Eyewitness from Iraq in Auckland

Australian ‘human shield’ peace activist and aid worker in occupied Iraq, Donna Mulhearn, will present a unique and personal account of life under occupation at a meeting to be held at Auckland University on Wednesday August 24th in room at 6pm.

The presentation will include stories, photographs and video footage from occupied Iraq, otherwise not seen in New Zealand.

At 7:30pm, she will give also talk on the barriers to peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and describe the situation in the West Bank of Palestine where she was a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement earlier this year.

As part of the Human Shield movement in Iraq, Donna was present during the bombing of Baghdad and has returned twice under occupation to do aid work and reporting.

She was one of only five foreigners present in Fallujah during the US military assault on the city in April 2004 that resulted in the death of thousands of civilians.

She came under fire from American troops while trying to deliver medical aid to a clinic. "The siege on Fallujah was a massacre," she said.

"American snipers were randomly shooting women and children. The media was denied entry to the city so it went unreported by the mainstream media."

Donna’s humanitarian aid work has included setting up a shelter for street kids in Baghdad and providing emergency aid to refugee families from Fallujah.

During her time in living Baghdad she experienced first-hand the hardships of daily life in occupied Iraq and witnessed the impact of the war on ordinary Iraqi people.

"The suffering of the Iraqi people is not portrayed in the mainstream media; there are so many stories that have been left untold.

"I tell stories about the human cost of war.

"Life in Baghdad is extremely difficult. The Iraqi people are physically and emotionally exhausted and seek the peace that can only come as a result of a full withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraq."

Donna's presentation reveals the reality of war and the consequences of violence on the people of Iraq."

The meeting will be held in the Elam Lecture Theatre, Elam School of Fine Arts, Auckland University at 6pm

The presentation on Palestine will begin at 7:30pm

Donna will be available for interviews. For further information, please contact Harmeet (harmeet_sooden:_USE_THE_AT_EMOTICON_:yahoo.co.uk)

Anti-flag: you may also be interested in this:

Pentagon Blocks Release of Abu Ghraib Images: Here's Why

By Greg Mitchell

Published: July 23, 2005 6:00 PM ET


NEW YORK So what is shown on the 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon, in an eleventh hour move, blocked from release this weekend? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images: "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.” They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added.

A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of “rape and murder.” No wonder Rumsfeld commented then, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

Yesterday, news emerged that lawyers for the Pentagon had refused to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release dozens of unseen photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by Saturday. The photos were among thousands turned over by the key “whistleblower” in the scandal, Specialist Joseph M. Darby. Just a few that were released to the press sparked the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal last year, and the video images are said to be even more shocking.

The Pentagon lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material. They had been ordered to do so by a federal judge in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU accused the government Friday of putting another legal roadblock in the way of its bid to allow the public to see the images of the prisoner abuse scandal.

One Pentagon lawyer has argued that they should not be released because they would only add to the humiliation of the prisoners. But the ACLU has said the faces of the victims can easily be "redacted."

To get a sense of what may be shown in these images, one has to go back to press reports from when the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal was still front page news.

This is how CNN reported it on May 8, 2004, in a typical account that day:

“U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed Friday that videos and ‘a lot more pictures’ exist of the abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.

"’If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse,’ Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.’

“The embattled defense secretary fielded sharp and skeptical questions from lawmakers as he testified about the growing prisoner abuse scandal. A military report about that abuse describes detainees being threatened, sodomized with a chemical light and forced into sexually humiliating poses.

“Charges have been brought against seven service members, and investigations into events at the prison continue.

“Military investigators have looked into -- or are continuing to investigate -- 35 cases of alleged abuse or deaths of prisoners in detention facilities in the Central Command theater, according to Army Secretary Les Brownlee. Two of those cases were deemed homicides, he said.

"’The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,’ Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. ’We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.’

“A report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad says videotapes and photographs show naked detainees, and that groups of men were forced to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped. Taguba also found evidence of a ‘male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.’

“Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts 'that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.’”

The military later screened some of the images for lawmakers, who said they showed, among other things, attack dogs snarling at cowed prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other.

In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: “Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men….The women were passing messages saying ‘Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.’

“Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.”

Yeah, read about this earlier today. Other words, masking the true face of the occupiers.

Now an interesting question is, should they release the videos? The obvious answer for obvious reasons is yes, but then you have to consider that if they did, it would quite likely fuel a whole lot of violence.

Of course they're not morons, so they (the military) will only release them if forced to by other parts of the government.

They'll be leaked, without doubt.

Depends on how many people get to see them. If they remain in the hands of a few top officials with a vested interest in their secrecy then they'll probably stay secure.

regarding the guest speaker.

how do you know she is not lying?

also, if USA did not invade Iraq, how else will you free the Iraqi people from Saddams oppressive regime?

(I am not looking for an arguement, nor do those statements necessarily reflect my views.)

just interested as to some answers.

Under Saddam's 'oppressive regime', a good deal more people had water and electricity than do now.

I intend to start judging when all is said and done, it's too early to know how things are going to turn out, although it doesn't look good.

Boy wonder, anything that contradicts the mainstream is considered a "lie" or a "conspiracy theory". We should be presented with both sides for us to make our own judgements. So far, we've received nothing but usual Bushian mantra.

Saddam's regime looks like paradise in comparison to Iraq under occupation. Let's not be silly enough to think Iraqis somehow benefited from the ousting of Saddam. History has taught us that all authoritarian regimes fall due to their repressive nature. The masses won't tolerate this for too long, nor can the regime exist through acquiesence alone. Saddam was not going to be an exception. The influence of this occupation are permanent. Even if the occupiers leave, they'll establish a puppet government, just like they did in the past with Saddam. ;)

So you're one of those two-sides only kinda of people eh?

There is no grey! There is no grey!

There is a grey. It's fuels the beast that is Winston Peters. Without it, he would cease to exist.

its a funny old world. to question the actions of the past is deemed irrelevant by those that are ashamed of the things they have done. the US government supported and befriended saddam hussein, it turned a blind eye to his evils, it lied about his connections to al queada, it desecrated international laws and invaded iraq on a false premise, and at the final boarding called described itself as a 'liberator,' and now seeks to attack people that question the future of iraq, with 'oh but we liberatred them, we spread 'democracy' without being invited to do so, and they are very grateful.' it makes my gut curdal, this hypocrisy. there is no grey area, to me, in this situation.

was saddam a murdering fuckwit? yes. of course he was. so is george bush.

Just more and more pain for Iraq. They should've just tried to start a coup in Iraq to avoid the invasion and I don't things are going to return to the relative pre-war stability that Sloanie pointed out above for a very, very long time. All we need to think about is Vietnam, and that's how this is going to turn out, except with a lot less casualties for the USA, but the place being totally fucked economically, socially, politically.

I recommand everyone read "Edward W Said"'s "culture and imprerialism"