Editorial: Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and Justice in the Service of EmpireThe Only Truth About US Justice is that Justice is in the Service of Empire!

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

Saturday, February 13, 2010 | Updated February 26, 2010 – Turned down by all newspapers, from the New York Times to Pakistan’s Dawn and Daily Times.

Yvonne Ridley’s anguished opinion ‘Truth about US justice’ has appeared worldwide including in the Pakistani press. Ms. Ridley bemoans the travesty of justice in the US court’s pronouncement of its guilty verdict on the frail, tortured daughter of Pakistan, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. The veteran journalist is perhaps unaware of the import of the following revealing words of a US Supreme Court justice which were uttered in 1951:

“To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic strait-jacket, we must reply that all concepts are relative.”

This lesser known utterance by the highest lawman of the United States came right on the heals of the victorious Allies administering the absolute victor’s justice at Nuremberg to the defeated Nazis with these famous words of its chief prosecuting counsel for the United States, Robert H. Jackson:

“… we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

Indeed, if there is one monumental statement made at Nuremberg, it was possibly this:

“… the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.

In other words, Justice Robert H. Jackson averred that all the destruction of civilian cities from Dresden, Hamburg, … to Tokyo in Allied fire-bombings which deliberately killed millions of innocent civilians, was not culpable crimes against humanity because its sin and criminality was absorbed by the Supreme International Crime of the first aggression!

Culpability for “all the evil that follows” is always solely apportioned by victors to the account of the first aggressor (the one who is defeated).

Even the aggressor’s pretext for its first invasion of Poland as its own preemptive self-defense against terrorism (the Gleiwitz terrorist incident aka Operation Canned Goods), was outright rejected at Nuremberg as merely the self-inflicted inside-job to synthesize a Machiavellian pretext for extending German Lebensraum. As Hitler had put it to his Generals in Bavaria:

“[I will] give a propagandist reason for starting the war [and don’t] mind whether it was plausible or not. The victor will not be asked afterward whether he told the truth or not. In starting and waging a war it is not the right that matters, but victory.”

Justice Robert Jackson unequivocally affirmed that the Nazi quest for full spectrum dominance of Europe was illegal by international law, under any pretext:

“The intellectual bankruptcy and moral perversion of the Nazi regime might have been no concern of international law had it not been utilized to goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers. It is not their thoughts, it is their overt acts which we charge to be crimes.”

And in order to ensure that these legal words of immense import were never re-semanticized for “imperial mobilizations” by future ‘ubermensch’ Reichs, but rather, that these concepts remained inviolably “encas[ed] in a semantic strait-jacket”, the very definition for the word ‘aggressor’ was ab initio proposed by Justice Robert Jackson as a state which first initiates:

“invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State. … If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

That is quite an objective measure in international law for ascertaining who is the most guilty aggressor party, and who to fry first for crimes against peace, for monumental crimes against humanity.

So, even if Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is actually guilty as charged (for the sake of argument); is indeed the heinous mastermind of Al-Qaeeda (a Hegelian Dialectic which is examined elsewhere); or even if she was merely a dupe recruited by the Talibans/Al-Qaeeda as their waterboy (just as the CIA recruited Muslims from around the world to fight as the lauded Mujahideen against the USSR with proclamations of “god is on your side”); by the same yardstick as was used to hang the Nazis while awarding medals of bravery to the Allies who killed millions of innocent civilians in the defense of Europe against the aggressor, all the evil which has followed from the terrorist acts of an individual in aiding and abetting the militant-response against the invasion forces in Afghanistan is similarly legally subsumed by the monumental acts of state terrorism! The superpower’s utilization of the 911 terrorist incident to “goosestep the Herrenvolk across international frontiers” is little different from the Nazis’.

Therefore, in any fair justice system interested in bringing real criminals closer to their day of accounting, before Dr. Aafia can be charged for her criminal conduct of responding to the invading forces in Afghanistan by her frail physical might, the leaders of the ‘free world’ and their financial supermasters seeking their own “Lebensraum” must be put on trial for their “supreme international crime … [of] goosestep[ing] the Herrenvolk across international frontiers.”!

To anyone with even half a brain, but one which is not entirely uncongenial to reflection, it must have been rather obvious from day-one that in the light of public revelations of the egregious circumstances of Dr. Aafia’s bizarre capture and the subsequent orchestration of her show trial (instead of simply assassinating the accused if she was such a diabolical threat to mankind), any “justice” administered to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui would only be comparable to the proclamation of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland: “off with her head”.

It must also have been apparent to those inclined to perusing statecraft rather than watching television or reading newspapers for their knowledge of current affairs, that the show trial of Aafia Siddiqui was designed primarily to serve an agenda of the state. Namely, one of calculatingly exercising the “high degree of doctrinal motivation, intellectual commitment, and patriotic gratification” deemed necessary for a “sustained exercise abroad of genuinely imperial power.” A careful reading of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard makes the political science and the various mantras behind “imperial mobilization” abundantly clear.

Therefore, at least for these abnormal people who actually try to comprehend the forces which drive terrorism, both the pirate’s as well as the emperor’s, there is nothing surprising in the guilty verdict, nor in the conduct of the servile Pakistani rulers leading up to the verdict, and nor in the utterances of the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Ann Patterson. To have expected anything else after all the careful preparations that went into enacting this puppetshow, the show trial and its attendant media demonization of Dr. Aafia, only betrays immense naiveté of the inner-workings of empire.

In my view, the prima facie ‘Truth about US justice’ is that “justice” is in the service of empire, as it always has been! The madam Ambassador of the United States to Pakistan has only executed the core purpose of her diplomatic post rather faithfully in the service of her empire.

Justice in these times, like everything else, including science, politics, history, literature, cinema, news (which is often indistinguishable from cinema), and of course political-science, is continually put in the diabolical service of empire. The only veritable truths are the imperial proclamations of the white man – from who did 911 to Global War on Terror to Global Warming to Global Epidemics to Global Financial Collapse to Global Governance. These history-constructions by incremental faits accomplis are the sine qua non for one-world government and cannot be constrained in any moral or legal “semantic strait-jacket”.

It’s not like the beleaguered Pakistanis don’t know it – we even have the East India Company’s achievements to guide us – but apparently, we, the ‘untermensch’, never quite seem to learn its lessons. And that’s really the only pernicious secret of the enduring hidden strength of the golem behind all its guns and butter offerings to its victims before slaughtering them. The veritable strength of its ‘Samson locks’: our own price!

The former Director of the ISI, Brig. Tirmazi, narrated the following about us Pakistanis in his 1996 book Profiles of Intelligence:

‘… It would be fair to ask what we [the ISI] did to counter the US machinations? Well we did not, and could not do any thing beyond reporting to the highest authority in the country. There are reasons for our inaction:

One, neither the ISI nor the IB is designed or equipped to counter the machinations of a Super Power.

Two, an important factor is our own price. A lot has been said and written by some of our American friends about the price of a Pakistani. Dr. Andrew V. Corry, US Counsel General at Lahore, once said, “Price of a Pakistani oscillates between a free trip to the US and a bottle of whisky.” He may not be too far wrong. We did observe some highly placed Pakistanis selling their conscience, prestige, dignity and self-respect for a small price.’ (page 45, emphasis added)

That evergreen description however has not captured the grotesque reality of the English-enabled ‘intellectual Negroes’ flourishing in Pakistan today. Their “price” is not measured in such pecuniary terms. Read its full examination here: What is Intellectual Negro

Given this tortuous backdrop of modernity, the point of the unsubtle resignation request made by the courageous Ms. Ridley to show some moral backbone among the errand boys and girls of empire, even as it is merely being rhetorical, is entirely meaningless even in its rhetoric for two reasons: 1) it is a moral request in a global governance system which is beyond good and evil, one which brazenly asserts “hegemony is as old as mankind”, and which puts morality itself directly in the service of empire; and 2) given that the highest-order-bit of the systemic disease among the ‘untermensch’ has apparently already been apportioned as our national destiny!

Crises are defining moments for nations, and for a people. Some rise to it. Others fall before it. Pakistan as a nation has evidently decided the latter course of action – and this is palpably apparent from the statements of Pakistan’s own Ambassador to Washington:

‘“Foreign relations are not discussed in poetry, … Saddam Husain’s last speech was also full of poetry but it could not save him or his nation”’, and that ‘relationships between nations are based on ground realities’.

Read its full deconstruction here: Bringing Back Thelost Zen to Pakistan

While it is true that most in Pakistan are very upset by what has befallen Dr. Aafia Siddiqui as yet another victim of “imperial mobilization” – only one among the millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Pakistan’s Tribal-Belt, all along the ‘arc of crisis’ in the “global zone of percolating violence”, etc. – the handful who did publicly protest this latest visitation of empire’s justice upon a frail tortured woman in a nation of almost 200 million, did so only symbolically. And many an English-enabled ‘house Negro’ only expressed faith in empire’s Justice.

The English language Pakistani press is full of their editorials which span the gamut of intellectual servitude from heaping scorn on any public expression of empathy with the victim, to outright blaming the victim. And this combined show of moral bravado despite the fact that Dr. Aafia has become the inextricable symbol of the summation of all the abhorrent injustices purveyed upon women in wars – from rape to rape – and no mere words can ever capture her indescribable agony! Yet, most Pakistanis among the ‘field Negroes’ daring to express a modicum of moral outrage only displayed our fine moral tenor from the comforts of our living room. Just as we did when Iraqi women were being raped, tortured, and disappeared in the service of empire not too long ago. Then we returned back to our daily grind.

Symbols of morality, like talismans, are no match for hard orchestrated events of “imperial mobilization”. And especially when arsonists are running all the fire brigades in a nation where its masses are more closely tied to their daily bread than to matters of state or national survival. The apathetic public well understands that many more arsonists eagerly await in the wings to take the place of their predecessors. The masses are well aware that the Pakistani elite, the ever patriotic praetorian guards, and their coterie of miserable sycophants have already learnt that while one’s abject service to empire can sometimes be hazardous to one’s existential wellness, it also routinely calls for new faces in many a chief’s seat and presents the fabulous opportunity to loot and plunder anew in the name of patriotism.

Therefore, Ms. Yvonne Ridley’s impassioned moral hint to the distinguished American Ambassador to Pakistan:

‘She should then pick up the phone to the US president and tell him to release Aafia and return Pakistan’s most loved, respected and famous daughter and reunite her with the two children who are still missing. Then she should re-read her letter of August 16, 2008 and write another … one of resignation.’,

will only deprive madam Ambassador of a well-earned livelihood and comfortable retirement for no fault of her own. She merely faithfully discharged her service contract to her own empire. And it will do nothing for Pakistan either, for we, as a nation, are serving exactly the same interests. When these aren’t even our own!

I humbly recommend instead that madam American Ambassador be the next in line to be awarded the glorious Freedom Medal by the White House. President Obama has already received his Nobel Peace Prize.

Thank you.

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org