சிங்கள் ராணுவத்தின் பிடியில் சிக்கியிருந்த மேலும் இருவர் அடையாளம் காணப்பட்டனர்.

இவ்வாறு வெளிக்கொண்டுவரப் பட்ட புகைப்படங்கள் மூலம் தமது உறவுகளை இனம் கண்டு அடையாளம் காட்டிவருகின்றனர். அந்தவகையில் இந்த புகைபடத்தில் இருப்பவர்கள் தமிழ் ஈழ விடுதலைப் புலிகளின் சிவில் கட்டமைப்பில் பணியாற்றியவர்கள் என உறுதிப்படுத்தப் பட்டுள்ளது.

கடந்த ஆண்டு மே 16  இற்கு பின்னர் சிங்கள இராணுவத்தினால் கைது செய்யப்பட்டு இன்று அவர்களது நிலை என்னவென்று தெரியாது இருக்கின்ற நிலையில் போராளிகள் பொதுமக்கள் என அனைவரையும் ஈவு இரக்கமின்றி சிங்கள ராணுவத்தினர் சுட்டுக் கொன்றிருந்தனர். அவைதொடர்பான பல புகைப்படங்கள் பல்வேறு தரப்புகளால் வெளிக்கொண்டுவரப் பட்டிருந்தது.

1 - தமிழ் ஈழ விடுதலைப் புலிகளது உணவுப் பகுதியில் பணியாற்றியுள்ளார்.

2 - கடல் புலிகளின் வாகனம் திருத்தும் பகுதியில் (கராச்) பணியாற்றிய மாதவன் என்ற இயக்க பெயரை கொண்டவர்.
இவர்களது இந்த விவரம் மாத்திரம் உறுதிப்படுத்தப் பட்டுள்ளது. இந்த தகவல்களை கொண்டு மேலதிக தகவல்களை பெறமுடியுமாயின் எமக்கு தெரியப்படுத்தவும்.

3 - இவர் ஏற்கனவே அடையாளப் படுதபட்டவர். மல்லாவி, யோகபுரம் 02 ம் யுனிற்றை சேர்ந்த சந்திரமோகன் - வினோதன் (இயக்க பெயர்- இமையவன் .வயது 20 ) என்பவராவார். 2007 / 03ம் மாத மளவில் இயக்கத்தில் இணைந்து கொண்ட இவர் கிளிநொச்சி மருத்துவ மனை,,புதுக்குடியிருப்பு மருத்துவமனை ஆகிய வைத்தியசாலைகளில் மருத்துவ போராளியாக காயமடைந்து வரும் பொது மக்களுக்கான பணியினை மேற்கொண்டிருந்தார்.

போர் உக்கிரமடைந்த காலப்பகுதியில் மாத்தளன் மற்றும்,,முள்ளிவாய்க்கால் பகுதி தற்காலிக வைத்தியசாலைகளில் தனது கடமைகளை மேற்கொண்டிருந்த வேளை காயமடைந்த பொது மக்கள்,போராளிகளுடன் இராணுவத்தால் 2009 / 05 /18 கைது செய்யபட்டுள்ளார்..

மேலும் இவரது சகோதரனான சந்திரமோகன் -விருந்தன் வயது 18 என்பவரும் படுகாயமடைந்த நிலையில் இராணுவத்தால் கைது செய்யப்பட்டு காணாமல் போய்யுள்ளார் என்பதும் குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.

டப்ளினில் நடைபெற்று முடிந்த இலங்கை அரசிற்கு எதிரான நிரந்தர மக்கள் நீதிமன்ற தீர்ப்பு

அயர்லாந்து தலைநகர் டப்ளினில் நிரந்தர மக்கள் நீதிமன்றம் (Permanent Peoples' Tribunal) இலங்கை அரசுக்கு எதிரான போர்க்குற்ற விசாரணை முடிவுகளை தை 16ம், திகதி மாலை 2.00 மணியளவில் பொதுமக்கள் முன்னிலையில் வெளியிட்டனர்.

நிரந்தர மக்கள் நீதிமன்றம் தனது நீதிமன்ற விசாரணையில் இலங்கை இராணுவத்தினர் இறுதிக்கட்ட போரின் போது மேற்கொண்ட போர்க்குற்றம் தொடர்பாகவும், இதுவரை காலமும் இலங்கை அரசு தமிழர்களுக்கு இழைத்த துரோகச் செயல்களையும், இனப்படுகொலைகளையும் மேலும் இலங்கையில் போரிற்கு முன்னரும் அதன் பின்னரும் இடம் பெற்ற மனிதஉரிமை மீறல்கள் பற்றிய குற்றச்சாட்டுகள் தொடர்பாகவும் மேலும் இறுதிக்கட்ட போரின் போது வன்னியில் இராணுவம் மேற்கொண்ட கண்மூடித்தனமான தாக்குதல்களையும், அதன்போது பொதுமக்களின் உடமைகள் அழிக்கப்பட்ட முறைகளையும், அங்கு உணவையும், மருந்தையும் இலங்கை அரசாங்கம் எவ்வாறு ஆயுதமாக பயன்படுத்தியது என்பதனையும், மேலும் இராணுவத்திடம் சரணடைந்த மக்களை இராணுவத்தினர் எவ்வாறு துன்புறுத்தினர் என்பதனையும் மற்றும் இளம் பெண்களை எவ்வாறு பாலியல் வல்லுறவிற்கு உள்ளாக்கினார்கள் என்பதனையும், அதன்பின் அவர்களிற்கு ஏற்பட்ட நிலமைகளையும், படுகொலைகளையும் மேலும் 2002ம் ஆண்டு கைச்சாத்திடப்பட்ட சமாதான உடன்படிக்கை பற்றியும் பின்னர் அந்த உடன்படிக்கை முறிவடைவதற்கு காரணமாக இருந்த சர்வதேச காரணிகள் தொடர்பாகவும் மற்றும் சமாதான உடன்படிக்கை காலப்பகுதியில் ஐரோப்பிய ஒன்றியம் தமிழீழ விடுதலைப் புலிகளை தடைசெய்வதற்கான காரணங்கள் பற்றியும் அதனால் பின்னர் வந்த விளைவுகள் பற்றியும் நீதிமன்றம் ஆராய்ந்ததுடன் மேலும் சமர்ப்பிக்கப்பட்ட ஆவணங்கள், ஆதாரங்கள், காணொளி காட்சிகள் மற்றும் அங்கு நின்று கண்ணால் கண்டு அனுபவித்து வந்த மக்கள் அளித்த சாட்சியங்களின் அடிப்படையில் தனது முடிவுகளை எடுத்தது. 1. இலங்கை அரசு போர்க்குற்றங்களை செய்துள்ளது முடிவாகியுள்ளது எனவும் 2. இலங்கை அரசு மனித உரிமை மீறல்களை செய்தது முடிவாகியுள்ளது எனவும் 3. இலங்கை அரசு தமிழ் மக்கள் மீது இனப்படுகொலை மேற்கொண்டது என்ற குற்றச்சாட்டு தொடர்பாக மேலதிக விசாரணைகள் அவசியம் எனவும் 4. சமாதான உடன்படிக்கையில் நடுவர்களாக பங்கேற்றிய நாடுகளையும் மற்றும் உலக நாடுகளையும் சமாதான உடன்படிக்கை முறிவடைந்தமைக்கு பொறுப்பேற்க வேண்டும் எனவும் முடிவாகியுள்ளது. இவைகள் நிரந்தர மக்கள் நீதிமன்றத்தின் ஆரம்ப கட்ட தீர்ப்பு அறிக்கையாகும் இதன் முழு அறிக்கை பின்னர் வெளியிடப்பட உள்ளது. இறுதியில் வெளியிடப்பட்ட உத்தியோகபூர்வ ஊடக அறிகை கீழ்வருமாறு. Press Release DUBLIN TRIBUNAL FINDS AGAINST SRILANKA ON CHARGES OF WAR CRIMES In Dublin today at 2pm the Peoples Tribunal chairman FranCois Houtart read the preliminary findings of the Peoples Tribunal on the war in Sri Lanka and its aftermath. There are 4 findings: 1. That the Sri Lankan Government is guilty of war crimes 2. That the Sri Lankan Government is guilty of crimes against humanity 3. That the charge of genocide requires further investigation 4. That the International Community, Particularly the UK and USA, share responsibility for the breakdown of the peace process. Harrowing evidence including video footage was submitted y eye witnesses of the use of heavy artillery and phosphorous munitions, and of the continuous violation of human rights by military activity to a panel of 10 international jurors over two days. Irish members of the jury were Denis Halliday and Mary Lawlor. The Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka welcomed the preliminary findings of the tribunal. Responding to the findings the forum issued the following five demands: 1. We call on the Sri Lankan Government to allow the UN to conduct an inquiry into war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated during the final stages of the war between the Sri Lankan armed forces and the LTTE, and during the war’s aftermath. 2. We call on the Sri Lankan Government to release all those being detained in concentration camps and the estimated 11,000 people being held secretly at unknown locations. 3. We call on the Sri Lankan Government to end the use of extra-judicial killings, sexual violence and the deprivation of food and water as weapons against a civilian population. 4. We call on the Sri Lankan Government to end the suppression of political dissent by violent or other means. 5. We call on the Sri Lankan Government to fully implement human rights for all citizens of Sri Lanka and a political solution involving the full participation of the Tamil population, ending the systematic historical discriminatory measures of the Sri Lankan state against the Tamil people. Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka asserts that long term peace and stability can only be established on the basis of full justice and rights for all the inhabitants of the island.

முகப்பு

போராளியொருவர் தற்போது அடையாளம் காணப்பட்டார்.!!!!!!

போராளியொருவர் தற்போது அடையாளம் காணப்பட்டார்.!!!!!!

மல்லாவி, யோகபுரம் 02 ம் யுனிற்றை சேர்ந்த சந்திரசேனன் – வினோதன் (இயக்க பெயர்- இமையவன் .வயது 20 ) என்பவராவார் 2007 / 03ம் மாத மளவில் இயக்கத்தில் இணைந்து கொண்ட இவர் கிளிநொச்சி மருத்துவ மனை,,புதுக்குடியிருப்பு மருத்துவமனை ஆகிய வைத்தியசாலைகளில் மருத்துவ போராளியாக காயமடைந்து வரும் பொது மக்களுக்கான பணியினை மேற்கொண்டிருந்தார். 

போர் உக்கிரமடைந்த காலப்பகுதியில் மாத்தளன் மற்றும்,,முள்ளிவாய்க்கால் பகுதி தற்காலிக வைத்தியசாலைகளில் தனது கடமைகளை மேற்கொண்டிருந்த வேளை காயமடைந்த பொது மக்கள்,, போராளிகளுடன் இராணுவத்தால் 2009 / 05 /18 கைது செய்யபட்டுள்ளார்.. மேலும் இவரது சகோதரனான சந்திரசேனன் -விருந்தன் வயது 18 என்பவரும் படுகாயமடைந்த நிலையில் இராணுவத்தால் கைது செய்ய பட்டு காணமல் போய்யுள்ளார். என்பதும் குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.

Right groups flay LLRC, say whitewashes War Crimes

International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the three premier human rights watchdogs, today slammed Sri Lanka’s reconciliation commission (LLRC) accusing the commission of failing to “meet basic international standards for independent and impartial inquiries,” and for "proceeding against a backdrop of government failure to address impunity and continuing human rights abuses.” The Rights groups further pointedly attacked the island's legal system saying, “Sri Lanka’s government and justice system cannot and will not uphold the rule of law and respect basic rights.”

Full text of the article appearing in The Nation follows:

While we would welcome the opportunity to appear before a genuine, credible effort to pursue accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) falls far short of such an effort. It not only fails to meet basic international standards for independent and impartial inquiries, but it is proceeding against a backdrop of government failure to address impunity and continuing human rights abuses. Our three organisations believe that the persistence of these and other destructive trends indicates that currently Sri Lanka’s government and justice system cannot or will not uphold the rule of law and respect basic rights.

We have highlighted our concerns in a number of reports. Of particular relevance are Crisis Group’s May 2010 report “War Crimes in Sri Lanka” and its June 2009 report “Sri Lanka’s Judiciary: Politicised Courts, Compromised Rights”; Human Rights Watch’s February 2010 report “Legal Limbo: The Uncertain Fate of Detained LTTE Suspects in Sri Lanka” and its February 2009 report “War on the Displaced: Sri Lankan Army and LTTE Abuses against Civilians in the Vanni”; and Amnesty International’s June 2009 report “Twenty Years of Make Believe: Sri Lanka’s Commissions of Inquiry” and its August 2009 “Unlock the Camps in Sri Lanka: Safety and Dignity for the Displaced Now”. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has made no progress since the end of the war in addressing our concerns detailed in these reports.

In addition to these broader failings of the government, we believe that the LLRC is deeply flawed in structure and practice. Of particular concern are the following:

Inadequate mandate: Nothing in the LLRC’s mandate requires it to investigate the many credible allegations that both the government security forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) committed serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the civil war, especially in the final months, including summary executions, torture, attacks on civilians and civilian objects, and other war crimes. The need to investigate them thoroughly and impartially is especially urgent given the government’s efforts to promote its methods of warfare abroad as being protective of the civilian population, when the facts demonstrate otherwise.

Nor has the LLRC shown any genuine interest in investigating such allegations. Instead, it has allowed government officials to repeat unchallenged what they have been saying without basis for months: that the government strictly followed a “zero civilian casualty policy”. Indeed, during the testimony of Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa on 17 August 2010, the primary intervention of the Commission chairman, CR de Silva, was to prompt the secretary to provide the Commission with a February 14 2009 letter from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) thanking the Navy for assisting in a medical evacuation. While highlighting that one letter, the chairman and his colleagues failed to ask the defence secretary about any of the ICRC’s numerous public statements between January and the end of May 2009 raising concerns about excessive civilian casualties, violations of international humanitarian law and insufficient humanitarian access.

The Commission also has not required officials to explain the government’s public misrepresentations during the war. Particularly disturbing are the government’s repeated claims that there were under 100,000 civilians left in the Vanni at the beginning of 2009 when officials later conceded there were some 300,000, and that Sri Lankan forces were not using heavy weapons in civilian areas when the military eventually admitted they were.

Lack of independence: A fundamental requirement for any commission of this type is that its members are independent. The membership of the LLRC is far from that. To start, both chairman de Silva and member HMGS Palihakkara were senior government representatives during the final year of the war. They publicly defended the conduct of the government and military against allegations of war crimes. Indeed during two widely reported incidents the shelling of the first “no-fire zone” declared by the government in late January and the shelling of Puthukkudiyiruppu (PTK) hospital in February Palihakkara, then Sri Lanka’s representative to the UN, told CNN that government forces had confirmed that even though the LTTE was firing out from the “no-fire zone”, the government was not returning fire; and that the military had confirmed they knew the coordinates of PTK hospital and they had not fired on it.

Beyond his public defence of government conduct during the war, there is also evidence that as attorney general, CR de Silva actively undermined the independence of the 2006-2009 Presidential Commission of Inquiry that was tasked with investigating allegations of serious human rights violations by the security forces.

Most other members of the LLRC have some history of working for the Sri Lankan government. None is known for taking independent political positions, and many have publicly declared their allegiance to the president and government.

Absence of witness protection: Equally worrying is the absence of any provisions for the protection of witnesses who may wish to testify before the Commission. Sri Lanka has never had a functioning witness protection system, nor has the Commission established any ad hoc procedures for witness protection.

The lack of witness protection is particularly crippling in the current atmosphere in Sri Lanka in which government officials label as “traitors” persons making allegations that government forces might have committed violations of international law. Only a brave few have testified before the LLRC about war crimes in the north despite that threat. Moreover, even though the war is over, the country is still operating under a state of emergency, with laws that criminalise political speech and where there is no meaningful investigation of attacks on government critics. This clearly undermines the Commission’s ability to conduct credible investigations of alleged violations of international or national law. Until effective protection of witnesses can be guaranteed, no organisation or individual can responsibly disclose confidential information to the Commission.

Past commission failures: Our decision to decline the LLRC’s invitation to testify also stems from Sri Lanka’s long history of failed and politicised commissions of inquiry. Amnesty International’s report, “Twenty Years of Make-Believe: Sri Lanka’s Commissions of Inquiry”, documents the failure of successive Sri Lankan governments to provide accountability for violations, including enforced disappearances, unlawful killings and torture.

Today Sri Lanka has no credible domestic mechanisms able to respond effectively to serious human rights violations. The Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission lacks independence and has itself acknowledged its lack of capacity to deal with investigations into enforced disappearances. At the international level, Sri Lanka has 5,749 outstanding cases being reviewed by the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, several hundred of which have been reported since the beginning of 2006.

Should a genuine and credible process eventually be established featuring truly independent commission members, effective powers of witness protection, and a mandate to explore the full range of alleged violations of national and international law; and backed up by government action to end impunity and ensure that police and courts launch effective and impartial prosecutions we all would be pleased to appear.

War crimes whitewashed: Why human rights groups reject Sri Lanka’s reconciliation commission By Louise Arbour, Kenneth Roth, Salil Shetty

While we would welcome the opportunity to appear before a genuine, credible effort to pursue accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) falls far short of such an effort. It not only fails to meet basic international standards for independent and impartial inquiries, but it is proceeding against a backdrop of government failure to address impunity and continuing human rights abuses. Our three organisations believe that the persistence of these and other destructive trends indicates that currently Sri Lanka’s government and justice system cannot or will not uphold the rule of law and respect basic rights.
 
We have highlighted our concerns in a number of reports. Of particular relevance are Crisis Group’s May 2010 report “War Crimes in Sri Lanka” and its June 2009 report “Sri Lanka’s Judiciary: Politicised Courts, Compromised Rights”; Human Rights Watch’s February 2010 report “Legal Limbo: The Uncertain Fate of Detained LTTE Suspects in Sri Lanka” and its February 2009 report “War on the Displaced: Sri Lankan Army and LTTE Abuses against Civilians in the Vanni”; and Amnesty International’s June 2009 report “Twenty Years of Make Believe: Sri Lanka’s Commissions of Inquiry” and its August 2009 “Unlock the Camps in Sri Lanka: Safety and Dignity for the Displaced Now”. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has made no progress since the end of the war in addressing our concerns detailed in these reports.

In addition to these broader failings of the government, we believe that the LLRC is deeply flawed in structure and practice. Of particular concern are the following:
Inadequate mandate

Nothing in the LLRC’s mandate requires it to investigate the many credible allegations that both the government security forces and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) committed serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the civil war, especially in the final months, including summary executions, torture, attacks on civilians and civilian objects, and other war crimes. The need to investigate them thoroughly and impartially is especially urgent given the government’s efforts to promote its methods of warfare abroad as being protective of the civilian population, when the facts demonstrate otherwise.

Nor has the LLRC shown any genuine interest in investigating such allegations. Instead, it has allowed government officials to repeat unchallenged what they have been saying without basis for months: that the government strictly followed a “zero civilian casualty policy”. Indeed, during the testimony of Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa on 17 August 2010, the primary intervention of the Commission chairman, CR de Silva, was to prompt the secretary to provide the Commission with a February 14 2009 letter from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) thanking the Navy for assisting in a medical evacuation.

While highlighting that one letter, the chairman and his colleagues failed to ask the defence secretary about any of the ICRC’s numerous public statements between January and the end of May 2009 raising concerns about excessive civilian casualties, violations of international humanitarian law and insufficient humanitarian access.

The Commission also has not required officials to explain the government’s public misrepresentations during the war. Particularly disturbing are the government’s repeated claims that there were under 100,000 civilians left in the Vanni at the beginning of 2009 when officials later conceded there were some 300,000, and that Sri Lankan forces were not using heavy weapons in civilian areas when the military eventually admitted they were.
Lack of independence

A fundamental requirement for any commission of this type is that its members are independent. The membership of the LLRC is far from that. To start, both chairman de Silva and member HMGS Palihakkara were senior government representatives during the final year of the war. They publicly defended the conduct of the government and military against allegations of war crimes.

Indeed during two widely reported incidents " the shelling of the first “no-fire zone” declared by the government in late January and the shelling of Puthukkudiyiruppu (PTK) hospital in February" Palihakkara, then Sri Lanka’s representative to the UN, told CNN that government forces had confirmed that even though the LTTE was firing out from the “no-fire zone”, the government was not returning fire; and that the military had confirmed they knew the coordinates of PTK hospital and they had not fired on it.

Beyond his public defence of government conduct during the war, there is also evidence that as attorney general, CR de Silva actively undermined the independence of the 2006-2009 Presidential Commission of Inquiry that was tasked with investigating allegations of serious human rights violations by the security forces.

Most other members of the LLRC have some history of working for the Sri Lankan government. None is known for taking independent political positions, and many have publicly declared their allegiance to the president and government.
Absence of witness protection

Equally worrying is the absence of any provisions for the protection of witnesses who may wish to testify before the Commission. Sri Lanka has never had a functioning witness protection system, nor has the Commission established any ad hoc procedures for witness protection.

The lack of witness protection is particularly crippling in the current atmosphere in Sri Lanka in which government officials label as “traitors” persons making allegations that government forces might have committed violations of international law. Only a brave few have testified before the LLRC about war crimes in the north despite that threat.

Moreover, even though the war is over, the country is still operating under a state of emergency, with laws that criminalise political speech and where there is no meaningful investigation of attacks on government critics. This clearly undermines the Commission’s ability to conduct credible investigations of alleged violations of international or national law. Until effective protection of witnesses can be guaranteed, no organisation or individual can responsibly disclose confidential information to the Commission.
Past commission failures

Our decision to decline the LLRC’s invitation to testify also stems from Sri Lanka’s long history of failed and politicised commissions of inquiry. Amnesty International’s report, “Twenty Years of Make-Believe: Sri Lanka’s Commissions of Inquiry”, documents the failure of successive Sri Lankan governments to provide accountability for violations, including enforced disappearances, unlawful killings and torture.

Today Sri Lanka has no credible domestic mechanisms able to respond effectively to serious human rights violations. The Sri Lankan Human Rights Commission lacks independence and has itself acknowledged its lack of capacity to deal with investigations into enforced disappearances. At the international level, Sri Lanka has 5,749 outstanding cases being reviewed by the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, several hundred of which have been reported since the beginning of 2006.

Should a genuine and credible process eventually be established ��" featuring truly independent commission members, effective powers of witness protection, and a mandate to explore the full range of alleged violations of national and international law; and backed up by government action to end impunity and ensure that police and courts launch effective and impartial prosecutions ��" we all would be pleased to appear.
Louise Arbour is president and CEO of International Crisis Group; Kenneth Roth is executive director of Human Rights Watch; Salil Shetty is secretary general of Amnesty International.
[Courtesy:Nation]

India a silent partner in the genocide committed by srilanka

 

Media and state crimes

“You don’t say or even think that the invasion of Iraq is a criminal aggression of the kind for which people were hanged in Nuremberg […]. Suppose a newspaper started publishing the truth—that the invasion of Iraq was a criminal invasion that destroyed the country, that newspaper or the TV station is not going to get any ads”, said 82-year-old Noam Chomsky in an interview to India’s Outlook, Saturday. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, making his most brazen disclosure – 391,832 secret documents on the Iraqi war, is a hunted man by the world’s Establishments, reports The New York Times, Saturday. “You play outside the rules, and you will be dealt with outside the rules,” Mr. Assange an Australian national was told by an Australian official.

Twelve weeks ago, Wikileaks posted some 77,000 classified Pentagon documents on the Afghan conflict.

In a news conference in London on Saturday, Mr. Assange said that the current release of Iraqi war documents “constituted the most comprehensive and detailed account of any war ever to have entered the public record.”

WikiLeaks on Friday said: "The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period."

Sweden rejected residence visa to Assange, Australia signalled cooperation with the US in any possible prosecution against him, and he placed Britain along with Australia among those who are too easily influenced by Washington.

Mr. Assange has become that figure for the Internet era, with as yet unreckoned consequences for himself and for the keepers of the world’s secrets, The New York Times article written by John F Burns and Ravi Somaiya said.

Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 exposed a 1000-page secret document known as Pentagon Papers on Vietnam War commented, “I’ve been waiting 40 years for someone to disclose information on a scale that might really make a difference.”

There is a general belief in the Eezham Tamil diaspora circles that the USA, while busy with cases of arms supply to the LTTE, is sitting on many secrets related to crimes in the Vanni war, committed locally but abetted internationally.

Delivery of political justice appropriate to a national question is the straightforward way for the war criminals to wash their sins. But no one involved seems to have 'appetite' for it locally and internationally, the diaspora circles further said.

Meanwhile CNN, highlighting the worry of the US government, military and some human rights groups, about 'civilian names' in the freed documents and possible retaliation against them by Taliban and the like in Iraq, said on Saturday citing Pentagon that Wikileaks is not equipped to understand what information is harmful:

"The problem we have with WikiLeaks, it goes beyond just taking out names of people," Col. David Lapan, a top Pentagon spokesman said Friday before WikiLeaks released the documents. "There are lots of other types of information that we've described that could be damaging that go beyond names and they wouldn't have the expertise to know what those are," CNN quoted.

"They are not experts about how to redact in a way that protects American forces," Morrell said on "John King, USA." "Classified documents should not be in the public domain. At least not willy-nilly like this," was another citation of the CNN.

Speaking to Outlook, Chomsky commented on how the media behave supporting state violence in contemporary times:

“Their major commitment is to the centres of power—state and private […]. As soon as the plan to invade Iraq was announced, the media began serving as a propaganda agency for the government. The same was true for Vietnam, for state violence generally.”

On a question about ‘liberal media’ put to him: “Do you mean that propaganda enables the elite to dull the will of people, depriving them of the capacity to make political choices,” he said:

“The huge public relations industry, for example, has its goal to control attitudes and beliefs…And the task of intellectuals, media and so on is to make sure that they are quiet, subdued and obedient […]. I don’t doubt that the media is liberal in that sense.”

Chomsky further told the interviewers Ajaz Ashraf and Anuradha Raman: “A large majority of the population is disillusioned with everything. They are anti-government, anti-business, opposed to the political parties, Republicans even more than the Democrats; they dislike Congress, they don’t believe the professions, the scientists. It’s as if their lives are falling apart. So, yes, they don’t like the media.

Overwhelming majority of the population don’t have the time to do research projects, in finding out the truth of what the media brings out, Chomsky said, but added that how important the trust of people to a media.

“The second largest newspaper in Mexico, La Jornada, is a very high quality newspaper, one of the best I know. It gets almost no commercial advertising because the government hates it, business hates it. They survive on readership support. Why can’t it happen in a rich country? That’s because people in Mexico trust La Jornada. They are doing their job, you can see people reading it on the streets. You learn from it […]. La Jornada is the only independent newspaper in the whole hemisphere.”

On the media of India and on the attitude of the Indian elite he said the following:

“I spent three weeks in India and a week in Pakistan. A friend of mine here, Iqbal Ahmed, told me that I would be surprised to find that the media in Pakistan is more open, free and vibrant than that in India.

“In Pakistan, I read the English language media which go to a tiny part of the population. Apparently, the government, no matter how repressive it is, is willing to say to them that you have your fun, we are not going to bother you. So they don’t interfere with it. “The media in India is free, the government doesn’t have the power to control it. But what I saw was that it was pretty restricted, very narrow and provincial and not very informative, leaving out lots of things.

“As far as the elites are concerned they want the public to be disciplined, passive, obedient and directed to other things […]. If we can direct people to that, they will keep out of our hair, we can run things. You see that in India, certainly.”

To a question whether family-owned newspapers are better in comparison to the corporatisation, he said: “It is hard to choose. Take Rupert Murdoch. He owns a good part of the press. Is that a good thing? What would be a good thing is democratic control.”

“In the late 19th century… There was a great variety of newspapers, most often run by the factory workers, ethnic communities and others. There was a lot of popular involvement. These papers reflected a wide variety of opinions, were widely read too. It was the period of greatest vibrancy in the US.”

“But two things pretty much eliminated them. One, it was possible for the corporate sector to simply put so much capital into their own newspapers that others couldn’t compete. The other factor was advertising; advertiser-reliance. Advertisers are businesses. When newspapers become dependent on advertisers for their income, they are naturally going to bend to the interest of advertisers.”

“The first thing they do is to layout where the advertising is going to be, because that’s an important part of a newspaper. You then put the news in the gaps between advertisements. In television there is a concept called content and fill. The content is the advertising, the fill is car chase, the sexy or whatever you put in to try to keep the viewer watching in between the ads. That’s a natural outcome when you have advertiser-reliance.”

On the current intellectual culture Chomsky said: “We, again, come back to Orwell’s point—about an intellectual culture in which elites and great universities are inculcated with the understanding that there are things that just wouldn’t do to say.”