In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

“When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

Jill

-George W. Bush

Except, you know, when we won’t.

In Colombia, for example, the leftist guerrilla group FARC often kidnaps civilians and demands ransom from their relatives. FARC also requires the payment of a “war tax” from Colombians in the regions it controls, upon threat of serious harm. Nearly 2,000 Colombians who faced such circumstances as paying a ransom or “tax” — and who later fled the country and were determined by the United Nations to be refugees — have been denied U.S. resettlement on the basis of the “material support” provision.

In Liberia, a female head of a household was referred to the U.S. resettlement program by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as a person particularly vulnerable to attack. Rebels had come to her home, killed her father and beat and gang-raped her. The rebels held her hostage in her own home and forced her to wash their clothes. The woman escaped after several weeks and made her way to a refugee camp. The Department of Homeland Security has decided that because the rebels lived in her house and she washed their clothes, she had provided “material support” to the rebels; the case has been placed on hold.

A Sierra Leonean woman’s house was attacked by rebels in 1992. A young family member was killed with machetes, another minor was subjected to burns and the woman and her daughter were raped. The rebels kept the family captive for days in their own home. Homeland Security has placed the case on hold for “material support” concerns because the family is deemed to have provided housing to the rebels. Under this interpretation, it does not matter whether the support provided was given willingly or under duress.

I’ll also point out that many minority groups in Iraq — Palestinians, for example, who were protected under Saddam Hussein’s regime — are now being systematically slaughtered. American forces are unable to offer protection, and the administration refuses to offer these people refugee status in the United States, because that would be bad for the PR effort in presenting the war as a success.

The “committment” to liberty is disengenuous. We’re perfectly willing to sell liberty-seeking people down the river if they don’t narrowly fit in with our interests — even if it was our policies that directly put them in harm’s way.

11 thoughts on “When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

  1. I’ll also point out that many minority groups in Iraq — Palestinians, for example, who were protected under Saddam Hussein’s regime — are now being systematically slaughtered.

    Can you point me to some news articles so I can read more about this? I’m particularly interested in information on Palestinians.

  4. Frumious B., here‘s a start.

    Though I think the characterization “systematically slaughtered” is a bit much. “Systematic” makes it sound like the killers are acting with some kind of legitimacy rather than illegal death squads. “Systematic” was what we called Saddam’s killing of Kurds and Marsh Arabs.

    But that’s just semantics. The killings are going on. They should be stopped (though I question why the failure of Americans to protect these people mean they should have automatic refugee status).

  6. Alright, on second glance, those are two different articles that borrow heavily from each other (same writer).

  7. But that’s just semantics. The killings are going on. They should be stopped (though I question why the failure of Americans to protect these people mean they should have automatic refugee status).

    Fair enough, but I just feel compelled to point out that a lot of these people are already refugees. Thousands of Palestinians left Palestine for Iraq when Israel was established, and now many of them are fleeing Iraq for the Jordanian border — only to have Jordan close the border down (many Arab states aren’t exactly accomodating to the Palestinian refugees whose cause they are otherwise are happy to champion in their complaints about Israel).

    It’s not just about America failure to protect these people. It’s about the fact that the American-led war itself has put them in this vulnerable position. They’re living as refugees; refugee camps are set up in Baghdad. We have created this situation, and now we aren’t willing to do anything substantial about it.

  8. We once mediated a dispute at ‘Palestinian land” which Saddam had built for them. After he felt it was heavily looted. He wanted them as cheap labor. They got screwed coming and going.

  9. Palestinian refugees have a hard time getting resettlement/asylum under normal circumstances – they are technically stateless people, and since Palestine is a giant refugee camp, it’s pretty impossible for most of them to get resettlement as it’s expected that they could stay in the camps. That’s not just the U.S., but the UNHCR and and other countries which often don’t deem them appropriate candidates for resettlement.

    Anyway, I wanted to mention that the same thing is happening to refugees from Burma. Our government sends millions of dollars of ever year into programs to support the opposition movements there and it would be pretty naive to think none of that support ever made it to the armed opposition groups. It definitely makes it to groups which are affiliated or support the armed groups. I used to think that Bush was trying to import supporters by resettling mainly christian refugees from Burma, but it looks like I overestimated their collective intelligence.

    There’s also a petition up online: http://www.petitiononline.com/givrefge/petition.html

  10. It’s about the fact that the American-led war itself has put them in this vulnerable position.

    I don’t know about that. I’d say their current vulnerable position can be traced right back to the Balfour declaration.

    Thanks for the links.

  11. We’re perfectly willing to sell liberty-seeking people down the river if they don’t narrowly fit in with our interests — even if it was our policies that directly put them in harm’s way.

    And, of course “our interests” change radically over time. Remember when Saddam was a staunch ally against those pesky Iranians back in the 80’s?

Comments are currently closed.