Banner Advertise

Saturday, August 9, 2008

[chottala.com] ‘Sham’ Story By US Attempts To Cover-Up Aafia Siddiqui’s Unlawful Detention

 
 
 
 
VISIT:
 
'Sham' Story By US Attempts To Cover-Up Aafia Siddiqui's Unlawful Detention
 
Send to friend Send to Friend
06/08/2008

PRESS RELEASE


6th August 2008



Cageprisoners rejects the 'sham' story that is being fed by the US administration regarding the circumstances and details of Aafia Siddiqui's detention.


On Monday 4th August 2008, federal prosecutors in the US confirmed that Aafia Siddiqui was extradited to the US from Afghanistan where they allege she had been detained since mid-July 2008. The US administration claims that she was arrested by Afghani forces outside Ghazni governor's compound with manuals on explosives and 'dangerous substances in sealed jars' on her person. They further allege that whilst in custody she shot at US officers and was injured in the process.

Aafia Siddiqui disappeared in Karachi along with her three children in March 2003. For five years she was believed to be held in secret US or Pakistani custody until 3rd August 2008 when US officials admitted she was detained in Afghanistan .

A press conference led by Cageprisoners Patron, Yvonne Ridley, and Director, Saghir Hussain, on 7th July 2008 in Pakistan resulted in mass international coverage of Aafia's case as her disappearance was questioned by the media and political figures in Pakistan. Ten days after the storm created over her detention, the US claimed she was detained by Afghan forces as recently as July 17th.

Asim Qureshi, Senior Researcher for Cageprisoners said,

The treatment of Aafia in Afghanistan at the hands of the US and Afghanis is something that must be disputed, especially in relation to the ludicrous and conflicting reports regarding her shooting. There are disturbing parallels between Aafia's extradition and the case of Ahmad Abu Ali, a US citizen who was tortured in a Saudi prison; when a US judge ruled in favour of Abu Ali's family he was suddenly extradited and produced before the courts, on a sensational charge of plotting to assassinate President Bush.

There are too many holes in the incongruous US version of events to ignore in relation to Aafia's detention and supposed arrest. Her family have been subjected to threats and intimidation by the Intelligence agencies for the past five years for raising the profile of the case. More importantly, where are her two younger children and why has not her teenage son who was arrested with her in Ghazni been extradited to the US along with her?

Cageprisoners calls for Aafia Siddiqui to be given immediate and full legal access now that she has returned to the US and for her children to be immediately returned to Aafia's family in Pakistan . Further the administration must cease to feed false reports and sensational stories to the media which may be prejudicial to any trial she may face.

News
Siddiqui Says She Was Secretly Detained and Tortured For Years By US
'My Sister is Innocent'
Gitmo Jury Gives Bin Laden Driver 5 1/2 Years
Hamdan Verdict Without Justification
Dr Aafia Innocent, Say Lawyers
Dr Aafia's Ordeal Echoes in Senate
Dr Aafia Innocent, Say Lawyers
Military Jury Convicts Bin Laden's Driver
[More...]
Articles
Salim Hamdan's Sentence Signals the End of Guantánamo
Guilty in Guantánamo
Mahvish Rukhsana Khan's 'My Guantánamo Diary'
Aafia Siddiqui Claims She Was Held By The US in Bagram For Years
Aafia: Victim of FBI Lies and Deceit
A Critical Overview of Salim Hamdan's Guantánamo Trial and the Dubious Verdict
Kafkaesque Rendition
[More...]
Interviews
Sami El Haj, Al Jazeera Journalist, Tells His Story
Standing straight and tall, an impressive and deeply introspective man, Sami El Haj walks with a limp and the help of a walking stick. Neither laughter nor smiles light up the refined face of this man, old before his time. A deep sadness pervades him. He was 32 years old when, in December 2001, his life, like that of tens of thousands of other Muslims, became a horrific nightmare.
[More...]
Campaigns and Events
Secret Prisons and Ghost Prisoners in the unwinnable War on Terror
Terrorist Lists, Proscription, Designation and Human Rights
Moazzam Begg - UK Events (Summer 2008)
Another Ramadan 2008 - Fundraising Dinner
Protest Against Internment in 2008
Enemy Combatant - An Evening with Moazzam Begg
Urgent Appeal: Aafia Siddiqui Remains Missing With Her Three Children Five Years After Arrest
Action Alert: Halal Food Still An Issue at HMP Belmarsh
Free Hich - We Need Your Help!
[More...]
AudioVideoDocuments
  Cageprisoners Art of the Interned Exhibition: Yvonne Ridley
  Cageprisoners Art of the Interned Exhibition: Victoria Brittain
  Cageprisoners Art of the Interned Exhibition: Terry Waite
  Cageprisoners Art of the Interned Exhibition: Moazzam Begg
  Cageprisoners Art of the Interned Exhibition: Lawrence Archer
[More...]
Other Updates
Four Years in Captivity
A Poem For Omar Khadr
A Glorious Dawn…A Better Day
Prisoner 650
A Letter From Detainee BB
[More...]

  It has been three years since they have used the word father to anyone, which hurts them a great deal.


Brother of Saeed Ahmed al-Sarim who is being held in Guantلnamo Bay

Prisoner Focus



Salah Nasser Salim Ali
Yemeni
 
 

'Unidentified Pak woman detained at Bagram airbase for more than four years'

Reported 07/07/2008 by Webindia123 

Imran Khan

An unidentified Pakistani woman has been held in solitary confinement at the US-run Bagram airbase detention facility in Afghanistan for more than four years, British journalist Yvonne Ridley who spent 11 days at the detention facility in 2001, has revealed.The ...
In Context
Ridley said she first learnt about the woman while reading a book by Guantanamo ex-detainee Moazzam Begg, and added that one of the four Arabs who escaped from the Bagram cell in July 2005 ...

__._,_.___

[* Moderator�s Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Re: [chottala.com] Mandela awarded Queen's doctorate at his 90th birth day

Sheikh Hasina, who is a simply graduate of Dhaka University, didn't complete her Masters degree. Most probably Khaleda Zia is also under Matric. Razakar Nizami,  Muzahid and others are opportunist. I don't know about their qulaification.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: abid bahar
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 5:30 AM
Subject: Re: [chottala.com] Hasina's Ph.D's were not earned

Hasina's Ph.D's were not earned. Knowing how to bluff people, she has been doing it. She had only a BA from Dhaka University. For this type of Ph.D's you need is to fill out a form and keep in touch with the committee that decides it.  She can't fool every Bangladeshi. For an earned Ph.D. from North America, you have to finish about 40 credits of courses, then have to appear for three comprehensive exams and then you will be asked to write your thesis. My thesis done on Maulana Bhasani was closee to 400 pages.
 
I found Hasina giving priority to personal honor before patriotism. When she came to Canada, she stayed in a five star hotel.  I met her in her hotel room. She is not a humble person but quarrelsome. As a researcher on the subject of ethics of leadership, I went to see her. She said to her followers in an angry mood "I have no more time for you. I have to go and pray" and shut the door loudly.Seeing her attitude,  I thought it was an excuse. I found her behavior as if the quarrelsome Ghosato begum in the Sherajudwala story. After the brutal killing of 10 people in front of the Baitul Mokarram by Hasina's followers she even said,  for one we will kill 10 people. That is not respecting the rule of law or being religious. God bless her!

----- Original Message -----
From: Syed Aslam
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 4:44 AM
Subject: [chottala.com] Mandela awarded Queen's doctorate at his 90th birth day

Mandela awarded Queen's doctorate

Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela has accepted a unique honorary doctorate from Queen's University, Belfast.

The former South African President will formally become the university's Centenary Honorary Graduate at a ceremony tonight.

Mr Mandela, who was in London for his 90th birthday celebration concert in Hyde Park last Friday, is not able to attend the ceremony, but recorded a message to be played at the event.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner, who led the struggle against apartheid, receives his doctorate for distinction in public service.

In his citation, Queen's Chancellor Senator George Mitchell described Mr Mandela as 'an inspirational figure'.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0701/mandelan.html

 

Besides many prizes and awards Nelson Mandela has received about 41 hororary doctorates from various Universities around the world.

List of Nelson Mandela honorary Doctorate awards:

1979

 1983 
City College of New York Honorary Doctorate of Laws 5 June
 
1985
Awarded Doctor of Laws degree by Ahmadu Bello University in Nigeria, December
 
1986
1987
Honorary Doctorate, Karl Marx University of the German Democratic Republic, Leipzig, 11 November
 
1988
Honorary Doctorate conferred, University of Carabobo, Venezuela, June
 
1989
 
1990
Doctorate, honoris causa, conferred by University of Malaya, November
 
1991
Honorary LL.D Degree conferred, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 6 September
 
1992
 
Honorary LL.D Degree conferred by the University of Fort Hare, 9 May
Honorary Doctorate conferred at the Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, Senegal, 30 June
 
1993
 
1994
Honorary Doctorate, Howard University, 7 October
Honorary Doctorate awarded by University of South Africa
 
1996
 
Received  honorary doctorate  degree from the Universities of Cambridge (LLD)
Received honorary doctorate  degree  from the university of  Warwick (LLD)
Received Honorary Doctorate from Sorbonne University, Paris, 15 July
Received Honorary Doctorate from Stellenbosch University, 25 October
 
1997
Awarded Honorary Doctorate from Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, 17 July
Awarded Honorary Doctorate by Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Cape Town, 19 September
 
1998
Received Honorary Doctoral Degree from the University of South Australia, University of Fort Hare, 23 April
Awarded Honorary Doctorate, University of Zululand, 30 May
 
1999
Received honorary doctorate from Leiden University, Netherlands, 12 March
Received Honorary Doctorate from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 30 April
Received an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from the University of Botswana, Gaborone, 14 October
Awarded honorary doctorate from Uppsala University, Sweden, 3 December
 
2000
 
Awarded Honorary Doctorate of Law from the University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
 
2001`
Received honorary doctorate of law from Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada, 17 November
Awarded the LLD Honoris Cause from the University of the Free State
Awarded the Doctorate in  Tech Education Honoris Cause from the Technikon Free State
 
2002
Awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Law from Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 6 April
Awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the University of Ghana, 24 April
 
2003
Awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Law by the National University of Ireland, Galway, 20 June
 
2005
Mandela to Received Honorary Doctorate From Swedish University for HIV/AIDS Work, at The Body, the complete HIV/AIDS resource.
 
 
2008
Michigan State University LLD honoris causa
Nelson Mandela awarded Honorary Doctorate of Humanity by Limkokwing University. Posted by africanpress on June 27, 2008. Press Release. 19th June, 2008
 
 
List of Nelson Mandela awards and honours - Wikipedia, the free ...
(Redirected from List of awards and honours bestowed on Nelson Mandela) ..... South Africa named 'Nelson Mandela Hall'; Awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_honours_bestowed_on_Nelson_Mandela - 112k - Cached - Similar pages
 

__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] The Atomic Bombing of Japan By KEVIN YOUNG

The Atomic Bombing of Japan

By KEVIN YOUNG

( www.solarnavigator.net ) The U.S. bombing of Japan killed perhaps half a million people

 

Since the late 1940s the common justifications for President Truman's decision to drop two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have consisted of five basic assertions: 1) that the bombs saved more lives than they took by eliminating the need for a US ground invasion of Japan, 2) that the bombs were dropped on military targets essential to the Japanese war machine, 3) that the bombs were dropped only after a process of careful deliberation by US leaders, 4) that those leaders were forced into dropping the bombs because of the Japanese leadership's refusal to surrender, and 5) that the bombings effectively ended the Pacific war by convincing Japan's leaders to surrender. These five assertions had their origins in the public statements of Truman, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and others in the years 1945-47, and constitute the core of what might be labeled the "official narrative" concerning the use of the atomic bombs [1].

Historical scholarship in recent decades has completely refuted the first three assertions. Most scholars who have studied the use of the atomic bombs agree that Truman and his advisers knew a mainland invasion of Japan to have been "an unlikely possibility" given Japan's dire military situation in late-July 1945 [2]. Even in the event of a US mainland invasion, the highest projected casualty estimates for US forces were not "over a million" like Stimson and Truman later claimed, but between 30,000 and 50,000 [3]. More importantly, prior to August 1945 Truman and his advisers had considered it possible that the war would end without either the atomic bombs or a mainland invasion by US forces [4].

The claims that Truman and advisers used the bombs on military bases, and after careful consideration of alternatives, have both been proven false; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major population centers, not military targets, and high-level officials later admitted that the bombs had been used hastily [5]. US officials clearly knew beforehand that the bombings would result in massive civilian deaths in both cities, but as J. Samuel Walker notes, that realization made little impact on US leaders given the long-established strategy of targeting civilian populations [6]. In fact, very little deliberation occurred as to whether or not the bombs should be dropped; according to historian Barton Bernstein, "it was not a carefully weighed decision but the implementation of an assumption" [7]. Once the bombs were developed, it was assumed they would be used.

Recent scholars have also pointed to some of the motives for the bombings not mentioned by Truman and others: the desire to assert US power vis-à-vis the Soviet Union [8]; the political imperative of not appearing soft on Japan [9]; the need to justify the $2 billion spent on the Manhattan Project to develop the bombs [10]; and the pervasive anti-Japanese racism that increased US officials' (and the public's) enthusiasm for the bombs' use [11].

Yet until recently even revisionist historians have continued to accept the last two major points of the official narrative listed above. First, most scholars have accepted the claim that Japan rejected the Potsdam Proclamation (issued by the Allies on 26 July 1945, calling for the Japanese to surrender unconditionally), and that the rejection of the ultimatum led immediately to the bombs' use. Second, there has been general agreement that the atomic bombs played a central role in forcing Japan to surrender.

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, however, has recently challenged both points. Hasegawa argues that Truman and others demanded "unconditional" surrender on July 26 assuming that Japan would not accept the offer, allowing the US to then justify use of the atomic bombs ("unconditional surrender" was understood to include the removal of the emperor from Japanese society, a severe affront to Japanese traditions). Challenging the argument that the bombs forced Japan's surrender, Hasegawa cites a number of Japanese sources suggesting that the Soviet declaration of war against Japan on August 7-8, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, compelled Japan to surrender.

The Insistence on Unconditional Surrender

The official narrative holds that Truman and his advisers insisted on unconditional surrender from the Japanese in order to, in Stimson's words, "render them powerless to mount and support another war" [12]. The official version also holds that the Japanese "promptly rejected" the July 26 ultimatum [13]. Stimson claimed afterwards that prior to August 6 there had been "no indication of any weakening in the Japanese determination to fight" [14]. In turn, most recent historians have accepted the claim that Japan rejected the surrender ultimatum. J. Samuel Walker (cited above) notes some ambiguity in the Japanese response, but he nonetheless characterizes that response as a "contemptuous rejection" of the ultimatum and sympathizes with US officials who interpreted it as such [15].

But Hasegawa observes that no one in the Japanese government ever formally rejected the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation. During the days following the ultimatum at least some of the Japanese leaders were known to be contemplating its meaning, though Japan made no formal reply [16]. Instead, Truman and his staff "seized upon" an offhand (and very ambiguous) comment from Prime Minister Suzuki implying his reluctance, accepting that sole comment as representative of the official Japanese reaction [17]. Truman and his advisers intentionally fabricated Japan's "prompt rejection" of the offer and subsequently incorporated it into their narrative justifying the use of the bombs.

While the ultimatum was never rejected, Truman and his Secretary of State James Byrnes knew that the demand for unconditional surrender would not be readily accepted either. According to Hasegawa, they insisted on unconditional surrender knowing it was unlikely to yield any result, so that afterwards they could justify the bombs' use by citing Japan's intransigence [18]. Hasegawa's strongest supporting evidence for this claim is a detail of supreme importance, though one which is usually neglected in the standard histories: Stimson, Chief of Staff George Marshall, and General Thomas Handy had, prior to July 26, already approved a directive (circulated on July 24-25) that ordered the use of multiple atomic bombs against Japan "as soon as weather will permit" [19]. In addition, Hasegawa notes that US officials had not sent the ultimatum through normal diplomatic channels and cites passages from the diaries of Truman and Department of State adviser Walter Brown that suggest the ultimatum was merely a "prelude" to the use of the bombs [20].

The Soviet Entry, Not the Bombs

Hasegawa's second major challenge to what has become the official scholarly version of the bombs' use is that the Soviet declaration of war rather than the atomic bombs was the major factor compelling Japan to surrender. The direct role of the bombs in bringing about Japan's surrender has always been part of the official narrative, for obvious reasons [21]. Yet that argument has also gone virtually unchallenged among revisionist historians and those who criticize the bombs' use [22].

Hasegawa continually emphasizes Japanese leaders' need to maintain the Soviet position of neutrality. Both the hawks and the doves agreed on this imperative, though for slightly different reasons [23]. For several months prior to the Soviet invasion, Japanese leaders had been actively seeking to maintain Soviet neutrality. By mid-June members of the peace faction had begun pursuing Soviet mediation (in an unprecedented intervention, the emperor himself even started working directly with the "Big Six" leaders toward this end) [24]. War advocate Colonel Tanemura's April 29 memo emphasized the "life and death importance" that Japanese leaders from both factions attached to the issue of Soviet neutrality [25].

Given the Japanese imperative of keeping the Soviet Union neutral, Stalin's declaration of war on August 7-8 was disastrous. According to Hasegawa, Japanese leaders' diaries and testimonies suggest that the imminent Soviet invasion was more influential in compelling them to accept the Potsdam conditions. Although Emperor Hirohito's desire to end the war became more urgent after Hiroshima, only on August 9 after the Soviet declaration of war did he clearly say that "it is necessary to study and decide on the termination of the war" [26]. The other peace advocates in the Foreign Ministry on the same day began to urge acceptance of the Potsdam ultimatum [27]. The reactions of the more hawkish military officials seem to have been similar. Both Admiral Toyoda and Army Deputy Chief of Staff Kawabe were surprised at the news of Hiroshima but were not ready to temper their views on continuing the war [28]. Many military officials hoped to mount a final defense, but had counted on Soviet neutrality in order to do so [29]. The Soviet declaration of war destroyed those hopes, and severely weakened the war faction's leverage within the government.

The major strength of Hasegawa's work, and one reason for its new arguments, is its in-depth analysis of Japanese primary sources. Few previous historians in the US had consulted the personal writings of figures like Toyoda, Kawabe, and Tanemura. But Hasegawa also makes more extensive use of Allied primary sources, including the memoirs and diaries of Truman, Byrnes, Brown, and others, which play a key role in his argument about the intent of the Potsdam Proclamation. Hasegawa's careful scholarship has significantly enriched our understanding of the intentions behind the demand for "unconditional surrender," as well as the dynamics behind the Japanese decision to surrender.

Sixty-Three Years Later

More ominously, though, the fact that Hasegawa's book comes six decades after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaski suggests the ease with which the official version of historical events often pervades both mainstream commentary and scholarly research. Even many conscientious historians have unthinkingly repeated the basic claims that Hasegawa challenges. Outside of the historical profession, though, all aspects of the official narrative are usually accepted without question, and very few of the preceding facts are known or acknowledged. Many of the long-refuted claims used to justify the use of the atomic bombs are even today frequently accepted as truth. For example, news anchors, journalists, and presidents in recent decades have continued to repeat outlandish casualty estimates for a US invasion which have no basis in the documents preceding August 1945 [30].

Based largely on the assertions and omissions of the official narrative, and that narrative's broad acceptance by mainstream commentators, much of the US public continues to deem the use of the atomic bombs justified. As two recent scholars note, the belief "that the bomb, and the bomb alone, ended the war and saved countless American lives remains an article of faith" [31]. The propaganda has been remarkably successful; many US citizens continue to support not only the use of atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, but have also advocated the use of nuclear weaponry in recent conflicts as well (in 1991 almost half of the US public supported the use of atomic weapons against Iraq) [32].

The acquiescence of the US public to war and violence overseas depends in large part on US leaders' ability to selectively exclude certain factual details from the historical record, but it also depends on the leaders' ability to shield the public from the human evidence—in this case, the images of charred corpses, deformed Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, and eyewitness accounts describing the immediate aftermath of the bombings. Such images are essential to any honest history of warfare, be it atomic or "conventional." The modern-day observer can never completely understand the horrifying experiences of the victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the photographs, video footage, and post-war fiction inspired by the bombings can at least offer a window into those experiences [33]. For precisely this reason war-making politicians have always sought to restrict access to this sort of information (a pattern which has reached new extremes in the US since 2001).

Sixty-three years after the US bombing of Japan (including not only the two atomic bombs but also the merciless area bombing of Japanese cities in spring and summer 1945) killed perhaps half a million people, few of the possible "lessons" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem to have been learned. The United States is currently engaged in two major wars that have claimed 1-2 million lives, with thousands more to follow should the US invade Iran or—as Obama and McCain both propose—further escalate military actions in Afghanistan. Public consent for these enterprises has depended on official lies and propaganda, alongside the narrative of US history common in high schools and news media across the country that portrays the US as exceptionally benevolent in the world sphere. The memory of World War II has been central to this portrayal, even though the history of US bombing strategy in the war, including the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suggests a slightly different story. If known and acknowledged, this history might prompt important questions: was World War II really a battle between two moral absolutes, or, as Gandhi suggested, was the difference between the Axis and Allied commanders "only one of degree" [34]? Of even more direct relevance for today, are the domestic ingredients which gave rise to World War II—militarism, national chauvinism, and concentrated control over decision-making and the means of violence—things of the past? Contemporary solutions depend to a large degree on an honest accounting of the past, which offers plenty of lessons for those willing to listen.

Kevin Young is a graduate student in history at Stony Brook University. He can be reached at: kayoung@ic.sunysb.edu

Notes:

[1] See Henry L. Stimson, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," Harper's Magazine 194, no. 1161 (1947): 99, 102, 105, 107; see also Truman's August 6, 1945, speech quoted in Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial (New York: Grosset/Putnam, 1995), 4-5.

[2] J. Samuel Walker, "History, Collective Memory, and the Decision to Use the Bomb," in Hiroshima in History and Memory, ed. Michael J. Hogan (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996), 190.

[3] Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial (New York: Grosset/Putnam, 1995), 282; J. Samuel Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 106, 39; Barton J. Bernstein, "Truman and the A-Bomb: Targeting Noncombatants, Using the Bomb, and His Defending the 'Decision,'" The Journal of Military History 62, no. 3 (1998), 552. For Stimson's claim, see Stimson, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," 102.

[4] Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction, 91-92.

[5] Lifton and Mitchell, Hiroshima in America, 241, 274; Walker, "Prompt and Utter Destruction," 62; Barton J. Bernstein, "Roosevelt, Truman, and the Atomic Bomb, 1941-1945: A Reinterpretation," Political Science Quarterly 90, no. 1 (1975), 59, 62. For the original claims by Truman, Stimson, and others that the bombs had been directed at military bases, and that the bombings came only after long and careful deliberation, see Stimson, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," 99, 102, 105, and Truman's August 6 speech, quoted in Lifton and Mitchell, Hiroshima in America, 4-5.

[6] Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction, 62. The Allies proved increasingly willing to resort to "area bombing" of civilian populations as the war dragged on. The British, says Walker, had by early 1942 adopted area bombing of cities as a legitimate military tactic (25-26). Three years later, the "bombing of civilians was such an established practice…that American leaders accepted it as a legitimate means of conducting war" (95).

[7] The quote appears in Barton J. Bernstein, "Roosevelt, Truman, and the Atomic Bomb, 1941-1945," 62. See also Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction, 14-15, 51.

[8] Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction, 15-16, 18, 62-69 (in which Walker discusses Truman's change of attitude toward the Soviet entry into the war as a result of the Trinity test), 92; Bernstein, "Roosevelt, Truman, and the Atomic Bomb, 1941-1945," 24, 44-46; Bernstein, "Truman and the A-Bomb," 555-556.

[9] Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction, 45.

[10] Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction, 92, 94.

[11] Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction, 92, 93, 96. Walker points out the differing values that US officials assigned to US versus Japanese lives, saying that Truman "would have elected to use the bomb even if the numbers of US casualties prevented had been relatively small" (double-quoted on page 93); See also Bernstein, "Truman and the A-Bomb," 558, in which Truman describes the Japanese as "savages, ruthless, merciless, and fanatic."

[12] Stimson's July 2 memo quoted in Henry L. Stimson, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," 104.

[13] Truman quoted in Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005), 170. For a similar assertion, see Stimson, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," 104-105.

[14] Stimson, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," 101.

[15] Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction, 72-73. For another example of revisionist historians who have taken for granted the claim that Japan rejected the ultimatum, see Lifton and Mitchell, Hiroshima in America, xvi-xvii, 107.

[16] Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy, 172-173. Here Hasegawa cites the writings of James Byrnes to prove that he had knowledge of the MAGIC intercepts obtained after the issuance of the July 26 ultimatum, which suggested that certain Japanese leaders were at least discussing the ultimatum.

[17] Quote is taken from State Department aid Eugene Dooman, cited in Ibid., 170. See also pp. 169-173 for more information on Suzuki's comment and how Dooman notes that its meaning was constructed and used by Truman.

[18] Ibid., 133-135. See specifically pp. 135 and 159—citing Byrnes' post-war memoirs and Truman's Potsdam diary, respectively. Truman expressed certainty that Japan would not accept the Potsdam terms, but he says that at least "we will have given them the chance."

[19] Ibid., 158-159.

[20] Potsdam diary entries quoted in Ibid., 158-160. Quote is from Brown's July 26 entry (p. 158).

[21] See Stimson, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," 107.

[22] Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction, 88, is a good example: Although he thinks the bombs may have been unnecessary (89), he argues that the atomic bombs were decisive in forcing Japan's surrender. But to do so Walker relies heavily on secondary sources (one Japanese historian in particular, Sadao Asada) rather than primary ones. Walker—unlike Hasegawa—does not consult the Byrnes memoirs, Dooman's testimony, or the Potsdam diaries of Truman or Brown to determine the reasoning of Truman and his advisers immediately before and after the Potsdam ultimatum on July 26.

[23] Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy, 72-73. The hawks needed Soviet neutrality to prosecute the war; the doves hoped for Soviet mediation. See also Soviet Ambassador Malik's observation of this Japanese need, cited in Ibid., 72.

[24] Ibid., 101-102, 106.

[25] Quoted in Ibid., 58-59.

[26] Quoted in Ibid., 198.

[27] Ibid., 197.

[28] Ibid., 185-86 and 199-200, respectively.

[29] Ibid., 199.

[30] For instances of the deliberate propagation of erroneous casualty estimates in the 1980s and nineties, see Lifton and Mitchell, Hiroshima in America, 268-270, 282, 286; President George Bush quoted in Walker, "History, Collective Memory, and the Decision to Use the Bomb," 188. The highest of the estimates was six million, given by USA Today.

[31] Lifton and Mitchell, Hiroshima in America, 266.

[32] Ibid., 305n.

[33] For video footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, see the 1970 Eric Barnouw film Hiroshima/Nagasaki, August 1945; the film Dark Circle (1983) by Judy Irving, Chris Beaver, and Ruth Landy; and the Nicholas Meyer ABC special The Day After (1983). For well-known examples of atomic bomb fiction, see Hayashi Kyoko, "Ritual of Death," trans. Mark Selden, The Japan Interpreter 12.1, 1978; the anthology The Crazy Iris and Other Stories of the Atomic Aftermath, ed. Kenzaburô Ôe (New York: Grove Press, 1985); Another must-read is Michihiko Hachiya, M.D., Hiroshima Diary: Journal of a Japanese Physician, August 6-September 30, 1945, trans. and ed. Warner Wells, M.D. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955).

[34] Mahatma Gandhi, "Atom Bomb and Ahimsa," http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/gandhi'sstruggle2.htm (accessed January 27, 2006).

__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Mandela awarded Queen's doctorate at his 90th birth day

Mandela awarded Queen's doctorate

Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela has accepted a unique honorary doctorate from Queen's University, Belfast.

The former South African President will formally become the university's Centenary Honorary Graduate at a ceremony tonight.

Mr Mandela, who was in London for his 90th birthday celebration concert in Hyde Park last Friday, is not able to attend the ceremony, but recorded a message to be played at the event.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner, who led the struggle against apartheid, receives his doctorate for distinction in public service.

In his citation, Queen's Chancellor Senator George Mitchell described Mr Mandela as 'an inspirational figure'.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0701/mandelan.html

 

Besides many prizes and awards Nelson Mandela has received about 41 hororary doctorates from various Universities around the world.

List of Nelson Mandela honorary Doctorate awards:

1979

 1983 
City College of New York Honorary Doctorate of Laws 5 June
 
1985
Awarded Doctor of Laws degree by Ahmadu Bello University in Nigeria, December
 
1986
1987
Honorary Doctorate, Karl Marx University of the German Democratic Republic, Leipzig, 11 November
 
1988
Honorary Doctorate conferred, University of Carabobo, Venezuela, June
 
1989
 
1990
Doctorate, honoris causa, conferred by University of Malaya, November
 
1991
Honorary LL.D Degree conferred, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 6 September
 
1992
 
Honorary LL.D Degree conferred by the University of Fort Hare, 9 May
Honorary Doctorate conferred at the Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, Senegal, 30 June
 
1993
 
1994
Honorary Doctorate, Howard University, 7 October
Honorary Doctorate awarded by University of South Africa
 
1996
 
Received  honorary doctorate  degree from the Universities of Cambridge (LLD)
Received honorary doctorate  degree  from the university of  Warwick (LLD)
Received Honorary Doctorate from Sorbonne University, Paris, 15 July
Received Honorary Doctorate from Stellenbosch University, 25 October
 
1997
Awarded Honorary Doctorate from Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, 17 July
Awarded Honorary Doctorate by Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Cape Town, 19 September
 
1998
Received Honorary Doctoral Degree from the University of South Australia, University of Fort Hare, 23 April
Awarded Honorary Doctorate, University of Zululand, 30 May
 
1999
Received honorary doctorate from Leiden University, Netherlands, 12 March
Received Honorary Doctorate from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 30 April
Received an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from the University of Botswana, Gaborone, 14 October
Awarded honorary doctorate from Uppsala University, Sweden, 3 December
 
2000
 
Awarded Honorary Doctorate of Law from the University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
 
2001`
Received honorary doctorate of law from Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada, 17 November
Awarded the LLD Honoris Cause from the University of the Free State
Awarded the Doctorate in  Tech Education Honoris Cause from the Technikon Free State
 
2002
Awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Law from Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 6 April
Awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the University of Ghana, 24 April
 
2003
Awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Law by the National University of Ireland, Galway, 20 June
 
2005
Mandela to Received Honorary Doctorate From Swedish University for HIV/AIDS Work, at The Body, the complete HIV/AIDS resource.
 
 
2008
Michigan State University LLD honoris causa
Nelson Mandela awarded Honorary Doctorate of Humanity by Limkokwing University. Posted by africanpress on June 27, 2008. Press Release. 19th June, 2008
 
 
List of Nelson Mandela awards and honours - Wikipedia, the free ...
(Redirected from List of awards and honours bestowed on Nelson Mandela) ..... South Africa named 'Nelson Mandela Hall'; Awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_honours_bestowed_on_Nelson_Mandela - 112k - Cached - Similar pages
 
__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___