Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

How “Progressive Media” Go Wrong: The Case of Jeffrey Sterling

By Sam Husseini | October 15, 2015

Just helped organize a news conference with Holly Sterling, the wife of jailed CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Sterling and a number of press freedom advocates and whistleblowers.

Just prior to the news conference this morning, Democracy Now was good enough to have Norman Solomon (my boss) and Holly Sterling on the program.

The problem is how Democracy Now introed — and therefore, framed — the segment: “Sterling is serving a three-and-a-half-year sentence for leaking classified information to New York Times reporter James Risen about a failed U.S. effort to undermine Iran’s nuclear program. Risen later exposed how the risky operation could have actually aided the Iranian nuclear program.”

That is a very benign way to describe what Operation Merlin (the program in question) was about.

There’s real evidence that the intention of the operation was not to forestall Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, but rather, the program may have been to give Iran — and Iraq — nuclear weapons information that could then be used as a pretext to attack those countries for having such information.

I had some suspicions along these lines, and had been cautioning people from accepting the keystone kop narrative without definitive evidence, but David Swanson is the person who really moved the ball on this. His piece “In Convicting Jeff Sterling, CIA Revealed More Than It Accused Him of Revealing,” which analyzes a secret cable that was made public in the course of the Sterling trial. Swanson writes: “During the course of Sterling’s trial, the CIA itself made public a bigger story than the one it pinned on Sterling. The CIA revealed, unintentionally no doubt, that just after the nuclear weapons plans had been dropped off for the Iranians, the CIA had proposed to the same asset that he next approach the Iraqi government for the same purpose.”

Swanson wrote back in January: “CIA on Trial in Virginia for Planting Nuke Evidence in Iran,” which states: “The stated motivation for Operation Merlin is patent nonsense that cannot be explained by any level of incompetence or bureaucratic dysfunction or group think.

“Here’s another explanation of both Operation Merlin and of the defensiveness of the prosecution and its witnesses … at the prosecution of Jeffrey Sterling which is thus far failing to prosecute Jeffrey Sterling. This was an effort to plant nuke plans on Iran.” (I featured David and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern — and noted some interesting insights from Marcy Wheeler in “Operation Merlin: Did CIA Seek to “Plant a Nuclear Gun” on Iran and Iraq?

October 16, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Hey Mr. Cameron, Who’s the Extremist?

By Finian Cunningham – Sputnik – 15.10.2015

When British Prime Minister David Cameron lambasted Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for having a “terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology” the rightwing British media went into raptures over the bashing.

But amid the boorish braying, the question is: what about Cameron’s own extremist-supporting politics? And not just Cameron, but the whole British establishment.Cameron made his cheap shot at Corbyn while addressing his Conservative Party annual conference last week. With the fulsome help of British media, Corbyn’s views on the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, as well as on foreign policy issues, including Russia, Palestine, Hezbollah and Irish republicanism, have been wildly distorted. But the crude demonisation of Corbyn as national traitor is an easy job when you have a phalanx of willing media hatchet-wielders on your side.

How richly ironic it is then that a week after Cameron’s mud-slinging at Corbyn, news emerges of a British man who is facing a death sentence in Saudi Arabia.

Karl Andree, a 74-year-old British expatriate living in the oil-rich kingdom for the past 25 years is to receive 350 lashes under the archaic Saudi justice system. The man was caught last year reportedly in possession of homemade wine — in a country where alcohol is officially forbidden.

His family in Britain are making desperate appeals to British premier David Cameron to intervene in the case to save the pensioner’s life.

Suffering from cancer and asthma, the family of Karl Andree fear that he will die from the flogging, especially after having spent a year already in a Saudi jail. A son of the man told British media this week that Cameron’s government had done little to seek clemency from the Saudi rulers. Simon Andree “accused the Foreign Office of allowing business interests to get in the way of helping to free his father.”

Cameron may be obliged to finally intervene, such is the furore. But the mere fact that London has to be pushed into doing something to save the man’s life shows just how deeply entwined the British establishment is with the House of Saud.

The case is just one of many instances where the British government has steadfastly given the Saudi rulers political cover for their extremist practices. With an estimated 30,000 political prisoners languishing in Saudi jails and over 100 people executed by public beheadings every year, the kingdom has been described as one of the most despotic regimes on Earth. Some observers have noted that the House of Saud beheads as many people as the notorious terror group, Islamic State, which shares the same Wahhabi ideology as the Saudi rulers. Indeed probably bankrolled by the Saudi monarchs, as are other extremist jihadi groups, including Al Qaeda and Jabhat al Nusra.

Yet while Cameron and his government make high-profile calls for sanctions against Russia over alleged violations in Ukraine, London keeps silent when it comes to international appeals for human rights in Saudi Arabia.

Earlier this year it emerged from leaked cables that Cameron’s government was involved in “back-room deals” with the Saudis for the kingdom to be appointed to a chair on the United Nations Human Rights Council. This is while international campaigners have recently appealed in two particularly disturbing cases, one involving a Saudi blogger sentenced to receive a 1,000 lashes and the other of a pro-democracy activist, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who is due to be beheaded and crucified. Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn has personally entreated Cameron to intervene — but so far, Downing Street has declined to mediate.

Cameron has gone on the defensive about British-Saudi relations, telling media that Britain has a “special relationship” with the kingdom, and insisting that it must maintain “close ties”.

The British leader never fails to pontificate to international audiences about how Britain is “supporting democracy and human rights” around the world.

Cameron’s double-think fails, spectacularly, to acknowledge that his government and Downing Street predecessors have “close ties” with the Saudi regime, where elections are banned, women are prohibited from driving cars, and freedom of speech is exercised under the pain of death.

Even as Saudi Arabia carries out more than six months of slaughter in Yemen, the British government maintains a stony silence. Evidence of war crimes involving Saudi bombing of civilians in Yemen has not registered a pause by Britain in supplying the Saudis with Tornado and Typhoon fighter jets equipped with 500-pound Pave IV missiles.Thousands of women and children have been massacred in the onslaught, while Britain reportedly finds new reserves for ordnance to sustain the Saudi bombardment, along with deadly supplies from Washington of course.

In 1985, former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher — a political heroine of Cameron — lent her personal intervention in signing the al Yamamah arms deal between Saudi Arabia and Britain.

That ongoing deal — worth an estimated £80 billion ($120 billion) — is the biggest weapons contract ever signed by Britain. A reputed 50,000 jobs depend on its fulfilment, mainly by Britain’s top weapons manufacturer, British Aerospace Engineering (BAE).

The contract is mired in corruption. Investigations have shown that some $1 billion in bribes were funnelled to key members of the House of Saud by BAE, including the former spy chief Bandar bin Sultan. In 2010, a US court found BAE guilty of corruption, for which the firm had to pay $400 million in fines.But Britain’s own legal probe into corruption over the Al Yamamah arms deal was dramatically blocked in 2006 by then Labour leader and Prime Minister Tony Blair. Blair, as with Cameron recently, simply invoked “national security interests” to close the prosecution. Once again, the supposed “special relationship” between Britain and Saudi Arabia trumped any concerns about criminality or the despotic nature of the House of Saud.

One factor in why Blair gave cover to Britain’s Saudi clients was the threat from the House of Saud that it would pull the plug on the whole Al Yamamah contract, and instead direct its business to France. The French-made Rafale fighter jets were dangled as an alternative to the British-made Typhoon.

Resonating with that, this week a French delegation led by Prime Minister Manuel Valls, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian was in Saudi Arabia where it signed $11 billion in contracts for various industrial and military products.

This is the same French government that cancelled the $1.3 billion Mistral helicopter ship contract with Russia over alleged — yet unproven — violations by Moscow in Ukraine.

As with the British, the French government’s high-minded claims of democracy, rule of law and human rights are nothing but cynical public relations when it comes to the altar of financial profits, no matter how “extremist” the customers are.

So, let’s re-run that clip again of David Cameron denouncing others for “extremist-sympathising ideology”. Whatever Jeremy Corbyn’s alleged views are, they are nothing, absolutely nothing, when compared with the extremist-supporting practices of David Cameron and a host of British governments in their courting of Saudi oil money.

October 16, 2015 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Saudi Arabia set to behead two Pakistanis for drug offences

Reprieve | October 16, 2015

Two Pakistani men are facing imminent beheading in Saudi Arabia after being forced by traffickers to bring drugs into the country.

Muhammad Irfan and Safeer Ahmad, from Pakistan, were taken to Saudi Arabia in 2010 and 2012 by men posing as ’employment agents’, believing they would find work there. Instead both were forced into bringing drugs into the country, and were arrested by Saudi police on arrival. Both were sentenced to beheading, and it is understood that the sentences have now been upheld, and that they face imminent execution.

Irfan and Safeer have both been denied access to a lawyer throughout their imprisonment, and faced secretive trial proceedings that were conducted in Arabic – a language neither of them understands. Both men are believed to have told Saudi police that they had been trafficked – however, the courts disregarded the complaints, in violation of international and Saudi law.

The plans come amid an outcry over the imminent beheading of two Saudi juveniles arrested at protests. Ali al-Nimr and Dawoud al-Marhoon were both 17 when they were tortured into ‘confessions’ that would be used to convict them in the country’s secretive Specialized Criminal Court.

The British government faced questions from MPs this week over its continued cooperation with the Saudi criminal justice system, following the cancellation of a controversial Ministry of Justice bid to provide services to the country’s prisons.

Lawyers at international human rights organization Reprieve and Justice Project Pakistan (JPP) have urgently appealed to the UN Special Rapporteurs to intervene to stop the Pakistani men’s executions from going ahead.

Commenting, Maya Foa, head of the death penalty team at Reprieve, said: “It is shocking that, amid an outcry over the planned executions of two juveniles, the Saudis are also preparing to behead two exploited drug mules – two men who travelled to Saudi Arabia in the belief that they would be better able to support their families back home. They have been denied justice at every turn, and now face imminent execution. The Pakistani government must urgently intervene with the Saudi authorities on behalf of Irfan and Safeer – while other countries must also step in and prevent this outrage from going ahead.”

October 16, 2015 Posted by | Subjugation - Torture | , , | Leave a comment

Uruguay’s Withdrawal From TiSA Trade Deal in Country’s Interests

Sputnik – 15.10.2015

Uruguay’s most important services are transport and tourism, “and these are already liberalized,” therefore the country has “much to lose and little to gain” in the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) free trade deal, according to an Uruguayan senator.

Uruguay’s withdrawal from the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) free trade agreement talks was in the country’s interests, as the proposed deal is designed to serve mainly the United States and the large corporations, an Uruguayan senator told Sputnik.

TiSA is a proposed international trade deal between 24 parties, initiated by the United States and EU member states, to open up trade in services to a greater degree than allowed by the current General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Last month, Uruguay announced that it had pulled out of the multilateral negotiations. Paraguay followed suit shortly afterwards.

“It is not convenient to participate in these kinds of treaties as they mainly follow the line of interests of the United States and transnational [corporations],” Frente Amplio’s Marcos Otegui said, adding that the decision to abandon the talks was supported by a “large majority.”

According to the senator, Uruguay’s most important services are transport and tourism, “and these are already liberalized,” therefore the country has “much to lose and little to gain” in this deal.

Uruguay is betting on regional integration, but is open to the world, the senator stressed

“Today Uruguay deals with more than 160 countries… during much of the 20th century it only traded with 40 countries, therefore regional integration does not put a limit on trading with the world,” he said.

TiSA opponents argue that the controversial deal only seeks to tear down trade barriers to services Washington wants to sell abroad and paves the way for supranational labor laws, as well as finance and industrial policies that will undermine a national government’s ability to protect its citizens.

October 16, 2015 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment