Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israeli invasion into southeastern Gaza kills 4, injures 8, destroys a home and ravages farmland

By Eva Bartlet | March 27, 2010

On 26 March, fighting erupted between Palestinian resistance and invading Israeli soldiers when IOF jeeps, tanks, and bulldozers invaded, supported by F-16s, Apache helicopters and unmanned drones from above.

Two Israeli soldiers were reported killed and 2 more injured. Medics with the Red Crescent report that three Palestinian resistance fighters were killed, along with 1 civilian, Haitam Arafat, 22 years old, shot on his land.

Eight more Palestinians were injured, according to Muawiyya Hassaniin, director of emergency services in Gaza. The injured include Osama Abu Dagga, a child of 6 years, shot in the head while in his home 2 km from the border. He is in critical condition.

While the invasion was underway, locals reported several F-16 Israeli warplanes, Apache helicopters, drones, roughly 20 tanks and 6 bulldozers.

During the Israeli invasion, Palestinian ambulances were unable to reach the injured, delayed and unable to attain coordination from Israeli authorities to retrieve the injured, although international law obligates Israel to accord this permission.

Long after the fighting between the resistance and invading Israeli soldiers, 3 Israeli bulldozers destroyed the home of Hashem Abu Daggma and surrounding farmland, all well over 500 metres from the border.

“They came around 11 pm and stayed until 3 am,” accompanied by tanks and aerial reinforcement, said a cousin of Abu Daggma’s, one of 15 living in the home until yesterday.

“I have no idea why they destroyed the home. It’s the third time they’ve attacked the house. Eight months ago they destroyed the outer side walls. Five months ago they destroyed the back wall. And this time they finished the job,” he said.

Abdel Aziz and Ibrahim Egdiah own 1.5 dunams next to the Abu Daggma home.

“We had parsley, radishes, olive and palm trees. Some of our trees were over 25 years old,” said Ibrahim Egdiah.

“Twelve people depend on this land,” he said, throwing aside a mangled olive branch. “Mish haram?” Isn’t this shameful?

Jaber Abu Rjila, a resident of Faraheen in the greater Abassan area, watched the Israeli invasion from a rooftop in the village a kilometre away.

“There were up to 20 tanks at the height of the invasions. The F-16, Apaches, drones and tanks were firing rockets, missiles and machine gun fire. I really felt that they might come into Faraheen again.”

Rjila’s house and chicken farm, 500 metres from the border, was ravaged in May 2008, his chicken barn destroyed, all but a percentage of the birds, farm equipment, and crops.

Rjila and other farmers in the border regions are constantly subject to Israeli soldier gunfire from border jeeps and towers.

“Many people are worried that Israel might come back and do something worse,” said Rjila. Today, the day after the invasion, Israeli bulldozers were visible waiting along the border.

.

March 27, 2010 Posted by | Aletho News | Leave a comment

In West Bank Palestinian Childhood Is Cut Short – It’s the Law

March 27th, 2010 | by Carol Sanders

Palestinian child arrested

In the West Bank, there is a two-tiered system of justice, including for minors.  For settler children, justice is administered according to Israeli domestic law, with all the due process protections that affords.  They  cannot be  charged as adults until they reach 18, in accordance with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Israel is a signatory.  For Palestinian children, military law applies, and that  pretty much means due process, and the  tenderness of their years,  is irrelevant.   Their childhood itself is cut short, both by the circumstances of the Occupation and the letter of military law.  Until recently, they could be charged as adults as young as 12 years of age.  A recent military order “reformed” that anomaly by setting their age of majority at 16 –still two years earlier than their settler counterparts, and two years younger than required by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  But the reality is that children as young as 12 continue to be arrested and imprisoned in adult military jails.  In the majority of cases the soldiers who arrest them say that the children were throwing stones, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.

Defence of Children International-Palestine reports that arrests of children have been increasing .  Presently approximately  350 West Bank children under 17 are being held in Israeli prisons.   Defence of Children provides testimonies of the children, detailing the brutal circumstances of their detention and interrogation, and their confinement with adult prisoners.  Urgent appeals on behalf of the children are issued by Defence of Children, including in the case of masse arrests (17 children taken in a night raid from Al Jalazun Refugee Camp near Ramallah), and the  transfer of children to prisons within Israel, where family members cannot visit because of restrictions on movement of people under Israel’s military Occupation.

Related posts:

  1. Palestinian Child Released on Bail After Nine Days in Military Prison
  2. Palestinian Child, 12 years old, To Be Tried as Adult By Israeli Military Court
  3. Israeli Schoolchildren Learn to Count with Tanks

March 27, 2010 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | Leave a comment

Internet revolution in Venezuela

By Eva Golinger | March 26, 2010

Despite critics’ exaggerated outcries and accusations in the international media alleging Internet censorship, President Chavez announced a new government-sponsored program to promote Internet usage and cyber communication throughout Venezuela.

Venezuela has made headlines recently in international media for alleged threats to freedom of expression, this time directed at the Internet. But as in the past, many of these accusations against the Chavez administration that spread contagiously throughout mass media outlets and are tweeted and blogged in cyberspace at the speed of light, are just not true.

Press agencies and major world newspapers, such as the New York Times, El Pais and The Guardian, were quick to react to statements made by President Hugo Chavez two weeks ago regarding a website that had maliciously reported the murders of two prominent government figures. “Venezuela’s Chavez calls for internet controls,” headlined a Reuters release, which went on to claim that “Chavez is angry with Venezuelan political opinion and gossip website NoticieroDigital, which he said had falsely written that Diosdado Cabello, a senior minister and close aide, had been assassinated.”

By referring to Chavez’ reaction to the website’s dangerous and false reporting as a personal issue, i.e. “Chavez is angry,” Reuters downplayed and ridiculed very serious crimes: inciting violence and knowingly and maliciously reporting false information to further criminal acts. Additionally, contrary to Reuters’ brushing aside the content of the posts as something that President Chavez “said,” and therefore questioning the veracity of the charge, the Venezuelan website NoticieroDigital actually had posted false reports on Diosdado Cabello’s assassination by armed attackers, alongside another post claiming that pro-Chavez television host Mario Silva had been “gunned down” the following day. Both stories remained on the website for at least two days, and were only taken down after government supporters publicly denounced the website for the malicious posts.

THE INTERNET IS NOT A FREE-FOR-ALL

President Chavez did state that “the Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done,” a notion shared by governments and societies around the world. In the United States, controls on Internet content are frequent. Content such as pornography is strictly regulated, and criminal acts or incitement to commit such acts is outright prohibited, even on blogs, chats and informal, anonymous forums. In early 2009, Steven Joseph Cristopher, a 42 year-old resident of Wisconsin, was arrested by the US Secret Service for threatening to assassinate President Obama in a chat forum on a website about UFOs and aliens. Christopher was charged with violating a US law that prohibits threatening to kill a president or president-elect of the United States, carrying a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In late December 2009, President Obama named Howard Schmidt, a former White House security advisor to George W. Bush, as Cybersecurity Chief, to oversee Washington’s Internet policies and regulations, as well as aid in the protection of US cyber assets. The US Congress has also debated a law that would give the US President emergency control over the Internet and permit a seizure of “private-sector networks” during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

That type of regulation goes well beyond what is presently being discussed in Venezuela. At most, the Venezuelan government — legislative and executive branches alike — are debating extending current penal codes to cyberspace. Rumors spread internationally, probably via twitter, which is used by more than 160,000 Venezuelan residents, that Venezuela’s National Assembly was debating a law to regulate Internet content. But members of the Venezuelan legislature were quick to deny those rumors and clarify that current laws should merely be applied to crimes committed over the Internet, as is common in most countries.

Germany has also been considering creating a government agency to specifically regulate and create policy regarding cyberspace, one of the most rapidly growing industries and business fields around the world.

FREE, UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO INTERNET

Dispelling critics and so-called international defenders of freedom of expression who claimed President Chavez was shutting down Venezuelans’ access to Internet, the Venezuelan head of state declared on television Sunday, “A false rumor is spreading, and it’s wrong, saying that we are going to limit Internet access, that we are going to control it. It’s false. We have a central strategy and it’s none other than transferring power to the people, and the first and most important power is knowledge.”

In that context, President Chavez inaugurated twenty-four new Infocenters last Sunday during his program, Alo Presidente, bringing the total to 668 nationwide. He also approved more than $10 million for the creation of 200 more of these community-based free cybercenters to be built during 2010. Infocenters are a project of the Ministry of Science and Technology, and are government-sponsored and funded computer centers built in communities throughout the nation that provide free Internet and technological access and services to all Venezuelans. Twenty-seven mobile Infocenters were also launched this week, which will travel across the nation to remote areas in the Amazon, Andean and rural regions, guaranteeing free Internet services and computer training to citizens with little or no access to technology.

At present, the Infocenters have the capacity to provide Internet and computer services to more than 2.5 million permanent users and up to 10 million visitors annually. The government’s goal is to transfer the operations and administration of the Infocenters to organized community groups, such as Community Councils, that can collectively determine the use and technological needs of their residents, neighborhoods and regions. “The transfer of the management and administration of the Infocenters and technological spaces built by the Revolution will permit organized communities to collectively make decisions regarding the use of these spaces. Our strategic objective is to advance the technological growth and communications access to aid in the creation of the Communal State,” explained President Chavez.

“Technology will be assumed as a form of communication of the People’s Power, to capacitate and articulate communities,” added Chavez. “The people should have the responsibility to maintain and operate the Infocenters and to conserve their equipment, as well as guarantee the functioning of each center” said the Venezuelan President, emphasizing that the Internet is a “tool of the Revolution” and should aid in the creation and expansion of Venezuela’s alternative press.

“Each community can create a network and we can communicate with one another to inform each other of developments,” exclaimed Chavez, also announcing the creation of his own blog. “I am starting my own battleground in the Internet with a blog. It’s going to be full of different information, and we will be ready for the bombardment of responses we will surely receive. Even from the enemy, they will attack me with fire and I will respond. Battle is battle, assault is assault,” he warned.

TECHNOLOGY FOR THE PEOPLE

President Chavez also announced that in Venezuela, only 273,537 Internet subscribers existed in the year 2000. But by the first trimester of 2009, more than 1,585,497 Internet subscribers were registered, an increase of 600%. “And the number of Internet users in 2000 was only 820,000 in Venezuela. Nine years later, that number has risen to 7,552,570 users, an increase of more than 900%,” indicated President Chavez.

In the year 2000, only 3.4% of the Venezuelan population had access to Internet, while statistics show that by the end of 2009, 30% of Venezuelans had Internet access, a huge increase in large part made possible by government programs. The Infocenter project not only provides computers and Internet access to communities nationwide, but also trains users in computer literacy. Brigades of computer and Internet educators, sponsored by the Science and Technology Ministry, have trained thousands of Venezuelans in the basics of computer usage, ranging from simply how to use a computer to advanced Internet searches and blogging.

MEDIA BATTLEGROUND — INTERNET AS A WEAPON

While the Venezuelan state has been empowering its own citizens to enter the world of cyberspace in a conscientious and responsible way, another government has been training and funding a select group of Venezuelans to destabilize their nation and promote regime change using the Internet as a weapon.

During the last few years, more than $7 million have been channeled from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to anti-Chavez youth and student groups in Venezuela to “strengthen new media tools that can improve access to information and allow open and productive debate on the Internet.” Since 2002, USAID has funded hundreds of opposition organizations and political parties in Venezuela with over $50 million USD in an ongoing effort to promote the overthrow of the Chavez administration.

TWITTER REVOLUTION

The millions invested in Internet “strengthening” for opposition youth groups have accounted for the proliferation of anti-Chavez websites, blogs and propaganda online, aiding in the mass media offensive against the Venezuelan government. New media tools such as Twitter and Facebook are also overridden with anti-Chavez users. And it’s no surprise. In October 2009, the US State Department sponsored the 2nd Annual Summit of the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) in Mexico City, bringing together the founders and representatives of new media companies, such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Myspace, Google, Meetup and others, along with a selection of handpicked student and youth leaders from around the world. Representatives from US government agencies, including the State Department, USAID, Freedom House, International Republican Institute (IRI), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Cato Institute, Cuba Development Initiative, and others, were also present at the event, which included a welcome speech from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Forty-three young political activists funded by the State Department were brought to the AYM Summit from nations such as Sri Lanka, Colombia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Lebannon, Turkey, Moldovia, Malaysia, Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela. The Venezuelan attendees were Yon Goicochea, current leader of the ultra-conservative Primero Justicia party, and winner of Cato Institute’s Milton Friedman Award for promoting neoliberal politics; Geraldine Alvarez, member of Goichochea’s foundation Futuro Presente, created with funding from US agencies; and Rafael Delgado, another former student leader associated with the opposition.

The goal of the State Department event was to capacitate selected youth with the knowledge, technology and funding to promote “Twitter Revolutions” in their countries, citing the examples of Iran, Moldovia and the anti-FARC and anti-Chavez marches promoted in Colombia via Facebook and Twitter.

BALANCING THE BATTLEGROUND

Nevertheless, pro-Chavez groups and activists in Venezuela are now flooding those same new media technologies used by Washington to promote the imperial agenda. Facebook and Twitter accounts have recently been opened by prominent figures connected to the Bolivarian Revolution, and new blogs, websites and email lists are growing fast, in an attempt to gain ground in the information battlefield in cyberspace.

While the Internet is still dominated by those forces working to destabilize and discredit the Chavez administration and the Bolivarian Revolution, chavistas are catching up fast. The hundreds of new Infocenters throughout the nation, guaranteeing free access to all Venezuelans, will enable millions to share their stories and voices — previously ignored and invisible — with the international community.

March 27, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Profs protest university scholarship program promoting Canadian military

By Richard Fidler | March 26, 2010

Congratulations to the 16 professors at the University of Regina who have sent a letter to the university’s president Vianne Timmons saying it should withdraw from the program known as “Project Hero”. The program, an initiative of Rick Hillier, a retired general, offers free tuition to the children of dead Canadian soldiers. Hillier, as Chief of the Defense Staff, was notorious for his war-mongering propaganda about killing Afghan resistance “scumbags”. In addition to the thousands of Afghans killed by Canadian forces, close to 140 Canadian soldiers have died in that country, and thousands more have been permanently disabled physically or mentally.

According to the Globe & Mail, “Several universities have signed onto the program, including Memorial University in Newfoundland and the universities of Ottawa, Windsor and Calgary. The University of Regina announced earlier this month that it would provide the scholarship starting in September.”

The professors’ letter says Project Hero is “a glorification of Canadian imperialism in Afghanistan and elsewhere.” Instead of “privileging the children of deceased Canadian soldiers,” it says, “we suggest that our administration demand all levels of government provide funding sufficient for universal qualified access to post-secondary education.”

The professors’ action has been met, predictably, by a storm of criticism in the corporate media and denunciation by the Royal Canadian Legion, which purports to speak for military veterans.

The Globe quotes political science prof Joyce Green, who signed the letter: The program “conflates heroism with the death of individuals who are in the military service and we think that the death of individuals is always a tragic matter, but we think that heroism is something different,” Ms. Green said.

“When you attach heroism to the deaths of the military, it makes it very difficult, maybe impossible for us to talk about what’s going on, what the nature of our military engagement is. In other words, it shrinks the space for democratic discussion and criticism of military policy in Canada and in the university.”

Few media outlets have actually published the text of the letter. Here it is:

Dear President Timmons:

We write to you as concerned faculty members of the University of Regina, to urge you to withdraw our university immediately from participation in the “Project Hero” scholarship program. This program, which waives tuition and course fees, and provides $1,000 per year to “dependents of Canadian Forces personnel deceased while serving with an active mission”, is a glorification of Canadian imperialism in Afghanistan and elsewhere. We do not want our university associated with the political impulse to unquestioning glorification of military action.

“Project Hero” is the brainchild of Kevin Reed, a 42-year-old honorary lieutenant-colonel of an army reserve unit in southwestern Ontario, who has said publicly he was inspired by the work of retired Canadian General Rick Hillier. General Hillier, one of the most controversial figures in the recent military history of this country, was the first to introduce “Project Hero” at a Canadian post-secondary institution, just after he took up the post as Chancellor of Memorial University of Newfoundland. Since then, a number of other public Canadian universities have come on board.

In our view, support for “Project Hero” represents a dangerous cultural turn. It associates “heroism” with the act of military intervention. It erases the space for critical discussion of military policy and practices. In signing on to “Project Hero”, the university is implicated in the disturbing construction of the war in Afghanistan by Western military- and state-elites as the “good war” of our epoch. We insist that our university not be connected with the increasing militarization of Canadian society and politics.

The majority of young adults in Canada find it increasingly difficult to pay for their education. If they do make it to university, they rack up massive student debts which burden them for years. Instead of privileging the children of deceased Canadian soldiers, we suggest that our administration demand all levels of government provide funding sufficient for universal qualified access to post-secondary education.

The University of Regina has always been closely tied to our Saskatchewan community, and the strategic plan, mâmawohkamâtowin, means “co-operation; working together towards common goals”. We do not think that “Project Hero” is a common goal chosen by those of us who work in the University; it is not drawn from the values of this institution. We think it is incompatible with our understanding of the role of public education, or with decisions made by a process of collegial governance.

In addition to withdrawing from “Project Hero”, we think the issues we raise should be publicly debated. We are calling on the U of R administration to hold a public forum on the war in Afghanistan, and Canadian imperialism more generally, at which the issues we raise can be debated. This forum should be open to all; it should take place this semester, before exams, as “Project Hero” is set to start at U of R in September 2010.

To summarize, we are calling for:

(1) The immediate withdrawal of our university from “Project Hero”.

(2) An institutional deployment of public pressure on both orders of government to provide immediate funding sufficient for universal access to post-secondary education.

(3) A public forum on the war in Afghanistan and Canadian imperialism more generally to be held this semester before exams begin.

Signatures:

Joyce Green, Department of Political Science

J.F. Conway, Department of Sociology and Social Studies

George Buri, Department of History

Emily Eaton, Department of Geography

Jeffery R. Webber, Department of Political Science

David Webster, International Studies

Annette Desmarais, International Studies

Darlene Juschka, Women’s and Gender Studies and Religious Studies

Meredith Rogers Cherland, Faculty of Education

Garson Hunter, Social Work

John W. Warnock, Department of Sociology and Social Studies

William Arnal, Department of Religious Studies

Leesa Streifler, Department of Visual Arts

Carol Schick, Faculty of Education

Ken Montgomery, Faculty of Education

André Magnan, Department of Sociology and Social Studies”

March 27, 2010 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism | Leave a comment

Hamas: We have the right to retaliate against Israel’s incursions and crimes

Palestine Information Center – 27/03/2010

GAZA — Senior Hamas official Ismail Radwan stated Friday that the Palestinian resistance has the right to respond to Israel’s incursions into the Gaza Strip, and its daily violations and crimes against the Palestinian people and their holy sites.

In a press statement to the Palestinian information center (PIC), Radwan stressed that the operation of Khan Younis confirmed that the resistance is still alive and the Gaza Strip is not easy to invade.

He warned that the Israeli occupation has to think a thousand times before making foolish steps against the Islamic holy shrines in Palestine, adding the Palestinian resistance is able to retaliate to Israel’s crimes in the manner it deems appropriate.

For his part, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said that the commando operation of Khan Younis proved his Movement’s adherence to the resistance option and its keenness on the protection of the Palestinian people.

In the same context, the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) admitted that two of their troops were killed and five others were wounded during an incursion into the eastern area of Khan Younis.

The IOF spokesman said on Friday that a deputy commander in the Golani brigade and another officer of low rank were killed and five other soldiers were injured, one of them in a serious condition, when a big explosive device was detonated near Kissufim crossing, east of Khan Younis.

The spokesman acknowledged that the soldiers were killed and wounded after they carried out an incursion east of Khan Younis.

For his part, commander of the IOF in the southern region Yoav Galant said few hours after the Khan Younis operation that one of the officers was killed when one of the Palestinians (resistance fighters) shot at a grenade in his flack jacket, while the other one was killed during the clashes.

Galant’s remarks authenticated the communiqué issued by Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, that its sniper unit was responsible for killing two Israeli officers on Friday evening.

Al-Qassam spokesman Abu Obeida told a news conference on Friday that the attack unit of the Brigades supported by the sniper unit attacked an Israeli military force that attempted to infiltrate into Khan Younis.

March 27, 2010 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Subjugation - Torture | Leave a comment

‘CIA seeks using Afghan women to promote war’

Press TV – March 27, 2010

The CIA has called for recruiting Afghan women in a public relations bid to persuade Europeans to support war in Afghanistan, a document leaked to the media has revealed.

“Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing” the mission for European audiences, particularly in France, according to the CIA analysis, posted on WikiLeaks, a whistleblower website, AFP reported. Afghan women’s views would carry special weight as they could express “their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory,” it said.

The proposed PR strategies focus on pressure points that have been identified within these countries. For France, it is the sympathy of the public for Afghan refugees and women. For Germany it is the fear of the consequences of defeat (drugs, more refugees, terrorism) as well as for Germany’s standing in the NATO.

The Central Intelligence Agency declined to confirm or deny the authenticity of the document, but WikiLeaks has previously posted government and corporate documents that were later verified.

The report by a CIA expert on “strategic communications” and State Department analysts of public opinion warned that popular support for the war in Europe was weak and could easily collapse, citing the recent fall of the Dutch government over the issue.

The report also suggested taking advantage of President Barack Obama’s popularity in France and Germany, arguing that appeals from the US president on the importance of the allied role in the war could have a positive effect.

The memorandum is titled: “Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission — Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough.”

March 26, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

The horrible prospect of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein

By Glenn Greenwald | March 26, 2010

A media consensus has emerged that the retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the 90-year-old Ford-appointee who became the leader of the Court’s so-called “liberal wing,” is now imminent.  The New York Times‘ Peter Baker has an article today on Obama’s leading candidates to replace Stevens, in which one finds this strange passage:

The president’s base hopes he will name a full-throated champion to counter Justice Antonin Scalia, the most forceful conservative on the bench. . . . The candidates who would most excite the left include the constitutional scholars Harold Hongju Koh, Cass R. Sunstein and Pamela S. Karlan.

While that’s probably true of Koh and Karlan, it’s absolutely false with regard to Sunstein, who is currently Obama’s Chief of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  From the beginning of the War on Terror, Cass Sunstein turned himself into one of the most reliable Democratic cheerleaders for Bush/Cheney radicalism and their assault on the Constitution and the rule of law.

In 2002, at the height of controversy over Bush’s creation of military commissions without Congressional approval, Sunstein stepped forward to insist that “[u]nder existing law, President George W. Bush has the legal authority to use military commissions” and that “President Bush’s choice stands on firm legal ground.” Sunstein scorned as “ludicrous” the argument from Law Professor George Fletcher that the Supreme Court would find Bush’s military commissions without any legal basis.  Four years later — in its Hamdan ruling — the Supreme Court, with Justice Stevens in the majority, held that Bush lacked the legal authority to create military commissions without approval from Congress, i.e., the Court (and Stevens) found Bush lacked exactly the “legal authority” which Sunstein vehemently insisted he possessed.  Had Sunstein been on the Court then instead of Stevens, that decision presumably would have come out the opposite way:  in favor of Bush’s sweeping claims of executive authority.

Worse still, in 2005, Sunstein became the hero of the Bush-following Right when, in the wake of revelations that the Bush administration was illegally eavesdropping on Americans, he quickly proclaimed that Bush was within his legal rights to spy without warrants in violation of FISA.  Sunstein defended Bush’s NSA program by embracing the two extremist arguments at the core of Bush/Cheney lawlessness:  that (1) the AUMF silently authorized warrantless eavesdropping in violation of FISA and, worse, (2)  the President may have a plausible claim that Article II “inherently” authorizes warrantless eavesdropping regardless of what a statute says.

In a March, 2006 Washington Post article, Sunstein solidified his credential as Leading Democratic-Law-Professor/Bush-Defender by mocking the notion that Bush had committed crimes while in office:

[Harvard Law Professor Laurence] Tribe wrote [Rep. John] Conyers, dismissing Bush’s defense of warrantless surveillance as “poppycock.” It constituted, Tribe concluded, “as grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever having studied.”

But posed against this bill of aggrievement are legal and practical realities. Not all scholars, even of a liberal bent, agree that Bush has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Bush’s legal advice may be wrong, they say, but still reside within the bounds of reason.

“The Clinton impeachment was plainly unconstitutional, and a Bush impeachment would be nearly as bad,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. “There is a very good argument that the president had it wrong on WMD in Iraq but that he was acting in complete good faith.”

Sunstein argues that Bush’s decision to conduct surveillance of Americans without court approval flowed from Congress’s vote to allow an armed struggle against al-Qaeda. “If you can kill them, why can’t you spy on them?” Sunstein said, adding that this is a minority view.

In 2008, Sunstein became the leading proponent of the Bush/Cheney-sponsored bill to legalize Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program and to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, a bill which Obama — advised by Sunstein — ended up voting for in violation of his pledge to filibuster.  The same year, Sunstein provoked widespread anger among progressives by insisting (again) that investigations and prosecutions of Bush officials would be inappropriate and harmful.  As summarized by Talk Left’s Armando, a long-time lawyer:  “Cass Sunstein has been defending the Bush Administration’s illegal actions and the Bush Administration’s preposterous claims for many many years now. This is who he is.”  Hey, Left:  doesn’t the thought of Supreme Court Justice Cass Sunstein make you tingle with “excitement,” just as Peter Baker said?

Even in domestic policy, Sunstein is far away from “the Left.”  As Matt Yglesias put it last April after Obama nominated him to be head of White House regulatory policy:  his “views on regulation are, if anything, somewhat more conservative than those of most Democrats.”  In reviewing Sunstein’s domestic policy book, Nudge, Matt Stoller pointed out that several of his ideas are “exactly 100% out of the conventional wisdom from the 1960s conservative movement,” that he steadfastly exempts the Pentagon and the Surveillance State from claims that the Government is too large, and even holds up Rahm Emanuel as a “liberal,” just to give a sense of how Sunstein views the political spectrum.  As I discussed earlier this year, Sunstein also proposed a consummately creepy plan for the government to “cognitively infiltrate” online discussions which spout views that Sunstein deems false.

Along with TNR‘s Jeffrey Rosen, it was Sunstein who took a leading role in telling Democrats that John Roberts was a good choice for the Court.  While Rosen has acknowledged he was wrong in his assessment — because Roberts turned out to be exactly the judicial radical which liberals said he was (while Rosen/Sunstein derided liberals for saying so) — Sunstein continued to praise Roberts and Sam Alito for their rulings.  A former student of Sunstein’s at Chicago Law School, the very smart liberal blogger Kathy G, detailed Sunstein’s record in a comprehensive post, including his expressed affection and admiration for the executive-power-loving radicals of the Federalist Society which, among other things, produced John Yoo (she also notes Sunstein’s view that Roe v. Wade was “wrongly decided,” though he doesn’t favor its overruling).  As she aptly put it:

I think Sunstein is an extremely ambitious man who basically would run over his own grandmother for a seat on the Supreme Court (well, he’d think seriously about doing so, anyway). Seeing how powerful the right wing has been in this country (at least until recently), especially regarding the courts, Sunstein must know that if he wants to be a Supreme Court justice, it would help if he were cozy with the right and accepted many of their basic ideas (such as judicial “minimalism,” which he has advocated), albeit with a more centrist spin. It obviously would also help his popularity with the right if he were to refrain from bruising conservatives’ tender feelings by pointing out such inconvenient truths as the fact that the current administration is a pack of dangerous, despotic war criminals.

Indeed, for all of these reasons, Sunstein has been praised by the Right as one of Obama’s best picks while consistently opposed by “the Left.”

Given all this, I have no idea what would possibly lead Baker to claim that Sunstein would be a favorite choice of the Left for the Court, though I can guess:  the fact that the incoherent Glenn Beck — for some inexplicable reason — has made Sunstein a prime target of his deranged rantings about The Imminent Takeover of Leninism leads Baker to believe that Sunstein must be beloved by the Left.  He most assuredly is not.  Ironically, with this administration and in our political culture, the perception that a Sunstein appointment would “excite the Left” is probably the best way to ensure he is not chosen for the Court, as nothing is more fatal in Washington than being viewed as Liked by the Left.  Just ask Dawn Johnsen about that, if you can find her (indeed, reflecting How Washington Works, Baker immediately says of the candidates he identifies as The Left’s Favorites:  “insiders doubt Mr. Obama would pick any of them now”).  So it’s arguably productive to let this view of Sunstein stand, as false as it is.

The person who many believe is the leading candidate to replace Stevens — Obama’s Solicitor General Elena Kagan — has a record that is almost as bad as Sunstein’s when it comes to executive power abuses, civil liberties, and “War on Terror” radicalism.  Unlike the Sotomayor-for-Souter substitution, which essentially maintained the Court’s balance, replacing Stevens with the likes of Cass Sunstein or Elena Kagan would move the Court dramatically to the Right, especially in the areas of executive power and civil liberties, where a fragile 5-4 majority has provided at least some minimal safeguards over the last decade.  Whatever else one might want to say about Cass Sunstein — or, for that matter, Elena Kagan — it is simply false to claim that they would fit within the so-called “liberal” wing of the Court on matters of executive power and civil liberties.  The replacement of John Paul Stevens could have a very radical impact on the Supreme Court, and it’s certainly not too early to begin combating pernicious myths about the leading candidates.

March 26, 2010 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | Leave a comment

Obamacare’s Passage: A Full-Scale Retreat

By Stephen Lendman | March 25, 2010

After eight years under George Bush, people demanded change. Obama and congressional Democrats promised it, then disappointed by accomplishing the impossible – governing worse than skeptics feared, worse than Republicans across the board on both domestic and foreign policies.

They looted the nation’s wealth, wrecked the economy, consigned millions to impoverishment without jobs, homes, savings, social services, or futures while expanding global militarism through imperial wars, occupations, and stepped up aggression on new fronts with the largest ever “war” budget in history – way over $1 trillion dollars annually plus supplementals and secret add-ons, greater than the rest of the world combined when America has no enemies.

Now the latest. March 21 will be remembered as a day of infamy, the day House Democrat leaders bullied, bribed, cajoled, muscled, and jerry-rigged Obamacare to pass, despite most Americans opposing it with good reason.

HR 4872: Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 passed on March 21 – 219 – 212. Along with the October 8, 2009-passed HR 3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Senate-passed bill, December 24, 2009), Obama’s signature made “health reform” law. House – Senate HR 4872 reconciliation follows that may or may not resolve all fixes. No matter. Legislation, signed March 23, is the law of the land unless the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional – a process called “judicial review.”

Briefly, it works like this. The High Court doesn’t review federal legislation unless challenged in district court and reaches the appellate level. However, if a clear constitutional violation exists, it may bypass the appellate process and accept a case directly. If it rules the law unconstitutional, it’s nullified, and all actions under it may be reversed, but it doesn’t happen often, easily, or quickly, especially against federal laws.

Also, the High Court may defer a challenge hearing until major provisions take effect – in this case 2014 under a new Congress, and perhaps new president, Court, and political climate.

In the end, it could come down to federal power v. states rights or corporate v. peoples’ rights under the Constitution’s “general welfare” clause – Article I, Section 8 stating:

“The Congress shall have power to….provide for (the) general welfare of the United States” that arguably should mean (but never did) “We the People,” the Preamble’s opening words.

Reality, however, reveals an unfair matchup. Money nearly always trumps people, so why should this time be different, especially given the hundreds of billions of future profits at stake. Little wonder Indian author Arundhati Roy (and others) call democracy “the biggest scam in the world” – for sure the way her country and America practice it.

Also remember – the Supreme Court’s (“headnotes” included) Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision granted corporations personhood, giving them the same rights as people but not the obligations. Those unrestricted powers let them subvert the “general welfare” to where one day its last vestige will be gone.

Former high-level Washington/Wall Street insider Catherine Austin Fitts calls the process “Slow Burn,” like boiling a frog that doesn’t know it’s dinner until done. We’re dinner.

Pro and Con Media Responses

Since its 19th century inception, the Nation magazine turned reality on its head. It was once unapologetic about slavery, then later didn’t support minority, labor, or women’s rights. It championed 19th century laissez fare, attacked the Grangers, Populists, trade unions and socialists. In 1999, it called the US/NATO Serbia-Kosovo aggression “humanitarian intervention.”

After 9/11, it backed the official explanation despite convincing evidence debunking it. Initially, it supported the Afghan and Iraq wars, claimed “no evidence” America’s 2004 presidential election was stolen, and in January 2006, ran an offensive full-page anti-Muslim ad titled “Arabian Fables,” claiming Palestinians are prone to violence and deceptions. Two months later, it said Haiti’s Jean-Bertrand Aristide was “feared and despised,” then blamed Haitians for their own misery.

Its biased editorials and articles support Democrats, suppress disturbing truths about them, and call business as usual “progressive.” Unsurprisingly, they backed Obamacare from inception, editor Katrina Vanden Heuvel now calling America “a stronger nation for it.”

The Nation’s John Nichols hailed “A Historic Vote for Health-Care Reform,” said Speaker Pelosi “earned a place among the chamber’s greatest leaders,” quoted Majority Whip James Clyburn claiming “the Civil Rights (triumph) of the 21st century,” Majority Leader Steny Hoyer saying the new law “will stand the test of time,” and compared Obama’s struggle to Franklin Roosevelt’s for Social Security – an offensive rationalization comparing genuine universal reform to colossal fraud care rationing for the vast majority of Americans losing out under a hugely destructive measure.

In contrast, Wall Street Journal writer Kimberly Strassel’s “Inside the Pelosi Sausage Factory” article was accurate, showing the Journal at times is right.

“You could see it coming a week ago,” she said. Then it happened on live TV when:

“Never before has the average American been treated to such a live-action view of the sordid politics necessary to push a deeply flawed bill to completion. It was dirty deals, open threats, broken promises and disregard for democracy that pulled ObamaCare to this point, and (Sunday) the same machinations pushed it across the finish line….The final days (to passage) were a simple death watch, to see how the votes would be bought, bribed or bullied, and how many congressional rules gamed, to get the win.”

A handout here, a threat there, a warning that voting no means “unions and other Democrats would run them out of Congress….By the weekend, all the pressure and threats and bribes had left the speaker three to five votes short….The solution?” A “meaningless” presidential Executive Order affirming no federal funding for abortion, though signing it doesn’t change Senate language allowing it through a separate premium besides Medicaid already covering it.

No matter, it got the House bill passed the old-fashioned way – by forcing a majority to ram it through, or as Strassel said: making the “process of passing as politically toxic as the bill itself.”

A March 21 New York Times editorial titled, “Health Care Reform, at Last” called the process:

“wrenching, and tainted to the 11th hour by narrow political obstructionism, but the year-long struggle over health care reform (finally ended) with a triumph for countless Americans who have been victimized or neglected by their dysfunctional health care system.”

From inception, The Times backed the bill, calling it needed progressive reform – no matter its full-scale retreat to ration care, enrich corporate providers, and deliver what Ralph Nader calls a “pay-or-die system that is the disgrace of the Western world.”

At a spring 2009 fundraiser, Obama quoted entertainer Al Jolson’s famous line: “You ain’t seen nothing yet,” and he was right, but who, among his faithful, could have imagined that promise’s destructiveness or fully comprehend it now.

Cynically, however, The Times argued that:

“Over time (health care) reforms could bring about sweeping changes the way medical care is delivered and paid for. They could ultimately rival Social Security and Medicare in historic importance.”

In a March 20 article titled, “The Death of American Populism,” this writer argued otherwise, saying what the 1913 Federal Reserve Act did for bankers, Obamacare may do for insurance and drug cartel predators controlling one-sixth of the economy. They’ll more than ever game by system by:

— making it dysfunctionally worse;

— selling “junk insurance policies” leaving millions underinsured;

— keeping premiums unaffordable for full coverage;

–adding high deductibles and co-pays for less coverage;

— denying care by delaying, contesting, or preventing people from accessing it;

— letting pharmaceutical companies provide toxic drugs at unaffordable prices, and avoid generic competition on new products by lengthy patent protection periods;

— assuring providers more customers and higher profits by requiring individuals and families buy insurance or be penalized; and

— by 2018, imposing an excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” plans to cut corporate costs, make workers pay more, and force many to settle for less and be underinsured.

The Times endorsed Obamacare as a triumph for “hard-working Americans,” never mind the popping champagne corks in corporate board rooms celebrating their gain at the expense of most people losing out to an extent they’ll only discover in the fullness of time when it’s too late to matter.

The Times has a long, sordid record of supporting the powerful, backing corporate interests, endorsing imperial wars, ignoring criminal fraud, championing sham election results, and being comfortable with unmet human needs, increasing poverty, hunger, homelessness, and deep despair for growing millions in a country run by corrupt politicians who don’t give a damn as long as they’re reelected, and corporate fraudsters who prey on the most vulnerable, and profit most by charging more, delivering less, and producing shoddy products.

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) – Advocates for Universal Coverage

With 17,000 members nationwide, PNHP is an independent, non-partisan, voluntary “physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program.”

Its March 22 press release expressed dismay with the new law saying it “take(s) no comfort in seeing aspirin dispensed for the treatment of cancer.”

Instead of fixing the “the profit-driven, private health insurance industry….this costly new legislation will enrich and further entrench (it by forcing) millions of Americans to buy” defective coverage leaving them worse off than before at a cost of hundreds of billions of tax dollars given predators to game the system for even more.

PNHP’s listed problems include:

— besides millions underinsured, nine years out, 23 million Americans will be uninsured, “translate(d) into an estimated 23,000 unnecessary deaths annually and an incalculable toll of suffering;”

— millions will be forced to buy insurance “costing up to 9.5 percent of their income but covering” only 70% of their expenses, leaving them one serious health emergency away from bankruptcy and loss of their homes;

— for most, good policies will be unaffordable or “too expensive to use because of the high co-pays and deductibles;”

— Insurers will get around $450 billion in public money “to subsidize (buying) their shoddy products,” and be more than ever emboldened to block future reform;

— safety-net hospitals will lose billions in Medicare and Medicaid payments, threatening tens of millions of under and uninsured;

— workers with employer-based coverage will face higher costs, fewer benefits, and restrictions on selecting providers; most will be hamstrung with future stiff costs because of unrestricted premium hikes, higher deductibles and co-pays;

— costs will keep rising exponentially because Obamacare doesn’t contain them;

— so-called new regulations (like ending pre-existing condition denials) are riddled with loopholes, ambiguities, and legal interpretations to let insurers manipulate them advantageously; and

— “women’s reproductive rights will be further eroded, thanks to the burdensome segregation of insurance funds for abortion and all other medical services.”

As a result, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats scammed the public with a package of expensive mandates, new taxes, sweetheart deals, and “a perpetuation of the fragmented, dysfunctional, and unsustainable system that is taking such a heavy toll on our health and economy today.”

Obamacare may or may not be good politics, but for most Americans it’s disastrous health policy in lieu of simple, effective, affordable solutions – universal single-payer coverage. Everyone in. Nobody out except predatory insurers gaming the system for big profits, declining benefits, and unaffordability for growing millions.

Major bill components won’t kick in until 2014, meaning 180,000 Americans will die in the next four years and hundreds of thousands more won’t have expensive injuries and illnesses treated. PNHP calls these stakes unacceptable in “pledg(ing) to continue (their) work for the only equitable, financially responsible and humane remedy for our health care mess:” universal coverage, “an expanded and improved Medicare for All.” What members of Congress get, you get. Nothing less provided we fight for it until it’s gotten. It’ll come no other way.

It’s Over but not Entirely – State Government Challenges Over Mandated Coverage

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 36 or more states may pass anti-mandate laws, 33 have introduced bills, and Idaho’s CL “Butch” Otter became the first Governor to sign one into law. The Virginia House and Senate passed its own, expected to become law shortly. In Arizona, a proposed constitutional amendment will seek voter approval in November.

In addition, on March 23, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden’s press release said Idaho “has joined a multi-state lawsuit” against the Department of Health and Human Services, Treasury Department, and Department of Labor, “challenging the constitutionality of” new health care legislation, stating:

“Our complaint alleges the new law infringes upon the constitutional rights of Idahoans and residents of the other states by mandating all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage or pay a tax penalty. The law exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution and violates the Tenth Amendment….Additionally, the tax penalty required under the law constitutes an unlawful direct tax in violation of Article 1, sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution.”

The press release also says Obamacare infringes on state sovereignty by imposing onerous unfunded mandates at a time most states face severe budget shortfalls, can’t handle their current obligations, so they’re cutting them.

Joining the lawsuits are the Attorney Generals of South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Florida, and South Dakota. Virginia Attorney General, Kenneth Cuccinelli, plans a separate suit in Richmond federal court, stating:

The Constitution’s Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) doesn’t apply because:

“If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce. If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?”

Indiana’s Senator Richard Lugar asked his Attorney General to file suit, and other states have pledged to do so. Opponents raise serious concerns over the fundamental “do no harm” patient safety rule. For American Health Care Reform.org:

“Single-payer national health insurance will save our economy, prevent medical bankruptcy and above all, save lives. Medicare for All is the Right Prescription for America. We need National Health Insurance. Anything else is just voodoo.”

Anything less dumps millions of Americans in the trash heap of unaffordable care, poor care, or no care one serious health emergency away from bankruptcy, home loss, or life threatening catastrophe. That’s the reality Obamacare delivered.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

March 26, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite | Leave a comment

CIA may face prosecution for drone raids in Pakistan

Press TV – March 24, 2010

The US government’s refusal to offer legal grounds for CIA’s drones bombing raids in Pakistan may result in CIA officers facing prosecution for war crimes.

“Prominent voices in the international legal community” were increasingly impatient with Washington’s silence on the CIA’s bombing raids in Pakistan and elsewhere, Kenneth Anderson, a law professor at American University, told a congressional panel on Tuesday, AFP reported.

Lawyers at the US State Department and other government agencies were concerned the administration has “not settled on what the rationales are” for the drone strikes, he said.

“And I believe that at some point that ill serves an administration which is embracing this,” said Anderson.

The law professor said he believes the drone strikes are legal under international law, based on a country’s right to self-defense, and urged the US administration to argue its case publicly.

The drone attacks, which have so far taken the lives of many civilians, have sparked outrage among the Pakistani nation amid Washington’s claims that they are aimed at “Taliban militants.”

March 26, 2010 Posted by | War Crimes | Leave a comment

61 Killed as Pakistan Bombs Schools, Mosque

Many Civilians Reported Slain in Attack on Pacifist Seminary

By Jason Ditz | March 25, 2010

Pakistani warplanes attacked a number of sites in the Orakzai Agency today, including a mosque, a school, and a religious seminary, killing 61. Security officials initially labeled all 61 “suspected militants,” though locals later conceded that a great many of them were actually innocent civilians.

The bulk of the casualties came when planes bombed Tableeghi Markaz, a seminary belonging to the pacifist missionary group Tableeghi Jamaat (Society for Spreading Faith). Pakistani officials say they had reports that Taliban commanders may have been at or near the seminary at the time of the attack, though they have yet to confirm if anyone other than the scores of civilians inside were actually killed.

Some 48 people were killed in the Markaz, and dozens wounded. The number may yet rise further as the seminary was said to be packed at the time of the attack. The two other strikes hit a mosque and a school which officials also believed were “Taliban hideouts,” killing 13 others.

Pakistan has vowed an offensive against Orakzai for weeks after its invasion of neighboring South Waziristan failed to net any Taliban leaders and officials speculated they had all moved to Orakzai. So far they have not killed or captured any major leaders in Orakzai, either, though as today’s bombings demonstrate the offensive is certainly causing havoc for the residents of the region.

March 26, 2010 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture, War Crimes | Leave a comment

Rendered Homeless, Family Ordered To Pay Its Expulsion Expenses

By Saed Bannoura – IMEMC & Agencies – March 25, 2010

The Jerusalem Center for Social and Economical Rights (JCCER) reported that the Israeli police handed Wednesday a Palestinian family from East Jerusalem an order to pay 13.000 NIS, demanding family members to pay the expenses of their expulsion from their home.

Members of Majed Hannoun family, from Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, were forced out of their home last year and were replaced by fundamentalist Jewish settlers.

But now, the settler-run Jerusalem Municipality is asking the family to pay 13.000 NIS for the expenses of the workers who removed them from their homes, and for equipment the municipality used during the evacuation.

The Research and Documentation Unit at the JCCER reported that two other families who were also forced out of their homes in Sheikh Jarrah last year, fear the same measure would be taken against them.

The families of Maher Hannoun and Abdul-Fattah Al Ghawi were forced out of their homes and fundamentalist settlers threw their furniture and belongings in the street.

The Jerusalem municipality later moved the furniture to a square in front of the City Hall building in Sheikh Jarrah.

The two families are now living in tents and fear that Israel will also attempt to oblige them to pay the expenses of their evacuation.

The Jerusalem Municipality repeatedly removed the tents and tried to force the residents out of Sheikh Jarrah.

This issues comes amidst ongoing Israeli violations against the Palestinian natives of Jerusalem, and amidst ongoing settlement construction and expansion in the city and around it.

This is also part of Israel’s police to demolish Arab and Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem.

March 25, 2010 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Leave a comment