This issue has come up randomly today.   The meaning of terrorism according to online dictionaries is:

“The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”

I think of the military here immediately as an associated thought. The only difference is we speak of State sactioned violence and those who are not State Sanctioned or following other causes including the overthrow of a government. At the end of the day for myself, killing people with deliberate intent is killing. I do not look at the banner. It is employing the use of violence to get what a group or government wants. It is the very foundation to a culture of violence which only begets more violence and moves us away from peace. As a peace educator I watched for years as the word terrorism was used. I also was involved in commercial research for a government agency here in Australia into the terrorism hotline. It was interesting to see how governments made people hyper vigilant with their neighbours. It reminded me of Macarthyism. Such is the culture of fear that creates more fear. We saw controls imposed on airports here in Australia when we experienced no direct threat and we saw new ASIO (secret service) powers increased and civil liberties decreased, all in the name of counter-terrorism. What we learned from the violence used from fighting terrorism is that it created more terrorism. It is simple cause and effect. If you attack one group they will counter attack. In the peace literature we have cartoons of escalation of conflict when violence is employed to control and coerce. It doesn’t work. You become the very thing you are saying you are fighting, but denial keeps self responsibility at bay as we blame the other. Guantanamo Bay is an example of the American military engaged in terrorism or put another way generating terror. The fact that this facility was in Cuba not on US soil was a sign that the law was being circumvented. The media was used to orchestrate the fear and on and on it went without end. An endless war of terror was what was created by government, media and vested interests.

If you seriously want to stop the violence you have to look at why it is being created. What are the core fears and concerns? what is the truth of matters? what does each side say and feel? what are the drivers? underlying beliefs? what are the political/cultural/religious dynamics? what is the socio/economic situation? what is the underlying conflict? what options can both generate to solve the problem? how can this problem be solved? You will find both sides will see the terrorist or great satan in the other. Such is the power of projection of an enemy which in truth exists within people believing in ‘bad people’ rather than solving the problem where violence is used to get what they want. We have not yet truly understood the meaning of democracy, which is not a western notion, it is about sharing power in truth. It is about representation by the people for the people. When this is truly the energy of governance we will find disgruntled groups will diminish, extremism through lack of education and narrow experiences will evapourate. The extremism was on both sides in my view as a peacemaker. The lack of critical thinking in the public and the media jumping on the band wagon has to be investigated as incitement to violence. I have been reflecting on the media’s role of rachetting up fear in society and across the world. Why do we not have peace journalism where both sides are explored and the media offer a space for mediation, to help people resolve conflict rather than ratchet it up through sensationalism and profit motives. We have seen that on the big news channels in the United States. I was there only a few months ago and each station I turned to had drama and repetition of negative events, it was not hard to see the conditioning, it is not hard to see it here in Australia. We, as a global public, are all in the same boat. It is very important we become aware of the issues, without hating those perpetrators and become active citizens in problem solving. Bad things will not happen with a vigilant public asking questions rather than saying ‘oh well it is not my problem’ or blindly believing everything you read. I remember when I went to university as a mature aged student realising that I hadn’t learned how to critically appraise, before university, I too believed what I read. With some education I started to realise there were always two sides. As a student of peace I realised there were problems to be solved and demonisation is easy from an armchair, it is harder when you research both sides impartially. To be curious not judgemental is on my screensaver. I remind myself every day.

Below is some information from Human Rights Watch about Guantanamo Bay and war crimes. Beneath that is information on David Hicks and the desire to close Guantanamo Bay. Reflect back on how many turned a blind eye to this facility. Did you write in and say no to torture, particularly after seeing the dog incident. I did some radio programs at the time to try and understand why a democratic country was torturing suspected terrorists rather than seeing them as prisoners of war (Geneva Conventions) or trying them in an unbiased court. My country supported this, why? Maybe look at the International Criminal Court with a civil section given they are not part of formal armies, for that is the only difference. How does justice square with violence in warfare? Yet it is a crime in civil society, I feel the lines definitely blurred here. Yet on the ground there is no difference. I personally cannot see the difference and I am sure the civilians impacted by the atrocities and weaponry can’t either. I think of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria in this moment. The people are still suffering today. How do we create a culture of peace and respect human rights and civil liberties across the world? Do we rethink our values, what we value?

Here is an excerpt from Human Rights Watch.  The article will be reproduced in the next blog. 

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/11/united-states-investigate-bush-other-top-officials-torture

Inquiry Into 2 Deaths in CIA Custody Insufficient

(Washington, DC) – Overwhelming evidence of torture by the Bush administration obliges President Barack Obama to order a criminal investigation into allegations of detainee abuse authorized by former President George W. Bush and other senior officials, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The Obama administration has failed to meet US obligations under the Convention against Torture to investigate acts of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees, Human Rights Watch said.

The 107-page report, “Getting Away with Torture: The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees,” presents substantial information warranting criminal investigations of Bush and senior administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and CIA Director George Tenet, for ordering practices such as “waterboarding,” the use of secret CIA prisons, and the transfer of detainees to countries where they were tortured.

“There are solid grounds to investigate Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tenet for authorizing torture and war crimes,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.  “President Obama has treated torture as an unfortunate policy choice rather than a crime. His decision to end abusive interrogation practices will remain easily reversible unless the legal prohibition against torture is clearly reestablished.”

If the US government does not pursue credible criminal investigations, other countries should prosecute US officials involved in crimes against detainees in accordance with international law, Human Rights Watch said.

David Hicks to appeal US conviction for supporting terrorism

Obama vows new push to close Guantanamo

Barack Obama has vowed to make a renewed attempt to close the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay.

Go to video footage http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/david-hicks-to-appeal-us-conviction-for-supporting-terrorism/story-e6frg6nf-1226633039463

Sky News1 May 2013

Former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks will launch an appeal against his conviction for supporting terrorism. Picture: Channel 10 Source: Supplied

The move comes amid renewed pressure to shut the controversial military jail, with President Barack Obama and former Guantanamo Bay chief prosecutor Colonel Morris Davis – the man who charged Hicks – calling for its closure.

Hicks’ Australian lawyer Stephen Kenny said documents were being prepared for the appeal, which he anticipated would be launched in the US next month.

“We expect it to take up to one year to reach resolution,” Mr Kenny told AAP.

JAIL: Obama vows to close Guantanamo

Hicks spent more than five years in Guantanamo Bay before being transferred to Adelaide’s Yatala Labour Prison in 2007 and was released in December that year.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

Recommended Coverage

Obama vows to close Guantanamo jail

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

The 37-year-old South Australian admitted providing material support to terrorists as part of a plea deal which facilitated his transfer to Australia.

His bid to overturn the conviction comes after a US court last year quashed a similar charge of material support for terrorism relating to Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver.

Mr Hamdan had his conviction thrown out after the US appeals court ruled in October 2012 that the charge was unlawfully applied retrospectively.

Mr Kenny says Hicks remains in Australia and continues to struggle with the impact of his detention.

“I think he still struggles with the impact of solitary confinement but he’s doing the best he can,” he added.

Mr Obama on Wednesday renewed his bid to close Guantanamo Bay, telling a White House press conference it was damaging US interests, amid a widening hunger strike among inmates.

Colonel Morris Davis (retired), chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo Bay military commissions between 2005-2007, added to the pressure with an online petition on Change.org calling for the jail to be closed.

Col Davis, who charged Hicks, Hamdan and Canadian teenager Omar Khadr with terror-related offences, said closing Guantanamo Bay was “the patriotic thing, the American thing, the human thing to do”.

The petition had gained almost 40,000 signatures of support by Wednesday morning.

Mr Kenny welcomed the petition.

“Col Davis is an intelligent man and obviously a good lawyer,” Mr Kenny told AAP.

“He realised the military commissions were skewed – they did not provide a proper and fair trial for the accused.

“He’s realised that Guantanamo is an abomination, an affront to all people who stand up for the rule of law.”

AAP