Archive

For September, 2011

Sep 30

Entrapping Muslims in America‏

By No Comments

Entrapping Muslims in America – by Stephen Lendman

 

Post-9/11, American Muslims became fair game, targeting them for their faith, ethnicity, and at times prominence and charity.

 

As a result, they’ve been ruthlessly vilified and exploited  as “war on terror” scapegoats for political advantage.

 

Entrapment is commonly used. Guilt or innocence doesn’t matter, just the illusion that America is safer when, in fact, every victim assures greater insecurity and fear. Many are left wondering who’s next.

 

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officials or agents induce, influence, or provoke crimes that otherwise wouldn’t be committed. However, it doesn’t apply in cases of willingness to act lawlessly, government merely aiding, abetting, or facilitating a chance to do so.

 

It involves the following:

  • government officials or agents initiate the idea;

 

  • individuals are persuaded to act; and

 

  • they had no previous intent or willingness to do so.

 

Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that subjects weren’t entrapped. Otherwise, due process convictions are prohibited. However, in today’s climate, judicial fairness is lost in cases involving anyone for political reasons.

 

Muslims are especially affected, America’s target of choice. They’ve been hunted down, rounded up, held in detention, kept in isolation, denied bail, restricted in their right to counsel, tried on secret evidence, convicted on bogus charges, given long sentences, then incarcerated as political prisoners.

 

Charged with plotting to blow up the Pentagon and US Capitol, Reswan Ferdaus is the latest victim.

 

On September 28, New York Times writer Abby Goodnough headlined, “Man Is Held in a Plan to Bomb Washington,” saying:

 

Ferdaus planned to “us(e) remote-controlled aircraft filled with plastic explosives….The arrest was the result of an undercover operation (read sting) that included a cooperating witness with a criminal record (read paid informant).”

 

On September 28, the FBI Boston Division headlined, “Massachusetts Man Charged with Plotting Attack on Pentagon and US Capitol and Attempting to Provide Material Support to a Foreign Terrorist Organization,” saying:

 

Ferdaus, a Muslim US citizen, “plot(ted to) us(e) large remote controlled aircraft filled with C-4 plastic explosives.”

 

Of course, civilians have no access to this type firepower without help from authorities that have it.

 

Nonetheless, he was charged, including “with attempting to provide material support and resources to….al Qaeda, in order to carry out attacks on US soldiers stationed overseas.”

 

“The public was never in danger from the explosive devices, which were controlled (read fake ones supplied) by undercover FBI employees (UCs). The defendant was closely monitored as his alleged plot developed, and the UCs were in frequent contact with him (read manipulated to entrap him).”

 

“The FBI used an undercover operation (read sting) to conduct this investigation. Undercover operations are used to combat (read entrap) all types of (alleged) crimes and criminals, including in the counterterrorism arena.”

 

The FBI claims Ferdaus “began planning to commit a violent ‘jihad’ against the US in early 2010. He obtained mobile phones, each of which he modified to act as an electrical switch for an IED. He then supplied the phones to FBI UCs.”

 

They were FBI plants posing as Al Qaeda operatives who likely manipulated him to create an IED without his knowledge.

 

“In recorded conversations with the CW (paid cooperating witness) that began in January 2011, Ferdaus stated that he planned to attack the Pentagon using aircraft similar to ‘small drone airplanes’ filled with explosives and guided by GPS equipment.”

 

In April 2011, he “expanded his plan to include an attack on the US Capitol.”

 

The FBI also claimed he surveilled and photographed targets in Washington. Allegedly he “decided to couple his ‘aerial assault’ plan with a ‘ground directive,’ ” involving six people “armed with automatic firearms….”

 

If convicted, Ferdaus faces up to 15 years on material support charges, up to 20 for attempting to “destroy national defense premises,” and a “five-year minimum mandatory (sentence) and up to 20 years on the charge of attempting to damage and destroy (US) buildings….”

 

“On each charge, (he) also faces up to three years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine.”

 

In other words, if convicted on all charges, he faces up to life in prison unless concurrent sentences are imposed – even though he’s likely innocent.

 

In fact, his alleged plot sounds more like a bad film script than serious scheme, including the FBI saying they’d supply him with an F-86 remote-controlled aircraft, C-4 plastic explosives, assault rifles and grenades.

 

Maybe they’d throw in a bunker buster for good measure, or perhaps say anything to manipulate another innocent man into making suggestive comments easily twisted to sound criminal.

 

Hundreds of other entrapped political prisoners like him languish in America’s gulag. Moreover, past plots were just as implausible, targeting innocent victims.

 

They include five Muslim men allegedly conspiring to attack American soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey despite no plot, no crime or intent to commit one.

 

Other cases involved alleged plans to attack US marines at Quantico, VA, down National Guard jets with stinger missiles, target Pakistan’s ambassador with a surface-to-air missile, blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower, and others just as preposterous.

 

They include a fake shoe bomber, fake underwear bomber, fake Times Square bomber, an earlier fake one there, fake shampoo bombers, fake Al Qaeda woman planning fake attacks on New York landmarks, fake Oregon bomber, fake armed forces recruiting station bomber, fake 9/11 bombers, and others to enlist public support for the fake war on terror.

 

All cases entrapped Muslims. Accusations against them were bogus, yet they were arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced to long imprisonments – for being Muslims in America at the wrong time, not intent or conspiracies to commit crimes.

 

Notably, none for the past decade were committed. Every alleged plot was foiled. No one outwitted authorities. At issue is whether any were, in fact, planned.

 

That alone makes charges suspect, yet media scoundrels headline them to convict likely innocent people in the court of public opinion.

 

In addition, Attorney Holder defends entrapment, using stings involving undercover FBI employees or paid “cooperating witnesses.” The latter are usually either convicted or charged felons, well compensated to cooperate for leniency.

 

Last year, a notable Southern California scheme backfired. It involved Craig Monteilh, a convicted felon, aka Farouk al-Aziz, code name Oracle, paid to entrap Irvine Islamic Center Muslims.

 

They, however, were alarmed enough by his violent jihad talk to obtain a restraining order against him. Notably, they also reported to the same FBI office that enlisted him.

 

Working as a paid informant, he built a terrorism-related case against a mosque member that collapsed. The Justice Department had egg on its face. Prosecutors portrayed an innocent man as a dire threat.

 

They lied like they always do, hyping non-existant threats to create media hysteria, public fear, and justification for war on terror imperial adventurism. It’s America’s global game against peace, security, and democratic freedom, putting everyone at risk, especially Muslims.

 

This time, however, Monteilh went public. Revealing secret FBI tactics, he said his “handlers” trained him to entrap Muslims in mosques, their homes and businesses. He’s now suing the FBI. Officials declined comment except to confirm he was a paid informant. In fact, court records and other documents showed he got $177,000 tax free in 15 months.

 

Southern California Muslims were incensed, citing a pattern of pervasive surveillance and covert entrapment, snaring innocent victims for alleged crimes.

 

Last February, the Southern California ACLU and Council on American-Islamic Relations of the Greater Los Angeles Area (CAIR-LA) filed a class action lawsuit against the FBI for infiltrating and surveilling area mosques, as well as targeting Muslim Americans solely for their faith.

 

During 2006 and 2007, FBI agents planted informants in Orange County mosques to get information on hundreds of California Muslims. Craig Monteilh was specifically named.

 

The suit seeks injunctive relief on behalf of everyone bogusly targeted. It also requires the FBI to turn over or destroy all information collected through discriminatory investigations. Moreover, it wants damages for emotional stress caused.

 

Representing many others harmed, three plaintiffs are involved – Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, Ali Malik, and Yassir Abdel Rahim.

 

Orange County has a vibrant Muslim community with about 120,000 residents. It’s home to America’s second largest Muslim population after Dearborn, MI.

 

They and other Muslims are tired of being targeted for their faith and ethnicity.

 

Everyone should embrace their struggle at a time government of, by, and for the people applies only to its privileged.

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

 

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Sep 29

The Racial Roots of Campus Policing

By No Comments

The Racial Roots of Campus Policing

The article originally appeared in the Howard University student newspaper the Hilltop

“Overseer, Overseer, Overseer, Overseer
Officer, Officer, Officer, Officer!
Yeah, officer from overseer
You need a little clarity?
Check the similarity!”

-KRS One, “Sound of Da Police”

On Sept. 16, the Students Against Mass Incarceration (SAMI) held a rally at the flagpole on The Yard in support of Troy Davis, inviting community members and the media to protest the injustice of the impending execution. Not only was the media barred from campus, but HUPD stated that because the protest was not authorized by the university, the rally could not take place.

When the point was raised that fraternal organizations did not need authorization to do stepping routines on the yard, SAMI was told “that’s a tradition.” Well, in the militant tradition of Howard student takeovers in 1925, 1968, and 1989 SAMI preceded with the rally, consequences be damned.

Why did the campus police attempt to stop the rally? In an article entitled “The Modern Campus Police” John Sloan shows that contemporary campus police are a response to the student rebellions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Think about it, Black students all over the country were taking over administration buildings and the anti-war movement was in full swing.

Since campus security could not put down these rebellions, the National Guard often had to be called in. At places like Jackson State, South Carolina State, and Kent State some students were even killed in campus rebellions. Therefore, the campus police did their historical and assigned role: putting down any and all potential radical student activity.

Thus, the campus police and the American police force appear to have similar origins and purposes, maintaining “order” and squashing any potential acts of rebellion. Several scholars and commentators have traced the origin of American policing to the slave patrols in the American south. Slave patrols were composed primarily of lower class whites who put down insurrections of enslaved Africans and caught those who attempted to escape enslavement.

Armed with this information, no Black person should be shocked by the over-policing in our communities or by that campus police officer who flies on his Segway to the scene of a student protest, but is mysteriously missing when you need an escort.

The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense stated that the role of the police in Black communities is similar to that of an occupying army. The primary purpose of police is to protect property: Howard University, its image, reputation (oh yeah, and you, the student [intellectual property],too). Whether on campus or in the community, understanding that the purpose of the police is primarily one of social control can only serve to enlighten and enhance our inevitable interactions with them as Black youth.

This does not mean that individual Black policeman are our inherent enemies, but the police are an institution. Although individual Black policeman are our potential working class allies, unfortunately, that is not usually the case at Howard, or in the world.

As students, acknowledging and challenging the racial roots and consequences of policing—in all its forms–is an important step towards stopping the trend of criminal injustice in our communities.

Benjamin Woods M.P.S.
PhD Candidate
Howard University
(607)339-8188
www.free-the-land.blogspot.com
Sep 29

Israeli West Bank Annexation Bill

By No Comments

Israeli West Bank Annexation Bill – by Stephen Lendman

 

Palestinians petitioned the UN for sovereign recognition and full UN membership.

 

Four extremist MKs responded, calling for West Bank settlements annexed. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:

 

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/09/calls-to-annex-west-bank-settlements.html

 

MK Deputy Speaker Danny Danon wants more.

 

On September 27, the JTA Global News Service of the Jewish People headlined, “Knesset to vote on annexing the West Bank,” saying:

 

On September 27, Danon said the Knesset will “take up the bill, which he authored, at the end of October.”

 

It includes rescinding Israeli/PA financial obligations established by prior agreements. According to Danon:

 

“If the Palestinian Authority wishes to proceed on this reckless path and bring further instability to the region, Israel cannot continue to pour funds into this sinking ship of failed leadership.”

 

“The funding agreements with the PA were reached with the hope that their leaders would work to create an environment of lasting peace and security with Israel. Given that it is clear that the Palestinians have no such desire, Israel must no longer be required to stand by these arrangements.”

 

Palestinians, of course, want and deserve what Israel denied them for 63 years after stealing their homeland violently. Using long ago discredited arguments, Danon and others like him think Israel has a divine right to their land.

 

Growing millions globally disagree, including Israeli Jews and others everywhere able to distinguished between right and wrong.

 

Danon said his bill nullifies Oslo, stating:

 

“All obligations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority as established by international agreements….will be considered null and void.”

 

Oslo, of course, was a Palestinian Versailles, benefitting Israel, not them. Sovereign recognition and full UN membership are first steps to reversing unilateral surrender.

 

Representative Joe Walsh (R. IL) is as hardline as Danon. On September 8, he introduced HR 394:

 

“Supporting Israel’s right to annex Judea and Samaria (the West Bank and Jerusalem) in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to press for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.”

 

He didn’t address if that would make them Israeli citizens, subhuman serfs to be exploited, or illegal infiltrators on Israeli land, subject to arbitrary expulsion.

 

Nor did consider what right he, others in Washington, or outsiders anywhere have to meddle in internal Palestinian affairs. America, of course, long ago refined it to an art form, attested to by mass global deaths, destruction and human misery.

 

Walsh also introduced HR 2457: Palestinian Accountability Act:

 

“To restrict funds for the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes.”

 

In other words, obey or we’ll cut off your allowance. Coming with strings, it’s less aid than bondage to do what we say or we’ll spank you with more than harsh words.

 

On September 27, Turkish Prime Minister proposed a different solution than Walsh and hardline MKs. On September 27, Haaretz headlined, “Erdogan: UN sanctions on Israel could aid Mideast peace process,” saying:

 

Sanctions “would have resolved the issue of Mideast peace long ago….adding that he felt the Quartet(‘s)” proposal fell far short of resolving the longstanding Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

 

Through today, he said, “the UN Security Council has issued more than 89 resolutions on prospective sanctions related to Israel, but they’ve never been executed….One might” ask why?

 

“When it’s Iran in question, you impose sanctions. Similarly with Sudan. What happens with Israel then.”

 

If sanctioned, the “conflict would have been resolved long ago.” As a result, he believes the Quartet has no interest in resolution. “Unfortunately, I do not even see (its) traces within the Quartet. Because if (it) was so willing to resolve this issue, (it) would have imposed certain issues on Israel today.”

 

Of course, strained Turkey/Israeli relations place both countries on opposite sides of various issues, including Palestinian statehood.

 

Despite the Quartet’s anti-Palestinian UN membership proposal, Haaretz headlined, “Israel’s cabinet fails to reach consensus on Quartet plan for talks with Palestinians,” saying:

 

Netanyahu “and the eight senior cabinet members were unable to (agree on) the Quartet’s initiative for renewed talks between Israel and the Palestinians.”

 

Despite Netanyahu’s support, consensus so far isn’t reached. Meanwhile, Security Council deliberations continue on and off behind closed doors.

 

Reports disagree on whether Palestinians have nine needed votes to force a US veto. Haaretz said UN sources say Washington has enough support to avoid a it.

 

EU representatives acted like Joe Walsh to a degree, telling PA officials they risk losing European aid by acting “unilaterally.”

 

On September 28, Haaretz headlined, “Palestinian statehood bid to be reviewed by UN committee,” saying:

 

On Wednesday, the Security Council “unanimously agreed to hand the Palestinian application to join the United Nations to a committee” for review.

 

Normally, it takes “a maximum of 35 days, but Western diplomats say that this limit can be waived and might take much longer….”

 

In other words, delay, obstruct, and consign Palestinian membership to memory hole oblivion. It’s simple to get around it through the General Assembly, whether or not the Security Council provides support.

 

It recommends. The General Assembly alone admits new members provided Abbas goes that route properly.

 

A Final Comment

 

Palestinians have always been on their own since Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration, promising a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It included a hollow one to indigenous Palestinians that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.”

 

During its Mandate period, they were systematically denied until losing them in 1948, then entirely in 1967. Israel was born in the original sin of mass slaughter and forced expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians, wanting only to live in peace on their own land.

 

With full backing from Washington and Western states, Palestinians never got justice. Israel operates outside the law with impunity. Peace process conflict resolution never existed and doesn’t now.

 

Palestinians understand and want official sovereign recognition and full UN membership. In 1987, Law Professor Francis Boyle drafted its 1988 Declaration of Independence.

 

Through the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377, full UN membership is obtainable if Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad want it. A simple two-thirds General Assembly majority gets it.

 

On the Progressive Radio News Hour to air October 2, Boyle said the 170 nations support it, according to the Financial Times. If all 193 UN members vote, 129 are needed.

 

According to Boyle, if Abbas petitions the General Assembly under Resolution 377, full UN membership can be gotten in two weeks, making Palestine the body’s 194th member.

 

Despite enormous Washington/Israeli pressure to back down, what Palestinians have wanted for 63 years is within easy reach. It’s for Abbas and Fayyad now to follow through for them.

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

 

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Sep 29

Patriot Act: ‘Extreme Prejudice’ – Part 2

By No Comments

PressTV

Uploaded by PressTVGlobalNews
June 23, 2011

Interview with author/anti-war activist, Susan Lindauer who was jailed in a military prison in Texas for one year under the Patriot Act before the charges against her were dismissed.

She was unable to know what the specific charges were against her or who made them under this perversion of US Law.

She wrote about this experience in the book, ‘Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover-Ups of 9/11 and Iraq.’

See Part 1 of this Riveting Interview:

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/911/patriot-act-extreme-prejudice—part-1.html

Sep 29

Ten reasons why the U.S. war in Libya is a CIA operation

By No Comments

Arabian Sights…..

Ten reasons why the U.S. war in Libya is a CIA operation
*****

Chavez
US Plots to Topple Syria’s Assad, Seeks Libya Scenario there
“…The attack on Syria has begun, there have been some supposed peaceful protests and some deaths (…) and they are accusing the president [Assad] of killing his people…And then the Yankees come in to bomb the people in order to save them. What cynicism on the empire’s part…It’s the same model…Generate internal conflicts, bloodshed, in a country in order to then step in, seize its natural resources and make it a colony. It is a new model they have come up with,”
Chavez

*****

“The Holy Triumvirate – The United States, NATO and the European Union – can do whatever it wants in the world, to whomever it wants, for as long as it wants, and call it whatever it wants, like “humanitarian”.

William Blum

Libya And The World We Live In– Entire article below

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29006.htm

*****

“Why are you attacking us? Why are you killing our children? Why are you destroying our infrastructure?”
– Television address by Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi, April 30, 2011

“Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called “capitalism,” but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer, so, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following his path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us … I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it. … In the West, some have called me “mad”, “crazy”. They know the truth but continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip.”

“Recollections of My Life”, written by Col. Muammar Gaddafi, April 8, 2011, excerpts

William Blum

Libya and the world we live in

www.killinghope.org

Cheerleading For War
Stephen Lendman

When America goes to war, managed news goes with it spreading rumors, half-truths, misinformation, and willful deception about targeted nations, regimes and leaders, whether despots or democrats…

http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman240311.htm

Obama’s Imperial Twist: “Humanitarian” Regime Change in Libya
Glen Ford

President Obama demanded regime change in Libya more than three weeks ago, but now acts as if that’s not his policy. He will use the assault on Muamar Khadafi’s forces to introduce so-called “humanitarian intervention” as an anchor of the Obama Doctrine. Regime change will remain a basic tool, while the “humanitarian” ruse expands imperial options. Obama may well opt to turn Libya into a kind of protectorate, as Haiti has become. Meanwhile, France interprets the UN mandate in Libya as allowing the Euro-Americans to act as air support for the rebel armed forces, as the French did at Benghazi…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.de/?p=76143

Libyan “Revolutionaries” Aren’t So Revolutionary

Against the Empire
I’m amazed at the police state that they have designed and who is in power in Benghazi. It was no doubt a complete error on the part of so-called “progressives” to take the side of these rebel forces (never mind those who hailed them as “revolutionaries”).
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27771.htm

NATO is the enemy of the peoples of the world and peace

The uprisings in Libya have turned into a civil war. The fact that on one side is the Gaddafi dictatorship should not be used to hide the fact that the other side is backed by imperialist countries. Peace proponents must not allow this. The Libya National Council composed of the tribes that control the east of Libya, have launched an appeal for foreign intervention. This appeal should not be allowed to be used as the excuse imperialists have been looking for, most notably the USA which has been accumulating its navy in the region during the past days….
Unhand the Middle East!
Barış Derneği – Peace Association of Turkey

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.de/?p=76158

 

NATO: America’s Imperial Tool
Stephen Lendman

Operating lawlessly and recklessly as America’s “missile,” NATO threatens world peace, stability, security and survival. Disbanding it is more important than ever. Besides millions of Iraqi and Afghan victims, how many Libyan deaths are needed to prove it
http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman260311A.htm

 

Libya: NATO Acquires Military Outpost In Third Continent

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26327

 

Western Aggression on Libya
Stephen Lendman

 

March 23, 2011 – Make no mistake. Another Washington-led resource war targets Libya’s riches, besides wanting new US base locations for greater regional dominance. America doesn’t covet regional sun, sand and sea. “Humanitarian intervention” is a lie. So are notions about peace, not war, liberation, equity, justice, and other democratic values. Washington tolerates none of them abroad or at home, plundering the world roguishly. All US presidents are war criminals. Obama is one of the worst, doubling Bush’s lawlessness, adding Pakistan and Libya aggression to Iraq and Afghanistan, spending $1.5 trillion annually for militarism plus multi-trillion dollar handouts to Wall Street crooks, while pleading poverty to cut essential homeland social benefits…

Read the full article / Leggi l’articolo completo: http://www.uruknet.de/?p=76129

 

Minister Farrakhan on Ghaddafi & Libya
(Feb 27, 2011) 1 of 2
Minister Farrakhan on Ghaddafi & Libya
(Feb 27, 2011) 2 of 2
A diabolical ‘triumph’ in Tripoli?
The Obama administration and NATO allies were reveling in reports that so-called rebel forces had entered Libya’s capital Tripoli and were trying to consolidate control over the city. If the rebel claims hold true and if the pronouncements by Western governments are true, this is truly a sad day for those who love justice, progress and those who stand for the oppressed and the weak.

It also portends hard times ahead for Libya and its likely transformation back into a poverty-stricken backwater and haven ripe for misuse by Western imperialists. Their intention all along was never to protect civilians, as called for under UN Resolution 1973, but was always to open the way for the destruction of Libya’s revolutionary leader, Muammar Gadhafi, who Western nations really desired to kill and tried to kill through direct bombings of his personal compound

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/article_8121.shtml

Libya and the world we live in

William Blum

“Why are you attacking us? Why are you killing our children? Why are you destroying our infrastructure?”
– Television address by Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi, April 30, 2011

A few hours later NATO hit a target in Tripoli, killing Gaddafi’s 29-year-old son Saif al-Arab, three of Gaddafi’s grandchildren, all under twelve years of age, and several friends and neighbors.

In his TV address, Gaddafi had appealed to the NATO nations for a cease-fire and negotiations after six weeks of bombings and cruise missile attacks against his country.

Well, let’s see if we can derive some understanding of the complex Libyan turmoil.

The Holy Triumvirate — The United States, NATO and the European Union — recognizes no higher power and believes, literally, that it can do whatever it wants in the world, to whomever it wants, for as long as it wants, and call it whatever it wants, like “humanitarian”.

If The Holy Triumvirate decides that it doesn’t want to overthrow the government in Syria or in Egypt or Tunisia or Bahrain or Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Jordan, no matter how cruel, oppressive, or religiously intolerant those governments are with their people, no matter how much they impoverish and torture their people, no matter how many protesters they shoot dead in their Freedom Square, the Triumvirate will simply not overthrow them.

If the Triumvirate decides that it wants to overthrow the government of Libya, though that government is secular and has used its oil wealth for the benefit of the people of Libya and Africa perhaps more than any government in all of Africa and the Middle East, but keeps insisting over the years on challenging the Triumvirate’s imperial ambitions in Africa and raising its demands on the Triumvirate’s oil companies, then the Triumvirate will simply overthrow the government of Libya.

If the Triumvirate wants to punish Gaddafi and his sons it will arrange with the Triumvirate’s friends at the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for them.

If the Triumvirate doesn’t want to punish the leaders of Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Jordan it will simply not ask the ICC to issue arrest warrants for them. Ever since the Court first formed in 1998, the United States has refused to ratify it and has done its best to denigrate it and throw barriers in its way because Washington is concerned that American officials might one day be indicted for their many war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bill Richardson, as US ambassador to the UN, said to the world in 1998 that the United States should be exempt from the court’s prosecution because it has “special global responsibilities”. But this doesn’t stop the United States from using the Court when it suits the purposes of American foreign policy.

If the Triumvirate wants to support a rebel military force to overthrow the government of Libya then it does not matter how fanatically religious, al-Qaeda-related,1 executing-beheading-torturing, monarchist, or factionally split various groups of that rebel force are at times, the Triumvirate will support it, as it did certain forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and hope that after victory the Libyan force will not turn out as jihadist as it did in Afghanistan, or as fratricidal as in Iraq. One potential source of conflict within the rebels, and within the country if ruled by them, is that a constitutional declaration made by the rebel council states that, while guaranteeing democracy and the rights of non-Muslims, “Islam is the religion of the state and the principle source of legislation in Islamic Jurisprudence.”2

Adding to the list of the rebels’ charming qualities we have the Amnesty International report that the rebels have been conducting mass arrests of black people across the nation, terming all of them “foreign mercenaries” but with growing evidence that a large number were simply migrant workers. Reported Reuters (August 29): “On Saturday, reporters saw the putrefying bodies of 22 men of African origin on a Tripoli beach. Volunteers who had come to bury them said they were mercenaries whom rebels had shot dead.” To complete this portrait of the West’s newest darlings we have this report from The Independent of London (August 27): “The killings were pitiless. They had taken place at a makeshift hospital, in a tent marked clearly with the symbols of the Islamic crescent. Some of the dead were on stretchers, attached to intravenous drips. Some were on the back of an ambulance that had been shot at. A few were on the ground, seemingly attempting to crawl to safety when the bullets came.”

If the Triumvirate’s propaganda is clever enough and deceptive enough and paints a graphic picture of Gaddafi-initiated high tragedy in Libya, many American and European progressives will insist that though they never, ever support imperialism they’re making an exception this time because …

  • The Libyan people are being saved from a “massacre”, both actual and potential. This massacre, however, seems to have been grossly exaggerated by the Triumvirate, al Jazeera TV, and that station’s owner, the government of Qatar; and nothing approaching reputable evidence of a massacre has been offered, neither a mass grave or anything else; the massacre stories appear to be on a par with the Viagra-rape stories spread by al Jazeera (the Fox News of the Libyan uprising). Qatar, it should be noted, has played an active military role in the civil war on the side of NATO. It should be further noted that the main massacre in Libya has been six months of daily Triumvirate bombing, killing an unknown number of people and ruining much of the infrastructure. Michigan U. Prof. Juan Cole, the quintessential true-believer in the good intentions of American foreign policy who nevertheless manages to have a regular voice in progressive media, recently wrote that “Qaddafi was not a man to compromise … his military machine would mow down the revolutionaries if it were allowed to.” Is that clear, class? We all know of course that Sarkozy, Obama, and Cameron made compromises without end in their devastation of Libya; they didn’t, for example, use any nuclear weapons.
  • The United Nations gave its approval for military intervention; i.e., the leading members of the Triumvirate gave their approval, after Russia and China cowardly abstained instead of exercising their veto power; (perhaps hoping to receive the same courtesy from the US, UK and France when Russia or China is the aggressor nation).
  • The people of Libya are being “liberated”, whatever in the world that means, now or in the future. Gaddafi is a “dictator” they insist. That may indeed be the proper term to use for the man, but it must still be asked: Is he a relatively benevolent dictator or is he the other kind so favored by Washington? It must also be asked: Since the United States has habitually supported dictators for the entire past century, why not this one?

The Triumvirate, and its fawning media, would have the world believe that what’s happened in Libya is just another example of the Arab Spring, a popular uprising by non-violent protestors against a dictator for the proverbial freedom and democracy, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia and Egypt, which sandwich Libya. But there are several reasons to question this analysis in favor of seeing the Libyan rebels’ uprising as a planned and violent attempt to take power in behalf of their own political movement, however heterogeneous that movement might appear to be in its early stage. For example:

  1. They soon began flying the flag of the monarchy that Gaddafi had overthrown
  2. They were an armed and violent rebellion almost from the beginning; within a few days, we could read of “citizens armed with weapons seized from army bases”3 and of “the policemen who had participated in the clash were caught and hanged by protesters”4
  3. Their revolt took place not in the capital but in the heart of the country’s oil region; they then began oil production and declared that foreign countries would be rewarded oil-wise in relation to how much each country aided their cause
  4. They soon set up a Central Bank, a rather bizarre thing for a protest movement
  5. International support came quickly, even beforehand, from Qatar and al Jazeera to the CIA and French intelligence

The notion that a leader does not have the right to put down an armed rebellion against the state is too absurd to discuss.

Not very long ago, Iraq and Libya were the two most modern and secular states in the Mideast/North Africa world with perhaps the highest standards of living in the region. Then the United States of America came along and saw fit to make a basket case of each one. The desire to get rid of Gaddafi had been building for years; the Libyan leader had never been a reliable pawn; then the Arab Spring provided the excellent opportunity and cover. As to Why? Take your pick of the following:

  • Gaddafi’s plans to conduct Libya’s trading in Africa in raw materials and oil in a new currency — the gold African dinar, a change that could have delivered a serious blow to the US’s dominant position in the world economy. (In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars; sanctions and an invasion followed.) For further discussion see here.
  • A host-country site for Africom, the US Africa Command, one of six regional commands the Pentagon has divided the world into. Many African countries approached to be the host have declined, at times in relatively strong terms. Africom at present is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. According to a State Department official: “We’ve got a big image problem down there. … Public opinion is really against getting into bed with the US. They just don’t trust the US.”5
  • An American military base to replace the one closed down by Gaddafi after he took power in 1969. There’s only one such base in Africa, in Djibouti. Watch for one in Libya sometime after the dust has settled. It’ll perhaps be situated close to the American oil wells. Or perhaps the people of Libya will be given a choice — an American base or a NATO base.
  • Another example of NATO desperate to find a raison d’être for its existence since the end of the Cold War and the Warsaw Pact.
  • Gaddafi’s role in creating the African Union. The corporate bosses never like it when their wage slaves set up a union. The Libyan leader has also supported a United States of Africa for he knows that an Africa of 54 independent states will continue to be picked off one by one and abused and exploited by the members of the Triumvirate. Gaddafi has moreover demanded greater power for smaller countries in the United Nations.
  • The claim by Gaddafi’s son, Saif el Islam, that Libya had helped to fund Nicolas Sarkozy’s election campaign6 could have humiliated the French president and explain his obsessiveness and haste in wanting to be seen as playing the major role in implementing the “no fly zone” and other measures against Gaddafi. A contributing factor may have been the fact that France has been weakened in its former colonies and neo-colonies in Africa and the Middle East, due in part to Gaddafi’s influence.
  • Gaddafi has been an outstanding supporter of the Palestinian cause and critic of Israeli policies; and on occasion has taken other African and Arab countries, as well as the West, to task for their not matching his policies or rhetoric; one more reason for his lack of popularity amongst world leaders of all stripes.
  • In January, 2009, Gaddafi made known that he was considering nationalizing the foreign oil companies in Libya.7 He also has another bargaining chip: the prospect of utilizing Russian, Chinese and Indian oil companies. During the current period of hostilities, he invited these countries to make up for lost production. But such scenarios will now not take place. The Triumvirate will instead seek to privatize the National Oil Corporation, transferring Libya’s oil wealth into foreign hands.
  • The American Empire is troubled by any threat to its hegemony. In the present historical period the empire is concerned mainly with Russia and China. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya and elsewhere in Africa. The average American neither knows nor cares about this. The average American imperialist cares greatly, if for no other reason than in this time of rising demands for cuts to the military budget it’s vital that powerful “enemies” be named and maintained.
  • For yet more reasons, see the article “Why Regime Change in Libya?” by Ismael Hossein-zadeh, and the US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks — Wikileaks reference 07TRIPOLI967 11-15-07 (includes a complaint about Libyan “resource nationalism”)

 

 

 
The Libyan member of the transitional-piracy
is shooting at Hilary: ” Show me the cash !!”

While,
Hilary is looking up,  and ignoring him.

In her left hand, is an envelop,
just to keep him quite …..

Paris today 1st Sept.2011

Eng. Moustafa  Roosenbloom
Lip-reader

raja chemayel <chemayelraja@yahoo.co.uk>

Sep 29

From Cynthia McKinney: What I’m Watching Now‏

By No Comments

I’ve taken a break from my reading to unpack my suitcases and the many boxes of articles, messages, notes, business cards, dvd’s, etc. that I collected on the Truth Tour.  And while going through these things and trying to find a place for everything, I decided to watch some videos on the internet.  The documentaries were so compelling, I had to interrupt my project and send this message to you.

First, an example of depravity (not that we need any more in our lives):  Making the rounds is a BBC News segment of a young trader, Alessio Rastani, who says that he dreams of recessions because a recession and a market crash represent an opportunity to make a lot of money.  His warning is to get prepared because this economic crisis is like a cancer and it will not go away, it will grow.  When the Euro crashes, a lot of money can be made off of this.  He goes on to say that this is not a time to think that governments are going to sort things out.  “Governments don’t rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world.  Goldman Sachs does not care about this [European] rescue package.”

Look at this young man here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqN3amj6AcE& and figure out how we can do some reverse engineering on this fellow!  I think he needs a heart.

What made me decide to send this e-mail out was what I just finished watching:  a devastatingly shocking 2004 film about AIDS entitled, “Origin of AIDS:  The Polio Vaccine” done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation before they became like U.S. media.  “origin of AIDS” can be seen here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZs1V8mpcoY.  But please don’t stop there.  Please peruse the website that houses these fantastic documentaries:  http://drey.orgfree.com/Political/

From that website, right now, I’m watching the BBC’s 1992 documentary, “Operation Gladio:  State Sponsored Terrorism in Europe.”  And when this frame came on the screen, I had to stop and do this message:  “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.”  That quote is from James Jesus Angleton, Head of CIA Counter Intelligence 1954 – 1974.  That just about says it all.

Well, I’d better get back to work now.  I look forward to sending out what I am reading, too, some very interesting articles of late.  And, I also haven’t had a chance to provide an update on Fukushima.  I hope you all don’t think that problem has abated just because it’s not on the news every night.

–
http://dignity.ning.com/
http://www.enduswars.org
http://www.livestream.com/dignity
http://www.twitter.com/dignityaction
http://www.myspace.com/dignityaction
http://www.myspace.com/runcynthiarun
http://www.twitter.com/cynthiamckinney
http://www.facebook.com/CynthiaMcKinney
http://www.youtube.com/runcynthiarun

Silence is the deadliest weapon of mass destruction.

“When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.”
Yevgeny Yevtushenko

Sep 28

From Cynthia McKinney: Canadian journalist Mahdi Nazemroaya – Link to Important radio interview‏

By No Comments
Here is the 30 minutes that KPFK’s Freedom Now, hosted by Dedon Kamathi, spent with Mahdi Nazemroaya, among the last of the independent journalists to leave Libya.  He has agreed to present four new themes of information based on specific documents in his possession.  This is our first installment on the first topic, which is that there never was any evidence presented that caused the passage of United Nations Resolution 1973.  You will hear Mahdi explain how the carnage that is now taking place in Libya, indeed genocide, has no basis in fact, at all.  Mahdi calls names of complicit organizations that aided and abetted the takeoff of the allegation of massacres without any evidence of massacres at all.
Mahdi has deep evidence that I ask you to take 30 minutes now or at your convenience and hear.  More people are stepping forward telling me what they know.  We will continue to expose this information by allowing informed individuals, present at the various proceedings, to tell what they saw.  Listen now to Freedom Now with Mahdi here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZfcbcBbfYQ

and while you’re listening, please peruse Mahdi’s article again with special focus on the list of subscribing “human rights” organizations on this letter whose consent was critical to fast-tracking the carnage now taking place in Libya:
Now, here’s Mahdi’s very exhaustively documented article:

LIBYA AND THE BIG LIE: USING HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS TO LAUNCH WARS

 

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

 

The war against Libya is built on fraud. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims, specifically that Colonel Muammar Qaddafi was killing his own people in Benghazi. The claim in its exact form was that Qaddafi had ordered Libyan forces to kill 6,000 people in Benghazi. These claims were widely disseminated, but always vaguely explained. It was on the basis of this claim that Libya was referred to the U.N. Security Council at U.N Headquarters in New York City and kicked out of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.

 

False claims about African mercenary armies in Libya and about jet attacks on civilians were also used in a broad media campaign against Libya. These two claims have been sidelined and have become more and more murky. The massacre claims, however, were used in a legal, diplomatic, and military framework to justify NATO’s war on the Libyans.


Using Human Rights as a Pretext for War: The LLHR and its Unproven Claims

 

One of the main sources for the claim that Qaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR). The LLHR was actually pivotal to getting the U.N. involved through its specific claims in Geneva. On February 21, 2011 the LLHR got the 70 other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to sent letters to the President Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton., and the U.N. Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon demanding international action against Libya invoking the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Only 25 members of this coalition actually assert that they are human rights groups.

 

The letter is as follows:

We, the undersigned non-governmental, human rights, and humanitarian organizations, urge you to mobilize the United Nations and the international community and take immediate action to halt the mass atrocities now being perpetrated by the Libyan government against its own people. The inexcusable silence cannot continue.

As you know, in the past several days, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are estimated to have deliberately killed hundreds of peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders across the country. In the city of Benghazi alone, one doctor reported seeing at least 200 dead bodies. Witnesses report that a mixture of special commandos, foreign mercenaries and regime loyalists have attacked demonstrators with knives, assault rifles and heavy-caliber weapons.

Snipers are shooting peaceful protesters. Artillery and helicopter gunships have been used against crowds of demonstrators. Thugs armed with hammers and swords attacked families in their homes. Hospital officials report numerous victims shot in the head and chest, and one struck on the head by an anti-aircraft missile. Tanks are reported to be on the streets and crushing innocent bystanders. Witnesses report that mercenaries are shooting indiscriminately from helicopters and from the top of roofs. Women and children were seen jumping off Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi to escape. Many of them were killed by the impact of hitting the water, while others were drowned. The Libyan regime is seeking to hide all of these crimes by shutting off contact with the outside world. Foreign journalists have been refused entry. Internet and phone lines have been cut or disrupted.

There is no question here about intent. The government media has published open threats, promising that demonstrators would meet a “violent and thunderous response.”

Accordingly, the government of Libya is committing gross and systematic violations of the right to life as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Citizens seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are being massacred by the government.

Moreover, the government of Libya is committing crimes against humanity, as defined by the Explanatory Memorandum to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Libyan government’s mass killing of innocent civilians amount to particularly odious offences which constitute a serious attack on human dignity. As confirmed by numerous oral and video testimonies gathered by human rights organizations and news agencies, the Libyan government’s assault on its civilian population are not isolated or sporadic events. Rather, these actions constitute a widespread and systematic policy and practice of atrocities, intentionally committed, including murder, political persecution and other inhumane acts which reach the threshold of crimes against humanity.

Responsibility to Protect

Under the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, you have a clear and unambiguous responsibility to protect the people of Libya. The international community, through the United Nations, has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect the Libyan population. Because the Libyan national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their population from crimes against humanity, should peaceful means be inadequate, member states are obliged to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII.

In addition, we urge you to convene an emergency Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council, whose members have a duty, under UNGA Resolution 60/251, to address situations of gross and systematic violations of violations of human rights. The session should:

•Call for the General Assembly to suspend Libya’s Council membership, pursuant to Article 8 of Resolution 60/251, which applies to member states that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights.

•Strongly condemn, and demand an immediate end to, Libya’s massacre of its own citizens.

•Dispatch immediately an international mission of independent experts to collect relevant facts and document violations of international human rights law and crimes against humanity, in order to end the impunity of the Libyan government. The mission should include an independent medical investigation into the deaths, and an investigation of the unlawful interference by the Libyan government with the access to and treatment of wounded.

•Call on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights and the Council’s relevant Special Procedures to closely monitor the situation and take action as needed.

•Call on the Council to remain seized of the matter and address the Libyan situation at its upcoming 16th regular session in March.

Member states and high officials of the United Nations have a responsibility to protect the people of Libya from what are preventable crimes. We urge you to use all available measures and levers to end atrocities throughout the country.

We urge you to send a clear message that, collectively, the international community, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council will not be bystanders to these mass atrocities. The credibility of the United Nations — and many innocent lives — are at stake. [1]

 

According to Physicians for Human Rights: “[This letter was] prepared under the guidance of Mohamed Eljahmi, the noted Libyan human rights defender and brother of dissident Fathi Eljahmi, asserts that the widespread atrocities committed by Libya against its own people amount to war crimes, requiring member states to take action through the Security Council under the responsibility to protect doctrine.” [2]

 

The letters signatories included Francis Fukuyama, United Nations Watch (which looks out for Israel’s interests), B’nai B’rith Human Rights Commission, the Cuban Democratic Directorate, and a set of organizations at odds with the governments of Nicaragua, Cuba, Sudan, Russia, Venezuela, and Libya. Some of these organizations are viewed with hostility as organizations created to wage demonization campaigns against countries at odds with the U.S., Israel, and the European Union. Refer to the annex for the full list of signatories for consultation.

 

LLHR is tied to the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), which is based in France and has ties to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). FIDH is active in many places in Africa and in activities involving the National Endowment for Democracy. Both the FIDH and LLHR also released a joint communiqué on February 21, 2011. In the communiqué both organizations asked for the international community to “mobilize” and mention the International Criminal Court while also making a contradictory claiming that over 400 to 600 people had died since February 15, 2011. [3] This of course was about 5,500 short of the claim that 6,000 people were massacred in Benghazi. The joint letter also promoted the false view that 80% of Qaddafi’s support came from foreign mercenaries, which is something that over half a year of fighting proves as untrue.

 

According to the General-Secretary of the LLHR, Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, the claims about the massacres in Benghazi could not be validated by the LLHR when he was challenged for proof. When asked how a group of 70 non-governmental organizations in Geneva could support the LLHR’s claims on Geneva, Dr. Buchuiguir has answered that a network of close relationship was the basis. This is a mockery.

Speculation is neither evidence nor grounds for starting a war with a bombing campaign that has lasted about half a year and taken many innocent civilian lives, including children and the elderly. What is important to note here is that the U.N. Security Council decided to sanction the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on the basis of this letter and the claims of the LLHR. Not once did the U.N. Security Council and the member states pushing for war once bother to even investigate the allegations. In one session in New York City, the Indian Ambassador to the U.N. actually pointed this out when his country abstained from voting.

 

Thus, a so-called “humanitarian war” was launched without any evidence.


The Secret Relationship between the LLHR and the Transitional Council

 

The claims of the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) were coordinated with the formation of the Transitional Council. This becomes clear with when the close and cagey relationship of the LLHR and the Transitional Council becomes apparent. Logically, the Obama Administration and NATO had to also be a part of this.

 

Whatever the Transitional Council is and whatever the intent of some of its supporters, it is clear that it is being used as a tool by the U.S. and others.  Moreover, five members of the LLHR were or would become members of the Transitional Council almost immediately after the claims against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya were disseminated. According to Bouchuguir this includes Mahmoud Jibril and Ali Tarhouni.

Dr. Mahmoud Jibril is a Libyan regime figure brought into Libyan government circles by Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi. He would undemocratically be given the position of Transitional Council prime minister. His involvement with the LLHR raises some real questions about the organization.

 

The economist Ali Tarhouni on the other hand would become the minister for oil and finance for the Transitional Council. Tarhouni is Washington’s man in Libya. He was groomed in the United States and was present at all the major meetings about plans for regime change in Libya. As Minister of Oil and Finance the first acts he did were privatize and virtually handover Libya’s energy resources and economy.

The General-Secretary of the LLHR, Sliman Bouchuiguir, has even privately admitted that many influential members of the Transitional Council are his friends. A real question of interests arises. Yet, the secret relationship between the LLHR and the Transitional Council is far more than a question of conflict of interest. It is a question of justice and manipulation.


Who is Sliman Bouchuiguir?

 

Sliman Bouchuguir is an unheard of figure for most, but he has authored a doctoral thesis that has been widely quoted and used in strategic circles in the United States. This thesis was published in 1979 as a book, The Use of Oil as a Political Weapon: A Case Study of the 1973 Arab oil Embargo. The thesis is about the use of oil as an economic weapon by Arabs, but can easily be applied to the Russians, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, and others. It examines economic development and economic warfare and can also be applied to vast regions, including all of Africa.

 

Bouchuguir’s analytical thesis reflects an important line of thinking in Washington, as well as London and Tel Aviv. It is both the embodiment of a pre-existing mentality, which includes U.S. National Security Advisor George F. Kennan’s arguments for maintaining a position of disparity through a constant multi-faced war between the U.S. and its allies on one hand and the rest of the world on the other hand. The thesis can be drawn on for preventing the Arabs, or others, from becoming economic powers or threats. In strategic terms rival economies are pinned as threats and as “weapons.” This has serious connotations.

Moreover, Bouchuiguir did his thesis at George Washington University under Bernard Reich. Reich is a political scientist and professor of international relations. He has worked and held positions at places like the U.S. Defense Intelligence College, the United States Air Force Special Operations School, the Marine Corps War College, and the Shiloah Center at Tel Aviv University. He has consulted on the Middle East for the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. State Department and received grants such as the Defense Academic Research Support Program Research grant and the German Marshal Fund Grant. Reich also was or is presently on the editorial boards of journals such as Israel Affairs (1994-present),Terrorism: An International Journal (1987-1994), and The New Middle East (1971-1973).

 

It is also clear that Reich is tied to Israeli interests. He has even written a book about the special relationship between the U.S and Israel. He has also been an advocate for a “New Middle East” which would be favourable to Israel. This includes careful consideration over North Africa. His work has also focused on the important strategic interface between the Soviet Union and the Middle East and also on Israeli policy in the continent of Africa.

 

It is clear why Bouchuiguir has his thesis supervised under Reich. On October 23, 1973, Reich gave a testimony at the U.S. Congress. The testimony has been named “The Impact of the October Middle East War” and is clearly tied to the 1973 oil embargo and Washington’s aim of pre-empting or managing any similar events in the future. It has to be asked, how much did Reich influence Bouchuiguir and if Bouchuiguir espouses the same strategic views as Reich?


The “New North Africa” and a “New Africa” – More than just a “New Middle East”

 

A “New Africa” is in the works, which will have its borders further drawn out in blood like in the past. The Obama Administration and its allies have opened the gateway for a new invasion of Africa. United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) opened the salvos of the war through Operation Odyssey Damn, before the war on Libya was transferred to NATO’ Operation Unified Protector.

 

The U.S. has used NATO to continue the occupation of post-Second World War Europe. It will now use AFRICOM to occupy Africa and create an African NATO. It is clear the U.S. wants an expanded military presence in Libya and Africa under the disguise of humanitarian aid missions and fighting terrorism – the same terrorism that it is fanning in Libya and Africa.

 

The way is being paved for intervention in Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism. General Carter Ham has stated: “If we were to launch a humanitarian operation, how do we do so effectively with air traffic control, airfield management, [and] those kind of activities?” [4] General Ham’s question is actually a sales pitch for fashioning African military partnerships and integration, as well as new bases that could include the use of more military drones against Libya and other African countries. The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) have both made it clear that the Pentagon is actively trying to establish more drone bases in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula to expand its wars. [WP] In this context, the AFRICOM Commander that there are ties between the Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in North Africa, and the Boko Harem in Nigeria. [6]


The War in Libya is a Fraud

 

General Ham has said: “I remain confident that had the U.N. not made the decision, had the U.S. not taken the lead with great support, I’m absolutely convinced there are many, many people in Benghazi alive today who would not be [alive].” [7] This is not true and a far stretch from reality. The war has cost more lives than it could have ever saved. It has ruined a country and opened the door into Africa for a neo-colonial project.

 

The claims of the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) were never supported or verified. The credibility of United Nations must be questioned as well as many humanitarian and human rights organizations that have virtually pushed for a war. At best the U.N. Security Council is an irresponsible body, but it has clearly acted outside of due legal process. This pattern now appears to be repeating itself against the Syrian Arab Republic as unverified claims are being made by individuals and organizations supported by foreign powers that care nothing for authentic democratic reforms or liberty.

 

NOTES

 

[1] United Nations Watch et al., “Urgent Appeal to Stop Atrocities in Libya: Sent by 70 NGOs to the US, EU, and UN,” February 21, 2011:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1330815&ct=9135143

 

[2] Physicians for Human Rights, “PHR and Human Rights Groups Call for Immediate Action in Libya,” February 22, 2011:

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/press/press-releases/news-2011-02-22-libya.html

[3] The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR), “Massacres in Libya: The international community must urgently,” respond, February 21, 2011:

http://www.fidh.org/IMG/article_PDF/article_a9183.pdf

 

[4] Jim Garamone, “Africa Command Learns from Libya Operations,” American Forces Press Service, September 15, 2011:

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65344&reason=1

 

[5] Gregory Miller and Craig Whitlock, “U.S. U.S. assembling secret drone bases in Africa, Arabian Peninsula, officials say,” The Washington Post, September 20, 2011; Julian E. Barnes, “U.S. Expands Drone Flights to Take Aim at East Africa,” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), September 21, 2011.

[6] Garamone, “Africa Command Learns,” Op. cit.

[7] Ibid.

 

ANNEX: SIGNATORY OF THE URGENT LETTER FOR ACTION ON LIBYA

February 12, 2011 – Geneva, Switzerland

 

1. Hillel C. Neuer, United Nations Watch, Switzerland
2. Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, Libyan League for Human Rights, Switzerland
3. Mary Kay Stratis, Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc., USA
4. Carl Gershman, President, The National Endowment for Democracy, USA
5. Yang Jianli, Initiatives for China, USA - Former prisoner of conscience and survivor of Tiananmen Square massacre
6. Yang Kuanxing, YIbao - Chinese writer, original signatory to Charter 08, the manifesto calling for political reform in China
7. Matteo Mecacci, MP, Nonviolent Radical Party, Italy
8. Frank Donaghue, Physicians for Human Rights, USA
9. Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Stop Child Executions, Canada
10. Bhawani Shanker Kusum, Gram Bharati Samiti, India
11. G. Jasper Cummeh, III, Actions for Genuine Democratic Alternatives, Liberia
12. Michel Monod, International Fellowship of Reconciliation, Switzerland
13. Esohe Aghatise, Associazione Iroko Onlus, Italy
14. Harris O. Schoenberg, UN Reform Advocates, USA
15. Myrna Lachenal, World Federation for Mental Health, Switzerland
16. Nguyên Lê Nhân Quyên, Vietnamese League for Human Rights, Switzerland
17. Sylvia G. Iriondo, Mothers and Women against Repression (M.A.R. Por Cuba), USA
18. David Littman, World Union for Progressive Judaism, Switzerland
19. Barrister Festus Okoye, Human Rights Monitor, Nigeria
20. Theodor Rathgeber, Forum Human Rights, Germany
21. Derik Uya Alfred, Kwoto Cultural Center, Juba – Southern Sudan
22. Carlos E Tinoco, Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia, A.C., Venezuela
23. Abdurashid Abdulle Abikar, Center for Youth and Democracy, Somalia
24. Dr. Vanee Meisinger, Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women’s Association, Thailand
25. Simone Abel, René Cassin, United Kingdom
26. Dr. Francois Ullmann, Ingenieurs du Monde, Switzerland
27. Sr Catherine Waters, Catholic International Education Office, USA
28. Gibreil Hamid, Darfur Peace and Development Centre, Switzerland
29. Nino Sergi, INTERSOS – Humanitarian Aid Organization, Italy
30. Daniel Feng, Foundation for China in the 21st Century
31. Ann Buwalda, Executive Director, Jubilee Campaign, USA
32. Leo Igwe, Nigerian Humanist Movement, Nigeria
33. Chandika Gautam, Nepal International Consumers Union, Nepal
34. Zohra Yusuf, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan
35. Sekou Doumbia, Femmes & Droits Humains, Mali
36. Cyrille Rolande Bechon, Nouveaux Droits de l’Homme, Cameroon
37. Zainab Al-Suwaij, American Islamic Congress, USA
38. Valnora Edwin, Campaign for Good Governance, Sierra Leone
39. Patrick Mpedzisi, African Democracy Forum, South Africa
40. Phil ya Nangoloh, NamRights, Namibia
41. Jaime Vintimilla, Centro Sobre Derecho y Sociedad (CIDES), Ecuador
42. Tilder Kumichii Ndichia, Gender Empowerment and Development, Cameroon
43. Amina Bouayach, Moroccan Organisation for Human Rights, Morocco
44. Abdullahi Mohamoud Nur, CEPID-Horn Africa, Somalia
45. Delly Mawazo Sesete, Resarch Center on Environment, Democracy & Human Rights, DR Congo
46. Joseph Rahall, Green Scenery, Sierra Leone
47. Arnold Djuma, Solidarité pour la Promotion Sociale et la Paix, Rwanda
48. Panayote Dimitras, Greek Helsinki Monitor, Greece
49. Carlos E. Ponce, Latina American and Caribbean Network for Democracy, Venezuela
50. Fr. Paul Lansu, Pax Christi International, Belgium
51. Tharsika Pakeerathan, Swiss Council of Eelam Tamils, Switzerland
52. Ibrahima Niang, Commission des Droits Humains du Mouvement Citoyen, Senegal
53. Virginia Swain, Center for Global Community and World Law, USA
54. Dr Yael Danieli, International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, USA
55. Savita Gokhale, Loksadhana, India
56. Hasan Dheeree, Biland Awdal Organization, Somalia
57. Pacifique Nininahazwe, Forum pour le Renforcement de la Société Civile, Burundi
58. Derik Uya Alfred, Kwoto Cultural Center, Southern Sudan
59. Michel Golubnichy, International Association of Peace Foundations, Russia
60. Edward Ladu Terso, Multi Media Training Center, Sudan
61. Hafiz Mohammed, Justice Africa Sudan, Sudan
62. Sammy Eppel, B’nai B’rith Human Rights Commission, Venezuela
63. Jack Jeffery, International Humanist and Ethical Union, United Kingdom
64. Duy Hoang, Viet Tan, Vietnam
65. Promotion de la Democratie et Protection des Droits Humains, DR Congo
66. Radwan A. Masmoudi, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy, USA
67. María José Zamora Solórzano, Movimiento por Nicaragua, Nicaragua
68. John Suarez, Cuban Democratic Directorate, USA
69. Mohamed Abdul Malek, Libya Watch, United Kingdom
70. Journalists Union of Russia, Russia
71. Sindi Medar-Gould, BAOBAB for Women’s Human Rights, Nigeria
72. Derik Uya Alfred, Kwoto Cultural Centre, Sudan
73. Sr. Anne Shaym, Presentation Sisters, Australia
74. Joseph Rahad, Green Scenery, Sierra Leone
75. Fahma Yusuf Essa, Women in Journalism Association, Somalia
76. Hayder Ibrahim Ali, Sudanese Studies Center, Sudan
77. Marcel Claude Kabongo, Good Governance and Human Rights NGO, DR Congo
78. Frank Weston, International Multiracial Shared Cultural Organization (IMSCO), USA
79. Fatima Alaoui, Maghrebin Forum for environment and development, Morocco
80. Ted Brooks, Committee for Peace and Development Advocacy, Liberia
81. Felly Fwamba, Cerveau Chrétien, DR Congo
82. Jane Rutledge, CIVICUS: World Alliance of Citizen Participation, South Africa
83. Ali AlAhmed, The Institute for Gulf Affairs, USA
84. Daniel Ozoukou, Martin Luther King Center for Peace and Social Justice, Cote d’Ivoire
85. Dan T. Saryee, Liberia Democratic Institute (LDI), Liberia

Individuals
Dr. Frene Ginwala, former Speaker of the South African National Assembly
Philosopher Francis Fukuyama
Mohamed Eljahmi, Libyan human rights activist
Glenn P. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer, Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc., father of Beth Ann Johnson, victim of Lockerbie bombing

Source: UN Watch (Refer to note 1)

–
http://dignity.ning.com/
http://www.enduswars.org
http://www.livestream.com/dignity
http://www.twitter.com/dignityaction
http://www.myspace.com/dignityaction
http://www.myspace.com/runcynthiarun
http://www.twitter.com/cynthiamckinney
http://www.facebook.com/CynthiaMcKinney
http://www.youtube.com/runcynthiarun

Silence is the deadliest weapon of mass destruction.

“When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie.”
Yevgeny Yevtushenko

Sep 28

Calls to Annex West Bank Settlements

By No Comments

Calls to Annex West Bank Settlements - by Stephen Lendman

 

Since 1967, Israel established 121 settlements, recognized by the Interior Ministry as “communities.” Another 100 unauthorized outposts were built.

 

In addition, 12 annexed Jerusalem neighborhoods are considered settlements under international law. Moreover, settler enclaves exist in Palestinian East Jerusalem areas. They include:

  • the Old City’s Muslim Quarter;

 

  • Silwan;

 

  • Sheikh Jarrah;

 

  • Mount of Olives;

 

  • Ras al-’Amud;

 

  • Abu Dis; and

 

  • Jabal al-Mukabber.

 

Overall, Israeli occupied territory, including settlements, exceeds 40% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, its choicest parts.

 

However, for extremist MKs, it’s not enough. They want all Judea and Samaria west of the Jordan River, comprising the West Bank and Jerusalem. For now, however, they’ll settle for annexing occupied settlements.

 

On September 27, Haaretz writer Jonathan Lis headlined, “Israel must annex West Bank settlements, right-wing MKs tell Netanyahu,” saying:

 

In response to Palestinians petitioning the UN for statehood, the following MKs responded to their “unilateral” move:

  • Likud chairman Ze’ev Elkin;

 

  • Shas chairman Avraham Michaeli;

 

  • Habayit Hayehudi (the Jewish Home) chairman Uri Orbach; and

 

  • National Union MK Yaakov Katz.

 

They want Netanyahu to initiate steps to annex “all West Bank settlements; (cut or eliminate) Palestinian aid money; (accelerate) settlement building; (cancel) PA officials’ VIP ID cards; and (prohibit) any Palestinian construction in areas controlled by Israeli security forces.”

 

Stopping short of declaring war, they wrote Netanyahu:

 

“The PA’s UN bid on unilateral recognition is a blunt breach of (Oslo and subsequent agreements), which have, in the last 18 years, taken their severe toll on us.”

 

It condemned states involved in the Accords, now deliberating whether or not to support Palestine’s bid.

 

“We call upon you to make it clear to those nations that their conduct during this crisis rules them out (as) mediators in future negotiations, (warning that) serious damage could befall Israel if it chooses to avoid response.”

 

Israel would “completely lose its deterrence, thus stimulating the Palestinians to continue their actions against it in the international arena.”

 

“In fact, the international damage that Israel could suffer in the wake of the UN vote is significantly smaller than that it would suffer if it doesn’t follow up on the principle you set up a decade ago – ‘If they give, they’ll get; if they don’t give, they get nothing.’ ”

 

Fact check

 

In 1948, they “gave” 78% of historic Palestine. The rest followed in 1967.

 

In return, they “got” occupation, persecution, violence, premeditated war, mass arrests, imprisonments, torture, intimidation, daily terror, dispossessions, targeted assassinations, and loss of all rights.

 

Now they want them back under statehood and full UN membership. After 63 years, they want justice long denied. They’ll settle for nothing less nor should they.

 

According to Maan News, not only won’t Netanyahu agree, he wants more, including no end to settlement construction.

 

“We already gave at the office,” he said, referring to an alleged 10-month moratorium during which time construction never stopped. Israel’s land grab continued.

 

In many settlements, building proceeded apace. Dozens of construction sites remained active. Building on 2,000 units continued. Not even a visible slowdown occurred. Like its Washington paymaster/partner, Israel said one thing but did another.

 

Now it’s doing more. Netanyahu called settlements “a pretext (Palestinians) use again and again….as a ruse to avoid direct negotiations.”

 

Moreover, he won’t halt construction, including plans for 1,100 new East Jerusalem Gilo neighborhood homes.

 

“I don’t think there is anything new,” he said. “We plan in Jerusalem. We build in Jerusalem. Period. (It’s) the same way Israeli governments have (operated for) years – since the end of the 1967 war.”

 

“We build in Jewish neighborhoods. The Arabs build in Arab neighborhoods. That is the way the life of this city goes on and develops for its Jewish and non-Jewish residents alike.”

 

In fact, East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. Israel is systematically dispossessing Palestinians to entirely Judaize it. Indeed, it’s way life “goes on” for Arabs to lose out so Jews alone can benefit.

 

An unnamed State Department official called Israel’s decision “counterproductive to the resumption of direct negotiations. Our position has not changed.”

 

“Like every America administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and two-state solution, but to Israel’s future itself.”

 

At the same time, Haaretz said US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro never favored making a freeze a condition for negotiations, saying:

 

“We’ve never said that, in this administration or any other, as a precondition for talks. What we have said consistently is that we believe direct talks are the only way to resolve this conflict, and (it) can only be resolved by the parties themselves in those talks, and they should be entered without preconditions.”

 

In other words, Washington calls construction “counterproductive” to peace, but rejects its continuation on stolen Palestinian land as a reason to halt talks that never worked before and won’t now.

 

Israel won’t tolerate peace so why bother, but wants its terms imposed unilaterally to impose unconditional surrender.

 

Imagine if South African Blacks required their apartheid government’s permission to end the abhorrent practice. In fact, it took decades of struggle to achieve it.

 

Under it, pass laws segregated blacks from whites, restricted their movements, required pass books be carried at all times, and produced on demand or face arrest and prosecution.

 

Evolving from the 18th and 19th century until their 1986 repeal, they restricted entry to cities, forcibly relocated blacks, denied them most public amenities and many forms of employment, and became apartheid’s most hated symbol.

 

Under Israeli military occupation, repression is worse than South Africa’s. It’s a sophisticated form of social, economic, political and racial discrimination, strangulation, and genocide.

 

It incorporates the worst elements of colonialism and apartheid as well as repressive dispossession, displacement, and state terrorism to separate Palestinians from their land and heritage, deny them their rightful civil and human rights, and gradually remove or eliminate them altogether.

 

Apartheid is the worst form of racism. Israeli militarized occupation is the worst form of apartheid, incorporating violence, military incursions, land theft, home demolitions, targeted assassinations, murder, mass arrests, torture, destruction of agricultural land, and isolation. These measures amount to genocide, including suffocating Gazans under siege.

 

On Monday, a divided Security Council began closed door discussions. Washington urged other members to delay enough to consign Palestine’s petition to memory hole oblivion.

 

The Palestine News & Information Agency (WAFA) reported Washington saying:

 

“There is no rush to act on the bid submitted Friday. The US has vowed to veto the Palestinian resolution and would prefer to avoid (an embarrassing) vote on the matter. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe confidential diplomacy.”

 

Israeli settlers claim “This is Israel’s land,” no matter how long Palestinians lived on it as their own peacefully with a small Jewish population as neighbors.

 

In contrast, Arabs are barred from Jewish communities. As a result, they deserve their own sovereign state to escape a system as oppressive as how Nazis terrorized Jews. After 63 years, they’re entitled to that an more.

 

A Final Comment

 

On September 25, JTA Global News Service of the Jewish People said:

 

“Top White House officials briefed Jewish community leaders about (the) Quartet(‘s proposal), urging Israelis and Palestinians to return to talks with no preconditions, a key Israeli demand.”

 

What about Palestinian “demands,” including the right to decide their own fate, not have Israel do it for them its way.

 

The Islamophobic Anti-Defamation League praised the call for no-condition talks, but wants Palestinians “sent the clearest possible message (that) the sole path to statehood lies in direct negotiations with Israel” so it has sole authority to decide.

 

In fact, most UN member states believe Palestine already is a state. At issue is its belligerent occupation, the longest in modern history.

 

PLO Executive Committee member and PA legislator Hanan Ashrawi raised the possibility of using the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 in the General Assembly for statehood.

 

In 1987, Law Professor Francis Boyle was Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) legal advisor in drafting  its 1988 Declaration of Independence. It was a roadmap designed to succeed, avoiding legal loopholes to subvert it.

 

On Sunday, October 2, on the Progressive Radio News, Hour, Boyle will explain how Palestinians can achieve it in days.

 

Given their overwhelming world support, it’s simple by following proper procedure through the General Assembly under Resolution 377.

 

At issue only is do Abbas and Fayyad want it. Listen Sunday to hear an expert explain.

 

He should know. He wrote the book on it and understands its fine points better than anyone.

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

 

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Sep 27

Putin Bashing

By No Comments

Putin Bashing – by Stephen Lendman

On September 24, Russia’s Vladimir Putin announced he’ll run again for president in 2012 after serving eight years as Dmitry Medvedev’s Prime Minister.

 

America’s media have better memories than elephants. In November 2007, they recall Putin on National Unity Day telling military cadets and youth groups that while:

 

“an overwhelming majority of people in the world,” are friendly toward Russia, some “keep saying to this day that our nation should be split. Some believe that we are too lucky to possess so much natural wealth, which they say must be divided.”

 

In a thinly veiled reference to America, he added, “(t)hese people have lost their mind. (They) would like to build a unipolar world and rule over all mankind. Nothing of this kind has ever occurred in our planet’s history, and I don’t think it will ever happen.”

 

On August 1, 2011 Reuters headlined, “Putin says US is “parasite” on global economy,” saying:

 

Putin accused America “of living beyond its means ‘like a parasite’ on the global economy and said dollar dominance was a threat to the financial markets.”

 

If America is in “systemic malfunction,” he added, it affects everyone. Indeed so, and Putin is outspoken  saying it.

 

A Lost Decade Under Yeltsin

 

Serving from July 1991 – December 31, 1999 as Russia’s first president, Boris Yeltsin was a political criminal.

 

During his tenure, 80% of Russian farmers went bankrupt, 70,000 state factories closed, an epidemic of unemployment raged, half or more of all Russians became impoverished, a permanent underclass was created, and crime, suicides, mortality, alcoholism, drug abuse, and HIV/AIDS soared to intolerable levels.

 

Mandated “shock therapy” produced economic genocide. GDP plunged 50%. Life expectancy fell. Democratic freedoms died. An oligarch class accumulated enormous wealth at the expense of millions of harmed Russians.

 

Contemptuously ignoring essential needs, human rights and civil liberties, Yeltsin let corruption and criminality flourish. One scandal followed another. Money-laundering became sport. Many billions in stolen wealth were hidden in Western banks or offshore tax havens.

 

He surrounded himself with like-minded apparachiks. He used his Russian Federation presidency to boost his own political power. Months later the Soviet Union dissolved.

 

Decisions were made behind closed doors, implemented without popular consent. Western imperialism backed them to exploit former Republics’ wealth, resources and people.

 

In August 1991, Yeltsin shelled, then disbanded parliament, killing hundreds in a barrage of tank fire on Moscow streets. Afterwards he imposed new constitutional authority, giving himself unlimited powers by stripping it from legislators. It was Yeltsin-style democracy, a mockery of the real thing.

 

His confrontations with parliament caused the October 1993 constitutional crisis when members tried removing him from office. Nonetheless, he kept power until resigning on December 31, 1999.

 

Commenting on him before his April 2007 death, Vitalii Tret’iakov, former editor-in-chief of Nezavisimaia Gazeta, wrote:

 

“(F)or the greater part of his presidency, Yeltsin slept, drank, was ill, relaxed, didn’t show his face before the people and simply did nothing.”

 

“Despised by the majority of (Russians, he’ll) go down in history as the first president of Russia, having corrupted (the country) to the breaking point, not by his virtues and or by his defects, but rather by his dullness, primitiveness, and unbridled power lust of a hooligan.”

 

Yet Western governments and media scoundrels hailed his democratic change. More accurately, he represented “free market” gangsterism, characterized by unprecedented levels of misery during his tenure.

 

Over a decade later, another generation may be needed to recover from the human wreckage he caused.

 

Western Media on Putin in 2012

 

On September 25, Russia Today (RT) speculated about what Russia under him again would mean. Britain’s Financial Times “believes that Putin’s presidential comeback could mar relations with Washington….”

 

Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told RT these “claims reveal that many Western politicians do not understand what is happening in Russia.”

 

“Many of the world’s press have descended into gloom, questioning the prospects for democracy and civil society in Russia” instead of focusing on erosions back home.

 

Observer newspaper editors suggested Russia might slip “from democracy back towards autocracy.” It already has in Britain where Cameron officials gave police the right to prevent far-right groups from marching through five London boroughs for 30 days.

 

Civil rights activists called it a dangerous precedent, letting police decide where or when free expression is permitted. Today it’s against “far-right” groups, tomorrow perhaps everyone very much the case more often in America.

 

Commenting on his 2012 plans, Wall Street Journal writers Richard Boudreaux. Alexander Kolyandr and Alan Cullison headlined, “Putin to Return to Presidency,” saying:

 

“Medvedev was widely seen as a seat warmer for his 58-year old mentor….”

 

Outspoken Putin critic Boris Nemtsov (former Deputy Prime Minister under Yeltsin) was quoted, saying:

 

“This is the worst scenario for Russia. We can expect migration, capital flight, dependence on natural resources and enormous corruption in politics.”

 

Corruption indeed remains a major problem, but Putin’s economic record was impressive. He transformed Russia from Yeltsin’s basket case to a magnet for foreign investment.

 

Moreover, living standards doubled. GDP rose 70%. Nearly all Russia’s foreign debt was repaid. About $402 billion in foreign currency reserves were accumulated.

 

In 2008 dollars, GDP grew from $200 billion in 1999 to $1.26 trillion in 2007. Russia rose from the world’s 20th largest economy to seventh ranked. Trade increased from 17% of GDP in 1990 to 48% in 2004.

 

The Journal writers also called Putin’s announcement “a likely setback for the Obama administration” that built good relations with Medvedev.

 

They cited David Kramer, executive director of the CIA-linked Freedom House, saying arms control and trade agreements will likely suffer because Congress is hostile to Putin, especially Republicans.

 

“The Russian strongman likes to hold up the West, and particularly the United States, as a threat. That will not help.”

 

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor struck a more positive note, saying he’s confident relations will stay positive and improve, “build(ing) on the progress” already made.

 

After discord during the Bush administration, Vice President Biden signaled a shift toward “cooperation and consultation” in a February 7, 2009 speech, adding:

 

The “last few years have seen a dangerous drift in relations between Russia and our (NATO allies). It’s time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should work together.”

 

Vietor said Washington’s “reset” policy remains unchanged, focusing on “national interests and not individual personalities.”

 

The Journal writers also quoted former Soviet dissident Gleb Pavlovsky, a Medvedev supporter saying, (i)t’s political suicide that he of course has a right to commit.”

 

National Bolshevik Party founder Eduard Limonov called Putin “better than Medvedev (as) a symbol of the enemy.”

 

On September 25, a Washington Post editorial headlined, “Russia’s corruptionism,” saying:

 

“Vladimir Putin decided that he would like to be president again, and so he will be. This may be good news for Dmitry Medvedev, the hapless incumbent whom Mr. Putin installed in the Kremlin in 2008….who had to pretend to lead while Mr. Putin ran the show….”

 

The broadside continued, saying it’s “bad news for” Obama who “invested heavily in his relationship with Mr. Medvedev, hoping he would emerge as a true leader.”

 

In other words, he hoped Medvedev would know who’s boss and obey instead of putting Russia’s interests first.

 

It’s also “bad news for Russia’s (neighbors like) Georgia and Ukraine,” two Western puppet states created by color revolutions.

 

“Most of all, it’s bad news for the Russian people, who face corruption and stagnation persisting perhaps – if Mr.  Putin now seeks, like Stalin, to rule for life – as long as their president.”

 

Recent poll numbers, in fact, showed Putin’s popularity at 68%, down from 78% in 2010. George Bush left office reviled and disgraced at around 20%, and Obama now hovers around 40% or lower.

 

As for elections, America’s duopoly rigs them to make US-style democracy the best money can buy. Media scoundrels promote it. Popular interests are entirely left out. Rage against the system gets little or no coverage. Money power runs everything, including who holds high government posts.

 

WP, however, said:

 

“Mr. Putin has closed every avenue through which people might peacefully and legally select or even affect their government. Political parties are his plaything. Television networks are under state control. Demonstrations are banned or tightly circumscribed. The judiciary is cowed. In many ways, (he) recreated the Soviet system….”

 

In fact, this describes America, a money-controlled police state, a system of concentrated wealth and power, a nation permanently at war under a corrupted political duopoly.

 

Due process and judicial fairness died long ago. Its gulag is by far the world’s largest. Its leaders mock rule of law standards and democratic values. State-sponsored murder and torture are official policy.

 

Its media glorify its worst practices. They suppress vital truths. In contrast, Russia Today reaches 400 million viewers globally, presenting real news, information and analysis. So does Voice of Russia, reaching 110 million in 160 countries.

 

They reported days of Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. They got no US coverage, including police arresting dozens of protesters raging peacefully against money-controlled power.

 

More people are urged to join them. They dare “to imagine a new socio-political and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality.”

 

America’s bankers, corporate giants, corrupted politicians, and media scoundrels want it their way.

 

The Washington Post said “(b)usiness and the state bec(ame) one” under Putin, “and favored apparatchiks gain(ed) enormous wealth.”

 

In fact, America’s corrupted corporatocracy benefits wealth and power at the expense of growing impoverished millions without jobs, homes they once owned, and futures no longer possible.

 

Russia is at peace with its neighbors. America wages multiple global wars. Its civil and human rights record is scandalous, its contempt for democratic values shocking. Its disdain for wrong over right on a global scale is unmatched.

 

It could use Putin/Medvedev-type leaders to dismantle what’s wrong and fix it.

 

Instead, the Post said Obama’s reset should push Russia toward “a more forthright expression of western interest in freedom.”

 

In fact, American “freedom” long ago eroded. It especially affects innocent political prisoners, wrongfully executed victims like Troy Anthony Davis, millions dead and injured by Pentagon bombs, missiles and shells, thousands perhaps killed by Special Forces death squads operating globally, and countless others harmed by Washington’s contempt for rule of law justice.

 

Turning that around perhaps only Superman can accomplish, not mere mortals no matter how committed.

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

 

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Sep 27

Obstructing Palestinian Statehood Begins

By No Comments

 

Obstructing Palestinian Statehood Begins – by Stephen Lendman

On September 23 in New York, a State Department “Special Briefing” was held. An unnamed “Senior Administration Official” commented on the Quartet’s Palestinian statehood proposal, saying:

 

“As the Palestinians develop(ed) their own ideas of what was necessary in terms of (petitioning the UN), we were intensively engaged with them in providing ideas for an alternative path.”

 

That says it all! It reveals the Washington/Israeli/EU/Ban Ki-moon duplicitous strategy to subvert Palestinian statehood by a combination of diversion, delay and exclusion from debate on what Palestinians most want and deserve.

 

It includes unconditional sovereignty within 1967 borders (22% of historic Palestine), total control over their own lives, Israel’s occupation and Gaza’s siege ended, fixed borders, diaspora Palestinians’ right of return, settlement construction ended, and East Jerusalem as their capital.

 

In other words, they want what all independent states enjoy, including fair and open elections to choose their own leaders democratically, free from outside influence.

 

They also need to know the collaborationist credentials of leaders representing them – namely, Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, conspiring against them while pretending otherwise.

 

Why else would Israeli President Shimon Peres suggest that Abbas is best for Israel, saying:

 

“I call on my friend, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who I respect and acknowledge as the best leader Israel will work with, to return to the negotiating table.”

 

Nonetheless, on return to Ramallah Sunday, he was welcomed like a rock star. Thousands gathered to greet him. They cheered when he claimed a “Palestinian Spring” arrived. Indications are his popularity soared.

 

He addressed supporters, saying:

 

“We have told the world that there is the Arab Spring, but the Palestinian Spring has been born. A popular spring, a populist spring, a spring of peaceful struggle that will reach its goal.”

 

He also said a “long path” remains. “There are those who would put out obstacles….but with your presence they will fall and we will reach our end.”

 

In contrast, Netanyahu said settlement construction will continue. Negotiated peace must precede statehood, and establishing one within pre-1967 borders is rejected.

 

Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, he said his “advice” for Abbas was:

 

“If you want to get to peace, put all your preconditions to the side.”

 

Despite negotiating in good faith for decades, Palestinians never achieved peace because Washington and Israel won’t tolerate it.

 

Meet the Press host David Gregory didn’t explain. Nor did he question why after 63 years Palestinian statehood is still denied, or ask what right have Israel and Washington to decide.

 

In fact, Abbas proposing it is rhetoric, not reality with Washington, key EU allies and Ban Ki-moon against it.

 

On September 26, Frank Barak, Russell Tribunal Committee on Palestine Organizing Committee member  headlined his Electronic Intifada article, “The UN is part of Palestine’s problem,” saying:

 

“The UN is one of the most undemocratic bodies in the world.” One of a select five among its 193 members may veto what all others want. Decision-making by minority rules, including a minority of one.

 

“The UN is therefore part of the problem and will never bring justice to the Palestinians.” In 1947, its partition plan unjustly gave future Israel (with one-third of the population) 56% of Palestine, including its choicest areas.

 

Thereafter, Israel violated or ignored with impunity dozens of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions “upholding the Palestinians’ right of self-determination, demanding an end of occupation and colonization and Israeli withdrawal from occupied lands, and the right of return of the refugees.”

 

Whatever Israel wants it gets because it’s “part of the masters’ clique. Israel is in their club and represents the same interests….In history, there has never been a case of a master relinquishing power for philosophical and altruistic reasons.”

 

Liberation depends on sustained committed struggle. Palestinians are on their own to achieve it. Collaborationist leaders won’t help. Understanding that reality is step one toward long delayed justice that won’t ever come without it.

 

Examples throughout history show people “taking matters into their own hands” works. Masters also know it delivers what they reject. “The thought of it happening again sends shivers into their expensive suits.” It’s high time “shivers” turned to fear.

 

The Charade Begins

 

Instead, informal Security Council discussions began Monday. On September 26, Haaretz writer Shlomo Shamir headlined, “US Security Council to begin informal debate on Palestinian statehood,” saying:

 

“Currently, the council’s five permanent members are split over the PA’s request, so the consultations are not expected to lead to a formal vote anytime in the near future, UN sources said.”

 

According to the UN’s Western deputy head of mission:

 

“It’s highly likely that consultations will continue for some weeks. The Palestinian application is considered an extremely sensitive issue, and in particular, it’s a source of controversy between the council’s two leading powers, the United States and Russia. Therefore, no quick decision that would produce an official debate and vote is expected.”

 

In fact, Washington plans obstruction and delay to subvert statehood entirely. Achieving it depends on whether Abbas follows proper UN procedure, including petitioning the General Assembly for full membership.

 

The Security Council recommends new members. Only the General Assembly admits them by a simple two-thirds majority. Palestinians have more than enough support.

 

Moreover, under the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377, the GA can override Security Council vetos or rejection, provided Abbas follows procedure.

 

Instead expect him to accept rule of one authority, saying he tried his best, when, in fact, doing so is betrayal.

 

At best, he may petition the General Assembly to upgrade Palestine’s status short of full membership. Doing so accepts defeat, leaving Palestinians at square one.

 

It’s in their hands to demand better, to struggle for what’s only possible that way.

 

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

 

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

 

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

< Older
Blue Taste Theme created by Jabox