No. 284, June 24 - 30, 2004

SECCIÓN EN ESPAÑOL

WORLD NEWS





To read an article, click on the headline.


Detainee torture scandal continues to unravel

Iraqi leaders prepare for transfer of power

Israel bans Sunday Times journalist

Freedom of Information bill proves elusive for Nigeria

Bosnian Serbs finally admit Srebrenica massacre

Australia: Muslims experience increasing racist attacks

 





Detainee torture scandal continues to unravel

Compiled by Shane Perlowin



June 23 (AGR)— America will again be forced to confront the torture of Iraqi prisoners as preliminary proceedings begin against four US soldiers at the center of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.

Hearings against Charles Graner, Ivan “Chip” Frederick and Javal Davis will take place at the heavily guarded Green Zone in Baghdad, headquarters of the US authority in Iraq. A fourth case will open at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, against Lynndie England, the army reservist pictured in some of the most notorious abuse photographs.

The so-called Section 32 hearings -- instigated by the commanding officer of a soldier’s unit to determine whether to recommend a full court martial -- come amid a growing weight of evidence suggesting that the coercive interrogation of prisoners in US custody was approved at senior levels of the Bush administration.

Recently leaked memos suggest that rather than being isolated episodes, the abuse at Abu Ghraib may be the result of a deliberate “gloves-off” approach in the aftermath of the September 2001 attacks when pressure increased to obtain “actionable” intelligence against suspected extremists.

Among those internal documents is a January 2002 Justice Department memo arguing that US officials could not be charged with war crimes for the abuse of prisoners because the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees held in the war in Afghanistan. The same department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo in August 2002 which concluded that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman or degrading, yet not produce suffering of the requisite intensity to constitute torture as defined by international treaties and US law.

Another document, written in March 2003 by the Department of Defense, argued that President Bush was not bound by international or US laws banning torture. It said individuals could not be prosecuted for carrying out such activities if they had been ordered by the president.

This weekend it was revealed that the officer who oversaw interrogation at Abu Ghraib believed he was under “intense pressure” to get intelligence from Iraqi prisoners. Sworn testimony from Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, obtained by USA Today newspaper, details how he was told White House officials wanted to “pull the intelligence” out of detainees.

“[There were] instances where I felt there was additional pressure to get information,” he said. He was urged to improve the intelligence output “many, many, many times.” On one occasion, an official working for the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, discussed the detainees issue with him.

The US general in charge of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was told by a military intelligence commander that detainees should be treated like dogs, she said in an interview with BBC radio.

Janis Karpinski, the one-star general responsible for the military police who ran prisons in Iraq when pictures were taken showing prisoners being abused, said she and her soldiers were being made scapegoats for abuse ordered by others.

Karpinski said Geoffrey Miller, a two-star general sent to Iraq from the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, had ordered new procedures in cell blocs where Iraqis were interrogated.

“He said, at Guantanamo Bay we’ve learned that the prisoners have to earn every single thing they have,” Karpinski said.

“He said they are like dogs, and if you allow them to believe at any point they are more than a dog then you’ve lost control of them.”

Karpinski, who has been suspended from her command for failings at Abu Ghraib but not charged with any crime, said military police would not have taken Iraqis out of their cells to pose them for photographs without being told to do so.

Sgt. Greg Ford of the 223rd Military Intelligence Battalion has said he was stripped of his duties and ordered to see combat-stress counselors after reporting that three fellow soldiers in the California National Guard unit brazenly abused Iraqi detainees during interrogations in Samarra last year. He said the soldiers choked detainees, threatened them with guns and stuck lit cigarettes in their ears.

Ford was placed under the supervision of Sgt. 1st Class Michael Marciello, a team leader in the battalion. In an interview this week, Marciello said he was ordered to watch Ford’s behavior at all times.

He said unit commanders believed something must have been wrong with Ford for making such “wild” claims against his fellow soldiers.

Marciello said that after a mental health evaluation came back saying Ford was OK, he witnessed a company commander in the 223rd, Capt. Vic Artiga, ask a counselor to change her evaluation.

And in other news, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 17 defeated a Democratic-sponsored effort to subpoena documents on torture and interrogation practices from the Justice Department.

The 10 to 9 vote reflected the mounting partisan rancor over the abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and whether US officials condoned harsh interrogation practices on prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The voice vote without debate allowed lawmakers to keep to themselves their views on whether torture is justified and when. In interviews, though, some senators said torture may sometimes be acceptable.

“I think it is unwise for us to try to announce in concrete the absolute limits of the military in wartime,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who taught refresher courses on the Geneva Convention to military police.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said he was grappling with what interrogation techniques, including torture, are acceptable in wartime. “We are in a brave new world,” he said.

Sources: Associated Press, Reuters, Knight-Ridder, Independent (UK), NY Times

Iraqi leaders prepare for transfer of power

Questions remain as to the possible direction of a post June 30 Iraq

Compiled by Josh Ferguson

June 22 (AGR) -- Faced with violent resistance even before it has assumed power, Iraq’s newly appointed government is considering imposing a state of emergency that could involve curfews and a ban on public demonstrations, Iraqi officials said on June 19.

In his first news briefing in Baghdad, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi offered no details of what his so-called “emergency rule” might include, only that a committee of cabinet members had been appointed to consider the issue.

Allawi, who worked closely with the CIA in opposing Saddam Hussein’s government in the 1990s, said he would consider “human rights principles and international law,” but made clear he intended to act quickly and forcefully against the insurgency, using extraordinary methods if necessary.

“We will do all we can to strike against enemy forces aiming at harming our country, and we will not stand by with our hands tied,’’ Allawi said. “The Iraqi people are determined to establish a democratic government that provides freedom and equal rights for all its citizens. We are prepared to fight, and if necessary, die for the cause.’’

Among the places where such measures could be applied include the city of Fallujah, where US forces have been battling guerrilla fighters for several weeks, and Sadr City, the restive eastern slum in Baghdad, where three Iraqis were killed June 21 in confrontations with the American 1st Infantry Division.

Among the emergency rule provisions being considered are a curfew, a ban on public demonstrations, checkpoints to control public movement and changes to search and seizure laws, two cabinet members said in separate interviews.

It remains unclear whether such measures would bring significant changes to the lives of ordinary Iraqis. Under the US-led occupation, occupation and Iraqi soldiers and security forces have been allowed to conduct raids without warrants, make arrests without charges, and hold suspects in detention indefinitely.

If some sort of emergency rule were imposed, it is possible this situation could persist. Iraq’s new leaders have yet to work out the exact nature of their co-operation with the American military in the coming months, particularly on such issues as offensive operations and house-to-house searches.

However, Iraqi officials have often criticized US forces for the way they have conducted themselves over the past 15 months. A frequent complaint is that the Americans often alienate ordinary Iraqis by searching the wrong homes and arresting the wrong people.

The Iraqi leaders have said they know far better who the insurgents are. The restoration of sovereignty on June 30 may give those Iraqi leaders an opportunity to take the counter-insurgency in another direction.

This attitude has been welcomed by some in Iraq.

“We need a tough ruler,” said Burwa Tayyeb, who owns a boutique in Baghdad’s Mansour district. “I have very high hopes and am looking forward to the first of July.”

Other Iraqis are skeptical that Allawi’s tough talk can translate into effective action and fear that things may only get worse.

Many are wary that the new government may be nothing more than a front for Washington — the charge frequently leveled at the now-defunct and widely discredited Iraqi Governing Council, appointed by outgoing US administrator L. Paul Bremer III.

“Power will rest in the hands of the United States,” said Uday Mohammed, co-owner of a women’s cosmetics shop. “It will be nothing more than a puppet government. Words are not enough.”

Outsiders agonize about whether Iraq is governable at all now that the Pandora’s box of ethnic and religious conflict has been opened — accompanied by a roiling insurgency confronting the world’s strongest military force.

But, with some exceptions, many Iraqis profess less concern about whether the nation is governable than about the need for independent Iraqis, not outsiders or US puppets, to do the job.

Relatively few Iraqis are familiar with Allawi, a physician and former Baath Party member who split with Saddam Hussein, spent decades in exile and was later associated with the CIA. But the interim prime minister’s stern statements and pedigree have already won him allies — despite misgivings about his close CIA ties. His government is due to guide Iraq through a crucial period, including elections scheduled for January.

“I would be happy if Mr. Allawi managed to bring tranquillity to this country,” said Wamid Nadhmi, a prominent political scientist. “But when I think about it objectively, I reach the conclusion that things are getting worse.”

It is now conventional wisdom among Iraqis that the top-heavy US proconsul style exemplified by Bremer has been a failure, if not a disaster. Iraqis and Americans alike see the pressing need for an Iraqi way of running the country, whatever that might entail.

Sovereignty, however, is somewhat illusory, with about 150,000 US-led foreign troops in the country and the new U.S. Embassy that will eventually employ 1,000 foreign service officers, a behind-the-scenes powerbroker with vital control over the purse strings of reconstruction. US advisors will be sprinkled throughout key ministries.

This makes for a difficult situation in a country that sees the United States overwhelmingly as an occupying, rather than liberating, presence according to a privately condected poll released on June 16 and commissioned by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

Although initial results were kept secret by the CPA, they were recently leaked to the Associate Press.

The poll results are devastating for both President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who are fond of saying that future generations of Iraqis will thank them for liberating their country. Blair has consistently said that history will prove him right for engineering the downfall of a cruel tyrant, even if weapons of mass destruction are not found.

Yet the main findings of the poll showed that only 2 percent of the Iraqis polled in mid-May see coalition troops as liberators, while 92 per cent said they were occupiers.

Asked whether they would feel safer if the 138,000 US troops left immediately, 55 per cent agreed, nearly double the 28 percent who held that view in a poll carried out in January.

Asked if the Americans should leave immediately, 41 percent agreed, while 45 percent said they preferred US forces to leave once a permanent Iraqi government was installed.

Confidence in the CPA itself in May stood at 11 percent, down from 47 percent in November. The troops themselves had the support of only 10 percent.

The survey questioned 1,093 adults who were selected randomly in Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Diwaniyah, Hillah and Baquba between May 14 and 23.

The White House spokesman, Scott McClelland, put on a brave face when reacting to the survey.

“The President has previously said no one wants to be occupied. And we don’t want to be occupiers,” he said.

But a coalition official in Baghdad interviewed by the Associated Press news agency, which obtained the survey, was despondent. “If you are sitting here as part of the coalition, it [the poll] is pretty grim,” said Donald Hamilton, a career diplomat who helps oversee the CPA’s polling of Iraqis.

The poll results, however, are not without some optimism. 63 percent believed conditions would improve when the Iraqi interim government takes over at the end of the month, and 62 percent believed it was “very likely” the Iraqi police and army would maintain security without US forces.

Sources: San Francisco Chronicle, NY Times, Guardian (UK)

Israel bans Sunday Times journalist

By Claire Cozens

June 21— Peter Hounam, the Sunday Times journalist who was detained last month by the Israeli security services over his connection to nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, has been barred from entering the country.

The Israeli government said it had banned Hounam, who broke Vanunu’s account of Israel’s nuclear secrets in 1986, because it believed he could harm national security.

A spokesman for the internal affairs ministry said Hounam “could behave similarly again and jeopardize the security of Israel.”

But Hounam told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz he would challenge the ban and accused the Israeli government of “paranoia.”

He said his lawyers had asked the justice ministry last week whether he would be allowed to enter the country to cover a challenge in Israel’s high court to the strict limitations governing Vanunu since his release from jail.

The Sunday Times has contacted the Foreign Office to appeal the decision on Hounam’s behalf.

Under the terms of his release, Vanunu is banned from any contact with foreign journalists.

Hounam was briefly arrested last month for helping to arrange an interview with him — even though the interview was conducted by an Israeli journalist.

He was deported after spending 24 hours in custody. But the Israeli government reacted furiously to the interview, broadcast last month on BBC2 and published in the Sunday Times.

Israel’s foreign ministry has written to the BBC Jerusalem bureau chief, Andrew Steele, claiming it was “planned and conducted in a clandestine manner, with the express intent of bypassing the law.”

Hounam’s 1986 interview with Vanunu blew the whistle on the country’s nuclear weapons program when it was published in the Sunday Times.

Vanunu served an 18-year prison term for espionage and treason over the revelations.

Source: Guardian (UK)

Freedom of Information bill proves elusive for Nigeria

By Sam Olukoya

Lagos, Nigeria, June 21 (IPS)— In recent decades, Nigeria has acquired the unhappy reputation of being one of the world’s most corrupt states. It would also earn a high ranking in a list of the most secretive nations.

Virtually all government information in Nigeria is classified as top secret. Longe Ayode of Media Rights Agenda (MRA), a Lagos-based non-governmental organization (NGO), says this veil of secrecy makes it difficult to get information from any state agency.

“If you want useful information from a government department, they will not give it to you. They will tell you it is classified information,” he said.

A plethora of laws prevents civil servants from divulging official facts and figures, notably the Official Secrets Act which makes it an offence not only for civil servants to give out government information, but also for anyone to receive or reproduce such information.

Further restrictions are contained in the Evidence Act, the Public Complaints Commission Act, the Statistics Act and the Criminal Code, amongst others.

“The idea behind these laws is to protect vital government information, but the level of secrecy is so ridiculous that some classified government files contain ordinary information like newspaper cuttings which are already in the public domain,” says Tunji Adeleke, a legal practitioner.

So impenetrable is the veil of secrecy that government departments withhold information from each other under the guise of official secrets legislation. There are also instances where civil servants refuse to give the National Assembly documentation after being asked to do so.

The result of this is that journalists are denied access to information that is critical for accurate reporting, and for unraveling the web of corruption in Nigeria.

“When you are in public office and have soiled your hands in the pot of corruption, you will try to prevent your being exposed by classifying as top secret documents that can implicate you,” journalist Ayodele Ojo told IPS.

Students also find themselves barred from reading documents necessary for their research.

“In the name of official secrets, somebody sits on information that will benefit millions of people. In advanced countries, some of [this] classified information would ordinarily be found on the internet,” observes Ayode.

“If these secrecy laws are not there, people will sit up. If you know the public will get access to your fraudulent acts you will not do it,” he adds. Enter the proposed Freedom of Information Bill.

This law was first submitted to the National Assembly when Nigeria returned to democratic rule in 1999, following a succession of military dictatorships. But the legislature’s four-year term passed without the bill being voted on.

The bill was re-submitted after the current National Assembly was inaugurated a year ago, but the body has yet to push the law through — this despite vigorous lobbying by the Freedom of Information Coalition. Over a hundred media groups, business interests and human rights organizations have joined forces to press for the introduction of the bill -- which is about to come under debate again in the capital, Abuja.

The International Press Center (IPC), an NGO that supports the independent media in Nigeria, is currently running a campaign that urges all interested parties to send text messages to the mobile phones of legislators in support of the bill. About 200 phone numbers are listed on the IPC’s website, which advises activists to “Simply send politely worded messages randomly to any of the members requesting their support.”

The MRA is also at the forefront of this battle. The NGO says that it joined forces with the Civil Liberties Organization and the Nigerian Union of Journalists as long ago as 1993 to push for freedom of information legislation in Nigeria, and that it has held numerous workshops in this regard.

A draft bill was produced by the MRA in 1994, the Access to Official Information Act. According to the NGO, this draft became the predecessor of the current Freedom of Information Bill.

IPC member Lanre Arogundade says legislators failed to maintain the promising momentum gained which the bill was first mooted: “We had the impression the bill would be passed quickly. But after four years of the first National Assembly, nothing happened.”

“The same thing is repeating itself now. It is over a year now that the new National Assembly got under way; [but] they are yet to pass the bill.”

Arogundade also believes that that President Olusegun Obasanjo — whose cooperation the coalition has solicited — is a key opponent of the bill. “The president is afraid that the bill [will] give the media too much power to probe the activities of those in government,” he said.

It’s a charge that presidential advisor Julius Ihonvbere denies, claiming that Obasanjo simply has reservations about provisions of the bill that would allow foreigners access to official information.

The parliamentary committee which is in charge of issues pertaining to the bill also refutes claims that the proposed law has gotten stuck in a legislative limbo. According to Deputy Chairman Francis Amadiegwu, “The bill has generated a lot of interest and we are fine tuning aspects that will affect national security. Thereafter it should be passed.”

But, these words are cold comfort to those Nigerians who believe, as former American President Thomas Jefferson did, that “Information is the currency of democracy.” They might argue that the time has come for a little less “fine tuning” — and a little more action in the form of giving the bill the green light.

Bosnian Serbs finally admit Srebrenica massacre

By Vesna Peric Zimonjic

Belgrade, Serbia, June 22 (IPS)— The Serb government of the Republic of Srpska has admitted for the first time that almost 8,000 Muslims were killed in cold blood nine years ago in the worst atrocity in Europe after World War II.

The Republic of Srpska is the Serb entity within Bosnia-Herzegovina, one of the new republics carved out of former Yugoslavia.

“In the period from July 10-19, 1995, several thousand Muslim men and boys were executed in a way that represents heavy breaches of international humanitarian law,” says a 42-page official report. “The executors, among other things, took to activities to cover up the crime by relocating the bodies.”

The commission names the sites of 32 mass graves near Srebrenica, the Bosnian town that was a Muslim enclave in the area, with 75 percent of its population Muslim. Of the 32 sites, 11 contained bodies relocated after the massacre.

The town had been placed under UN protection two years earlier.

For the first time the persons responsible for the massacres under the so-called Operation “Krivaja” have been named by the Serb government. The three stages of the operation described in the report and based on wartime documents, included overrunning Srebrenica, separating men from women, and executing the men considered able to fight.

The operation was to be the final stage of eliminating Muslims from eastern Bosnia in the war that raged between local Muslims and Serbs since 1992.

The war ended with the internationally sponsored Dayton Peace Accords that made Bosnia-Herzegovina a single country with two entities — the Republic of Srpska (RS) and the Muslim-Croat Federation. The war took more than 200,000 lives. Most of the victims were Muslims of Slav origin.

In July 1995 the Bosnian Serb army overran Srebrenica as a force of about 600 lightly armed Dutch UN peacekeepers stood by helplessly.

Men and boys above the age of 15 were separated from women and children, and executed over several days. Women and children were bussed to Muslim controlled areas. None of the survivors returned to live in Srebrenica.

Srebrenica, which was home to some 22,000 Muslims, was one of three UN protected areas in eastern Bosnia. Like Zepa and Gorazde, it was a Muslim enclave surrounded by the Bosnian Serb army, in an area otherwise ethnically cleansed of some 300,000 Muslims back in 1992.

Following the Dayton accords the official RS line was to deny war crimes against non-Serbs, including the Srebrenica massacre. RS officials maintained that stand despite the discoveries of mass graves and identification of some 1,700 victims.

The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY), set up by the UN at the Hague, has already sentenced two Bosnian Serb officers for their hand in the massacre.

General Radisav Krstic was sentenced to 35 years in prison, while Colonel Dragan Obrenovic received a 17-year sentence. The word “genocide” was used for the first time in that sentence in the 10-year history of the ICTY.

Wartime Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and army commander Gen. Ratko Mladic are the most wanted men by the ICTY. Both went underground in 1996. Most Bosnian Serbs regard them as national heroes.

Karadzic is said to be hiding in the mountainous border area between the RS and Serbia and Montenegro. Mladic is believed to be moving from place to place in Serbia proper and the eastern parts of the RS.

“Accepting and facing the fact that some members of the Serb people committed crimes in Srebrenica in July 1995 could help investigate other crimes in Bosnia and punish those responsible,” the report on Srebrenica said.

That would help bring people in Bosnia-Herzegovina closer together and start a badly needed process of reconciliation, according Paddy Ashdown head of the international mission in Bosnia.

The country had areas with a mixed population before war, but the tendency since 1992 has been for ethnic groups to live where their group prevails. Bosnia saw unprecedented internal displacement of Serbs, Muslims and Croats. All the efforts of the international peacekeepers and observers have not brought the three groups closer.

“There can hardly be any closure and real reconciliation if people live next to each other but turn their heads away from what was done,” Belgrade human rights activist Natasa Kandic told IPS.

“In 50 years people will forget who was sentenced to how many years, but history has to have a record of what was really going on. This [report on Srebrenica] may be just a little step in the right direction,” she added.

In the meantime, faced with strict international sanctions over its refusal to hand over war crimes indictees to the ICTY, the RS has taken further steps.

The head of the RS parliament, Dragan Kalinic, has appealed to Radovan Karadzic to surrender to the ICTY, in the first such move. “We’ll face the strictest international punishment if Karadzic does not willingly go to the Hague,” Kalinic told Bosnian media. “Such a clear message came both from the United States and the European Union.”

Australia: Muslims experience increasing racist attacks

By Sonny Inbaraj

Darwin, Australia, June 21 (IPS)— Aminah was coming back from work and had to use the public bus in this northern Australian city. She was wearing the “hijab” or Islamic head covering and a man sitting in the front seat, facing her, seemed agitated.

“He asked me: ‘You’re from Indonesia, you’re a Muslim right? Well you’re a terrorist right?’” she recalled.

“I then started crying and got off at the next stop,” she told the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC).

Aminah’s experiences are similar to two-thirds of Muslim and Arab Australians, interviewed by HREOC, who say they have been experiencing increasing racism or racial vilification since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the Bali blasts on Oct. 10, 2002, which killed at least 190 people, most of them Australians.

The Bali bombings have been blamed on Jemaiah Islamiyah, a regional network that aims to create a pan-Islamic state in Southeast Asia and which several governments have classified as a terrorist organization.

The HREOC report surveying the experiences of 1,400 Arab and Muslim Australians, released last week, said women are more likely to suffer racism with 90 percent of female respondents experiencing racial abuse or violence.

The report, called “Isma” or “listen” in Arabic, found that those most at risk are identifiable because of their dress, appearance or name.

Some reported having eggs and stones thrown at them, cars driven toward them, or dogs set on them.

But the biggest impact of prejudice on Arab and Muslim Australians, according to the report, is a substantial increase in fear.

About 80 percent of survey respondents reported that since Sept. 11 and the Bali bombings, they are more worried or afraid of something bad happening to them personally because of their race, culture or religion.

“My experience is if something happens to me on the street, I stay in for a week,” a Muslim woman from a northern Sydney suburb told the human rights commission.

“I used to always go down to the city as a day out with my kids but a year ago I was physically abused and since then I no longer step out of the house alone, not a train or the bus to the city or anything,” she added.

Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner William Jones told IPS in a phone interview that Australian Arabs and Muslims are still experiencing prejudice on the street, in the media, at school, and in using services.

“We listened to stories of women, mostly Muslim women wearing the hijab, anxious to walk their children to school in fear of being spat on, abused, or ridiculed,” he said.

“We listened to the stories of people who felt they had been refused employment because their name was Mohammed,” he added.

Jonas said many are sick of having to justify their religion and are upset by a wave of hatred on talk radio.

But there had also been a number of reported deaths, where Muslims were the victims, which were considered racially and religiously motivated, according to the Islamic Council of Victoria.

“The police have suggested that most of them haven’t been but the impact on the community is they feel that way,” the council’s chairman Yasser Soliman told IPS.

“The perception is that there is that type of backlash, especially after Bali and September 11,” he added.

After the two bloody events, Muslims were afraid to visit shopping centers and use public transport, Soliman said.

“Some parents would not let their children play outside. Even making friends with non-Muslims could be difficult because people were often suspicious,” he pointed out.

In November 2002, New South Wales MP Reverend Fred Nile, from the Christian Democrat Party, sparked an uproar after urging the federal government to consider banning the wearing of the “chador” and “hijab” in public places.

The “chador” is a dark traditional garment worn by Muslim women that covers almost all of the head and body.

“It is fact that such a body covering conceals a person’s identity and even whether they are male or female, which is a perfect disguise for terrorists as it conceals both weapons and explosives,” the Christian Democrat MP said to the consternation of community groups.

Matters were made much worse after Prime Minister John Howard launched an advertising campaign days before the Christmas holidays, in 2002, telling people how to spot terrorists.

Howard said Australians had to get used to the fact that there may be terrorists amongst them, although they should not allow it to change the way they went about their lives.

In February 2003, a booklet called “Let’s Look out for Australia” was distributed to all homes by the federal government.

However, many Muslims in the HREOC report said they felt unfairly targeted by this campaign.

Several participants in the report described how their neighbors reported on them following the distribution of the government booklet.

One Muslim woman was reported to her real estate agent for washing her balcony with soapy water.

“My neighbor called the real estate agent and said: ‘She is putting dangerous chemicals on the property,’” she told the human rights commission. “The agent came over immediately — this was the first time he had ever visited the property.”

But HREOC’s Jones said the report does not seek to lay blame or rake over the events of the past. “Rather it demonstrates how important it is that we begin discussions with key organizations to develop a more harmonious community,” he told IPS.