de febrero de 2007,
> http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=3D46082 (sitio consultado el 2
> septiembre de 2007); Reporteros Sin Fronteras, =ABUn journaliste a =E9t=
=E9 tu=E9,
> trois autres ont =E9t=E9 bless=E9s et cinq cha=EEnes de t=E9l=E9vision br=
i=E8vement
> suspendues=BB, 12 de abril de 2002. www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=
=3D1109
> (sitio consultado el 13 noviembre 2006).
>
> (3) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, =ABIrak =96 rapport annuel 2004=BB.
> http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=3D9884 (sitio consultado el 18=
 de
> julio de 2005) ; Reporteros Sin Fronteras, =ABLa libert=E9 de la presse
> retrouv=E9e: un espoir =E0 entretenir=BB, julio 2004.
> www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=3D10888 (sitio consultado el 23 de ab=
ril
> de 2005).
>
> (4) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, =ABLa libert=E9 de la presse retrouv=E9 : u=
n espoir
> =E0 entretenir=BB, julio de 2004. www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=3D1=
0888
> (sitio consultado el 23 de abril de 2005); Salim Lamrani, =ABReporteros S=
in
> Fronteras con sus contradicciones=BB, op. cit.
>
> (5) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, =ABP=E9kin 2008. Chine: La plus grande pris=
on du
> monde pour les journalistes et les internautes=BB, sin fecha.
> http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=3D171 (sitio consultado el 2=
 de
> septiembre de 2007).
>
> (6) Michel Muller, =ABQuand Washington l=E9galise la torture=BB, L'Humani=
t=E9, 16 de
> octubre de 2006.
>
> (7) Ibid.
>
> (8) Jean-No=EBl Darde, =ABQuand Robert M=E9nard, de RSF, l=E9gitime la to=
rture=BB, 26
> de agosto de 2007,
> http://rue89.com/2007/08/26/quand-robert-menard-de-rsf-legitime-la-tortur=
e#t
> ranscript (sitio consultado el 28 de agosto 2007).
>
> (9) Ibid.
>
> (10) Robert M=E9nard, =ABForum de discussion avec Robert M=E9nard=BB, Le =
Nouvel
> Observateur, 18 de abril de 2005.
> www.nouvelobs.com/forum/archives/forum_284.html (sitio consultado el 22 d=
e
> abril de 2005).
>
> (11) John M. Broder, =ABPolitical Meddling by Outsiders: Not New for U.S.=
=BB,
> The New York Times, 31 de marzo de 1997, p. 1.
>
> Salim Lamrani es profesor, escritor y periodista franc=E9s especialista d=
e las
> relaciones entre Cuba y Estados Unidos. Ha publicado los libros: Washingt=
on
> contre Cuba (Pantin: Le Temps des Cerises, 2005), Cuba face =E0 l'Empire
> (Gen=E8ve: Timeli, 2006) y Fidel Castro, Cuba et les Etats-Unis (Pantin: =
Le
> Temps des Cerises, 2006).
>
> Caty R. pertenece a los colectivos de Rebeli=F3n, Tlaxcala y Cubadebate. =
Esta
> traducci=F3n se puede reproducir libremente a condici=F3n de respetar su
> integridad y mencionar al autor, la revisora y la fuente.
>
> --
> The deputies of the people, therefore, are not and cannot be its
> representatives; they are merely its stewards, and can carry through no
> definitive acts. Every law the people has not ratified in person is null =
and
> void--is, in fact, not a law. The people of England regards itself as fre=
e;
> but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of member=
s
> of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it =
is
> nothing. The use it makes of the short moments of liberty it enjoys shows
> indeed that it deserves to lose them.-- Rousseau
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discussion mailing list
> Peace-discussion@lists.gp-us.org
> http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/peace-discussion
>