“Dirty Wars”: An immensely powerful anti-war film, uncovering Obama’s global “war on terror

“Dirty Wars”: An immensely powerful anti-war film, uncovering Obama’s global “war on terror” -

Sometimes, when you watch the strange, repetitive political dance that swirls around the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- the president announcing yet again that he plans to “close” it and the Republicans in Congress swearing that they won’t let him -- it’s hard not to wonder what alternative universe we live in.  The initial round of this began on the day Barack Obama entered the Oval Office and circulated an executive order meant to close that prison within a year.  The latest presidential “closing” announcement came just over two weeks ago.  In a major speech at National Defense University, Obama also claimed that he would soon lift restrictions he had imposed in 2009 on sending Guantanamo prisoners long cleared of any criminal activities back to Yemen.  Just last week, Congressional Republicans offered the usual reply.  They proposed to keep the prison open, whatever the president wanted, “by barring the administration from transferring its terror suspects to the United States or a foreign country such as Yemen.”

By now everyone knows that Guantanamo can’t be closed, not by this administration or any other one imaginable.  At present, it is the scene of an extraordinary protest movement, now almost three months old, by 103 prisoners using potential death by starvation to bring attention to the nightmare that has been their lives behind bars in Cuba.

More than 11 years after its founding, Guantanamo looks to Americans ever more like an offshore aberration, the last of the walking dead that just won’t go down.  As it happens, though, that institution is anything but an aberration.  It’s exactly what it was meant to be.  The Bush administration situated it just off the coast of Florida in the first place because it wanted to avoid legality, justice, and the reach of U.S. courts.  It’s true that George W. Bush's top officials made a fetish out of giving illegality -- including global kidnapping operations, torture interrogations, and aglobal string of “black sites” -- a feel-good veneer of legalism.  That was why, for instance, the Department of Justice produced those infamous “torture memos” that, among other remarkable things, managed to put the legal definition of torture in the hands and mind of the torturer.  But the goal of the president, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other key officials -- some of whom reportedly had torture techniques demonstrated for them in the White House -- had everything to do with leaving legality behind.

In 2001, they were eager above all to “take the gloves off.”  They wanted to be able to do anything they cared to do on their self-proclaimed “global battlefield.”  They wanted to lay hands -- not theirs, admittedly, but delegated ones -- as violently as possible on the prisoners swept up there: the worst of the worst, minor footsoldiers of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, people who simply had enemies who betrayed them, and the innocent who wandered into or were trapped in this hell. It didn’t matter.  They weren’t into making distinctions or charging prisoners with crimes or anything so banal.  What they wanted was control, total control, over the bodies of their enemies.  It wasn’t a nice thing.  It wasn’t a pretty thing.  It wasn’t the sort of thing you said in polite company or (most of the time) in the media, which, in one of the small linguistic scandals of the era took to replacing the simple, easy to define word “torture” with the administration’s euphemistic phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques.” 

They wanted to revel in their power and their glory in the Greater Middle East, but also in the dark corners of those black sites and in that jewel-in-the-crown of offshore injustice, Guantanamo. They were proud of their Cuban prison.  They meant it to be a way of life and now, of course, no one can get rid of it.  It’s not possible.  The Obama method of “closing” it means transferring to a supermax prison on U.S. soil up to 50 prisoners that top American officials believe to be guilty of something, but can’t bring to trial, largely because “confessions” were taken from them by the dirtiest possible methods that won’t hold up in any court of law.  Even this, however, wouldn’t close Guantanamo.  It would simply embed its methodology in the heart of the U.S. prison and judicial system (which is why such a plan has sarcastically been dubbed “Gitmo North”).

In fact, in certain ways, like so many ugly things that wars bring home, aspects of what might be called the Guantanamo Syndrome have already crept deep into our American world, whether Congress approves or not.  As Victoria Brittain, author of Shadow Lives: The Forgotten Women of the War on Terror, makes clear in her latest TomDispatch post, pre-punishment and pre-conviction, Guantanamo-style, are increasingly everyday by-products of the war on terror at home. Tom

Guilty Until Proven Innocent 
How to Pre-Convict and Pre-Punish an American Muslim 
By Victoria Brittain

A four-month hunger strike, mass force-feedings, and widespread media coverage have at last brought Guantanamo, the notorious offshore prison set up by the Bush administration early in 2002, back into American consciousness. Prominent voices are finally calling on President Obama to close it down and send home scores of prisoners who, years ago, were cleared of wrongdoing.

Still unnoticed and out of the news, however, is a comparable situation in the U.S. itself, involving a pattern of controversial terrorism trials that result in devastating prison sentences involving the harshest forms of solitary confinement.  This growing body of prisoners is made up of Muslim men, including some formerly well-known and respected American citizens.

At the heart of these cases is a statute from the time of the Clinton presidency making it a crime to provide “material support” to any foreign organization the government has designated as “terrorist.”  This material support provision was broadened in the USA PATRIOT Act, passed by Congress just after the 9/11 attacks, and has been upheld by a 2010 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.  Today, almost any kind of support, including humanitarian aid, training, expert advice, “services” of all sorts, or “political advocacy” undertaken in “coordination” with any group on the State Department’s terrorist list, can lead to such a terror trial. The Court has never defined what “coordination” actually means.

In that Supreme Court ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Breyer proposed a narrower interpretation of material support: individuals should not be subject to prosecution unless they knowingly provided a service they had reason to believe would be used to further violence. At the time, the position of the dissenting judges was backed by key editorials in major newspapers.  In the three years since, however, more material support cases have resulted in long sentences with very little public notice or critical comment.

Pre-Trial Punishment

In the U.S. these days, the very word “terror,” no less the charge of material support for it, invariably shuts down rather than opens any conversation.  Nonetheless, a decade of researching a number of serious alleged terrorism cases on both side of the Atlantic, working alongside some extraordinary human rights lawyers, and listening to Muslim women in Great Britain and the U.S. whose lives were transformed by the imprisonment of a husband, father, or brother has given me a different perspective on such cases.

Perhaps most illuminating in them is the repeated use of what’s called “special administrative measures” to create a particularly isolating and punitive atmosphere for many of those charged with such crimes, those convicted of them, and even for their relatives.  While these efforts have come fully into their own in the post-9/11 era, they were drawn from a pre-9/11 paradigm.  Between the material support statute and those special administrative measures, it has become possible for the government to pre-convict and in many cases pre-punish a small set of Muslim men.

Take the case of Ahmed Abu Ali, a young Palestinian-American who is now serving life in the Administrative Maximum Facility, a supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, and is currently under special administrative measures that restrict his communications with the outside world. A university student in Saudi Arabia, he was arrested in 2003 by the Saudi government and held for 20 months without charges or access to a lawyer. The Washington Post reported that the U.S. government finally asked for his return just as his family filed a lawsuit in Washington.

At the time, it seemed like a victory for the family and the various human rights organizations that had supported them, but on arrival Ahmed was charged with material support for al-Qaeda and plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush. The evidence to convict him came from an anonymous alleged co-conspirator and from taped confessions he made, evidently after being tortured in Saudi Arabia, a common practice there. The evidence of his torture was contestedat his trial.  The case was described by a staff member of Amnesty International USA as “unusual in the annals of U.S. outsourcing of torture.”  An appeal of Ahmed’s 30-year sentence actually resulted in the imposition of an even more severe sentence: life without parole.

In addition, special administrative measures have been applied to him.  These were originally established in 1996 to stop communications from prison inmates who could “pose a substantial risk of death or serious risk of injury.” The targets then were gang leaders.  Each special administrative measure was theoretically to be designed to fit the precise dangers posed by a specific prisoner. Since 9/11, however, numerous virtually identical measures have been applied to Muslim men, often like Ahmed Abu Ali with no history of violence.

A question to Ahmed’s sister about how her brother is doing is answered only with a quick look. She is not allowed to say anything because special measures also prohibit family members from disclosing their communications with prisoners. They similarly prevent defense lawyers from speaking about their clients. It was for a breach of these special measures in relation to her client, the imprisoned blind sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, that lawyer Lynne Stewart was tried and sentenced to 10 years in prison in the Bush years.

Although these measures have been contested in court, few have ever been modified, much less thrown out. Those court challenges and evidence provided to the European Court of Human Rights by American lawyers have, however, provided a window into what one of them described as a regime of “draconian and inhumane treatment.”

Under such special administrative measures at the Metropolitan Correction Center in New York City, a prisoner lives with little natural light, no time in communal areas, no radio or TV, and sometimes no books or newspapers either, while mail and phone calls are permitted only with family, and even then are often suspended for minor infractions. Family visits are always no-contact ones conducted through plexiglass.

“The conditions have quite simply wreaked havoc on Mr X’s physical and mental well-being,” one lawyer wrote for the European Court of Human Rights, describing a seven-month period in which a prisoner at the Metropolitan Correction Center was allowed no family phone calls. Another highlighted his client’s lost concentration, which made it impossible to work on his case effectively. “Their world shrinks dramatically,” was the way Joshua Dratel, a lawyer who has represented several men under these measures, described the situation.

In cases where special administrative measures are in place pre-trial, such as the well-documented ordeal of American post-graduate student Syed Fahad Hashmi, lawyers have often been obliged to prepare cases without actually sitting with their clients, or being able to show them all court materials. After three pre-trial years mainly in solitary confinement under special administrative measures at the Metropolitan Correction Center, Hashmi accepted a government plea bargain of one count of material support for terrorism and was given a 15-year sentence.

His crime? He allowed an acquaintance to stay at his student apartment in London, use his cell phone, and store a duffel bag there. The bag contained ponchos and waterproof socks that were later supposedly delivered to al-Qaeda, while the phone was used by that acquaintance to make calls to co-conspirators in Britain.

Silencing Palestinian-Americans

Just as the Bush administration found the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and ignored them, so the principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” a part of Western civilization since Roman times, has all but disappeared for Muslims who face accusations of “material support” for terrorism.

Such cases have, at times, involved high-profile men and once received significant media attention. Civil rights activist and University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian, accused of being a leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (a StateDepartment-designated terrorist organization), was, for instance, treated like a man already being punished for his crime even before his trial.  Previously, he had been a respected American-Muslim political leader with contacts in the White House and in Congress.  Now, walking to pre-trial meetings with his lawyers, his arms were shackled behind him, so that, humiliatingly, he had to carry his legal papers on his back.

Amnesty International described Al-Arian's pre-trial detention in Coleman Federal Penitentiary as "gratuitously punitive." It cited his 23-hour lockdown in his cell, the strip searches, the use of chains and shackles, the lack of access to any religious services, and the insistence on denying him a watch or clock in a windowless cell. He was transferred to 14 different prison facilities in 6 states. He ended up spending three and a half years in solitary confinement without being convicted of anything.  At his trial, the government called 80 witnesses, including 21 from Israel, while his counsel called no defense witnesses, only citing the U.S. Constitution. A Florida jury nonetheless acquitted him on half of the counts, and deadlocked on the other half.  (Ten out of 12 jurors wanted to acquit him on all charges.) He later struck a plea deal on one minor charge.

Today, the Palestinian-American professor is still in legal limbo, under house arrest, awaiting a judge’s ruling on whether he has to testify in a separate case. An articulate U.S. Muslim political leader, who helped bring in the Muslim vote for George W. Bush after the candidate came out publicly against the use of secret evidence in trials, when the Gore campaign did not and so contributed to his Florida victory in the 2000 presidential campaign, has been silenced for his openly expressed pro-Palestinian opinions.

Successful and influential Palestinian-American Ghassan Elashi, a founder and the chairman of what was once America’s largest Muslim charity, the Holy Land Foundation, and Shukri Abu Baker, its president, were similarly silenced along with three other foundation officials.  The two of them received prison sentences of 65 years for giving charity to orphanages and community organizations in Gaza (also supported by the European Union and the U.S. Agency for International Development). The Holy Land leaders were accused of giving “material support” to a foreign terrorist organization: Hamas, the elected government in Gaza.  There were no accusations of inciting or being involved in acts of violence. This case, like Professor Al Arian’s, would never have been possible if Justice Breyer’s views had prevailed at the Supreme Court.

Even then, it took a second trial before a jury returned a guilty verdict against the Holy Land leaders. Nancy Hollander, counsel for one of the men, summed up the situation this way: “The thought that somebody gets sixty-five years for providing charity is really shameful, and I believe this case will go down in history, as have others, as a shameful day.” In 2012, the Supreme Court refused to rehear the case, and four of the five convicted men remain confined to the especially restrictive “communications management unit” at the U.S. penitentiary in Marion, Illinois, where Muslims make up two-thirds of the inmates.

There were also 246 unindicted co-conspirators named in the Holy Land Foundation case, including major Muslim organizations.  The case and the particularly long sentences sent a shot of fear through Muslim communities in the U.S., as was surely intended.

The men’s daughters still speak out on their fathers’ case. Noor Elashi, for example, told me, “His is the poster case for 'material support.'”  In the meantime, 15-minute weekly prison phone calls, monitored in real time from Washington, are the thinnest of threads to hold family relationships together, as are rare visits to distant prisons. Mariam Abu Ali once described to me her annual visit to her older brother Ahmed Abu Ali.  The expense was difficult to absorb: two flights, a rental car, and a motel for a three-day visit of about four hours a day, for a family already shouldering heavy debts for legal fees.

The real ordeal, though, was emotional, not financial. “They bring him in shackled at the waist and legs,” she told me. “We see them take off the handcuffs as he puts his hands out through a gap in the door. It’s emotionally draining… he’s there but so far away behind the glass. Only one of us can hear him at a time as he speaks though a phone… I’ve tried to lip read when it isn’t my turn, but it really doesn’t work. I feel very exhausted and sometimes I fall asleep during the visit. I cry every time, especially when he leaves…  It’s not like a death.  You don’t grieve and then finish, because this is not in the past.  In fact, it is not even in the back of my mind -- it is always there… This is chronic after nine years and it is not going to end.”

In itself, solitary confinement has devastating effects, as Dr. Atul Gawande has vividly pointed out, and is becoming ever more common in U.S. prisons in breach of internationally recognized norms on the humane treatment of prisoners.  It tends to break the will of inmates, sometimes even robbing them of their sanity.  However, in its most extreme use, combining those special administrative measures with the isolation imposed in prison communication management units, it is mainly applied to American Muslims.

The stories of what happens to Muslim men today in U.S. prisons and of the judicial cases that land them there under the harshest of conditions bear a startling resemblance to the cages at Guantanamo Bay and the charade of a legal system that is still in operation there.

Miscarriages of Justice

In addition to the examples of prominent, formerly successful Palestinian-Americans, there are a series of haunting cases of newer Muslim arrivals in the U.S., each of them an evident miscarriage of justice.  These include the Fort Dix Five, originally from Albania, and that of Imam Yassin Aref, an Iraqi Kurd.  Their entrapment cases, typically based on “sting” operations manufactured by FBI informants, sent men respected in their communities into solitary confinement for long years on what were probably trumped-up charges. In such cases, the only “plot” is often manufactured by the government itself.

This, then, is the state of so many cases of “terrorism” in the U.S. today in which disparate Muslim men have been swept up in a system in which guilt is assumed and people’s lives are quickly turned into waking nightmares in what used to be called the “justice system.”  Some great miscarriages of justice do get overturned.Black Panther Robert King spent 31 years in prison, 29 in solitary confinement for a crime he did not commit. His release in 2001 came about by chance when his persistent letter writing attracted the attention of a young lawyer and the founder of The Body Shop, Anita Roddick, who became his champion alongside a grassroots campaign for his release.  Since then, King has himself campaigned at home and abroad for the release of his two colleagues in “the Angola Three,” who still remain in prison, and against the system that could have broken him as it has so many others.

Thanks to the special administrative measures applied in his case, Ahmed Abu Ali cannot do what Robert King did, or what the lawyer and a friend of WikiLeaks informant Private Bradley Manning did to get his prison conditions widely known, or what Mumia Abu Jamal has done throughout his 30 years in solitary confinement via his books and his talks on prison radio. Ahmed cannot contact the world outside in search of the support he and his family need, nor can his family members.

The painful impact of all this on the families is difficult to imagine. Chilean novelist and playwright Ariel Dorfman once wrote that torture “presupposes the… abrogation of our capacity to imagine someone else’s suffering, to dehumanize him or her so much that their pain is not our pain. It demands this of the torturer… but also demands of everyone else the same distancing, the same numbness.”

Perhaps such a state helps explain why people around the world are far more aware than most Americans of what happens to Muslim men in the post-9/11 “justice system.”  The particular cruelty of the punishments they endure even before their unfair trials, will someday, like the abuses at Guantanamo, gain the attention they deserve.

Victoria Brittain, journalist and former editor at the Guardian, has authored or co-authored two plays and four books, including Enemy Combatant with Moazzam Begg. Her latest book, Shadow Lives: The Forgotten Women of the War on Terror (Palgrave/Macmillan, 2013), has just been published.  This is her second piece for TomDispatch.

Let us assume, for the moment, that National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden is the person he's portraying himself to be: not merely a patriot, but a humanitarian who's given up all the trappings of a successful life to ensure that "the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant".

The 29-year-old Snowden, who leaked information on secret US government surveillance programmes such as PRISM and "Boundless Informant" to the Guardian, is certainly right to focus on the danger posed by the Obama administration's surveillance policies, and the "global war on terror" they serve, not merely to US democracy but to "the world" more broadly as well. The United States has been engaged in a jihad of global proportions not for the past ten years, but for well over a century. As with all empires, Islam's included, the US jihad started small, but spread rapidly once the political and economic conditions in its core and peripheries came into proper alignment.

And as with other empires, the US jihads had their roots in the most offensive of ideologies, which justified its spread as both inevitable and good, while - not surprisingly - viewing any opposition as irrational, bad, and justly subject to suppression by any means necessary. As the 19th century Protestant preacher and arch-imperialist Josiah Strong put it, the emerging American empire was destined by God to rule the earth, everyone else must prepare for a "ready and pliant assimilation" or become "extinct". Islam's great conquerors tended to be a bit more generous, at least rhetorically.

Certainly, leaders in the US have always made sure to declare the best of intentions as they acquired each new territory, entrepot or sphere of influence, even as the colonised's death toll from expanding, maintaining and defending the US empire climbed into the many millions. The lines between offensive and defensive jihad - the United States has, like most every country before it, long defined and defended its wars as defensive, divinely sanctioned and just - has always been conveniently blurred. "Converting non-believers," whether by swords or napalm, is always inseparable from protecting the realm.

To make sure people in the US saw their government's foreign adventures in the proper light, it was natural to define the enemy as the opposite of everything their country stood for, and a mortal threat to their way of life and even existence.

Yet it's also true that, as during the great Muslim empires, as during the post-war heyday of American power, life, under its imperial umbrella, often proved better than many of the alternatives - at least for allies and those in the semi-, and thus not fully exploitable, periphery.

The rise of neoliberalism

This dynamic changed, however, with the emergence of neoliberal capitalism as the dominant form of economic, political and even cultural organisation in the 1970s - not just in the so-called "third" world, but in the core countries of the "West" as well. Neoliberalism created a dynamic of neocolonisation within the US and other "mature" countries, as well as in the developing world, as capitalism - once again - became as predatory at home as it was abroad. Both saw increased economic growth at the expensive of concentrated corporate power and rapidly increasing poverty and inequality. The corporate titans who have come to dominate the US economy and celebrity obsessed culture - tech leaders and military-industrial czars - are, not surprisingly, precisely the ones who are most in bed with the programmes Snowden has revealed.

The United States's desire to establish "full spectrum dominance" over world affairs in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet bloc became increasingly militarised after September 11, 2001. The "War on Terror" - the ultimate defensively justified offensive jihad - provided the primary justification for the quest for ever more power, a "panopticonic" as Snowden described it, picking up on Michel Foucault's analysis of the ultimate machine for political control developed by Jeremy Bentham during the late 18th century.

Such seeming dominance, or at least the idea of it, became a core component of the entire US intelligence apparatus, producing a clear majority of the intelligence reports that would feed the daily policy-making process in the years since the projects Snowden revealed.

It's here where the idea of jihad becomes relevant to Snowden's story. As every doctrine of war is abused by its exponents, jihad has been abused by Muslims for as long as the concept has existed. Yet the concept has great relevance to the situation in which people such as Snowden, Bradley Manning and other present-day whistleblowers find themselves. The concept is rooted - grammatically as well as theologically - in the concept of personal and communal striving for betterment.

It is true that, in the classical period of Islam, its connotation was largely related directly to war, while Islamic scholars across the ages have tended to dismiss as weak claims that the Prophet Mohammed differentiated between a lesser (violent) and greater (spiritual/personal) jihad. Yet in the modern era the notion of jihad of the "tongue" or "pen", as well as of jihad as a journey of personal and communal betterment, have become increasingly important within many strands of Muslim political discourse. This interpretation has even been used to justify and explain the Arab uprisings as they first - and relatively non-violently - emerged in Tunisia and Egypt.

Snowden's explanation for his actions bespeak someone who has lost all faith in the system to address glaring injustices through normal democratic, legislative means. As he put it in his Guardianinterview, for years he waited for political leaders to check the trend towards a potentially fatal surrender of core constitutional liberties. Eventually, he realised, "you can't wait around for someone else to act. I had been looking for leaders, but I realised that leadership is about being the first to act".

Like Bradley Manning, and perhaps with more sophistication, he realised that the only way to rein in a state bent on depriving its citizens of their civil liberties was, quite literally, to declare jihad on it. I use the word jihad here instead of war, because Snowden clearly did not declare war; he did not seek to use any violence against the US government. Quite the opposite, in fact. But he did completely remove himself from the order and power of the state he was quite literally sworn to serve, put himself outside its laws, and essentially declared a moral, political and ultimately ideological jihad against its most important policies. In this sense, his actions were treasonous - but only against a system which had in itself become treasonous, and which had declared war on the highest ideals for which the United States had stood.

That Snowden has waged his jihad with the pen and tongue rather than the proverbial sword fits quite nicely into the modernist/liberal reading of jihad, and puts him squarely in the camp of the avant-garde of the Arab Spring, who refused to participate in a system they had come to realise was irredeemably broken. As he put it: "The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to."

Of course, the Obama administration would say Snowden has no such right to arrogate this kind of power to himself. That is for the elected leaders of a democratic society. As everyone from the director of national intelligence to the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are arguing, however much we might dislike these policies, they are the result of legislation passed by the legitimate representatives of the people of the United States.

This might well be true, although as Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, the principal author of the Patriot Act (which is the primary legal justification for the surveillance Snowden has revealed) argues, this interpretation is an "abuse of the law", and one made without the consultation of most congressional representatives. But what Snowden and Manning realised was that the system was so dangerously broken that they had to sacrifice themselves, if necessary, to try to stop it. They could not live with themselves any other way.

A few brave men

It is highly instructive that the courage of a few brave men such as Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden have done more damage to the hegemony of the well-entrenched and normally unchallenged US war racket than any number of al-Qaeda-inspired or -directed terrorist plots could have achieved. Indeed, the fact that Snowden didn't become intoxicated by such power, but instead sought to shut it down at the source is an action of revolutionary potential, if others take up his call. It is a true inner and greater jihad.

If a couple of relatively minor intelligence workers such as Manning and Snowden could access information that upends so many of their government's policies, and the lies and half-truths upon which they're based, imagine what 20, or even 200 could do. They might actually get Americans off their couches and into the streets to demand the kind of political reform that the political class has thus far had little incentive to enact.

We don't have to call it jihad, but after a dozen years of a disastrous and bloody "war on terror" with the Muslim world, there are definitely worse ways to define it. However people want to describe it, these individuals have shown their peers in the governmental, intelligence, military and corporate bureaucracies across the world that they too have a choice - that merely continuing as cogs in oppressive machines cannot be considered the legitimate, or even only, choice left to them - even if the alternative comes at a steep price.

Let us hope at least a few are inspired to follow their course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0OsRKZZJUg&feature=em-uploademail

--
Mission of Global-Right-Path is to Educate Muslim Ummah in the light of the Quraan and Authentic Hadeeth, to face all the internal and external challenges, as well as to become a Great Revolutionized Leader to work for Global Revolution to serve the humanity in a balanced way to stabilize the Global World.
http://global-right-path.net16.net
.