Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Americans Are Living In 1984

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts | LewRockwell.com | May 10, 2011

The White House’s “death of bin Laden” story has come apart at the seams. Will it make any difference that before 48 hours had passed the story had changed so much that it no longer bore any resemblance to President Obama’s Sunday evening broadcast and has lost all credibility?

So far it has made no difference to the once-fabled news organization, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which on March 9, eight days later, is still repeating the propaganda that the SEALs killed bin Laden in his Pakistani compound, where bin Laden lived next door to the Pakistani Military Academy surrounded by the Pakistani army.

Not even the president of Pakistan finds the story implausible. The BBC reports that the president is launching a full-scale investigation of how bin Laden managed to live for years in an army garrison town without being noticed.

For most Americans the story began and ended with four words: “we got bin Laden.” The celebrations, the sweet taste of revenge, of triumph and victory over “the most dangerous man on the planet” are akin to the thrill experienced by sports fans when their football team defeats the unspeakable rival or their baseball team wins the World Series. No fan wants to hear the next day that it is not so, that it is all a mistake. If these Americans years from now come across a story that the killing of bin Laden was an orchestrated news event to boost other agendas, they will dismiss the report as the ravings of a pinko-liberal-commie.

Everyone knows we killed bin Laden. How could it be otherwise? We–the indispensable people, the virtuous nation, the world’s only superpower, the white hats– were destined to prevail. No other outcome was possible.

No one will notice that those who fabricated the story forgot to show the kidney dialysis machine that, somehow, kept bin Laden alive for a decade. No doctors were on the premises.

No one will remember that Fox News reported in December, 2001, that Osama bin Laden had passed away from his illnesses.

If bin Laden beat all odds and managed to live another decade to await, unarmed and undefended, the arrival of the Navy SEALS last week, how is it possible that the “terror mastermind,” who defeated not merely the CIA and FBI, but all 16 US intelligence agencies along with those of America’s European allies and Israel, the National Security Council, the Pentagon, NORAD, Air Traffic Control, airport security four times on the same morning, etc. etc., never enjoyed another success, not even a little, very minor one? What was the “terror mastermind” doing for a decade after 9/11?

The “death of bin Laden” serves too many agendas that cover the political spectrum for the obvious falsity of the story to be recognized by very many. Patriots are euphoric that America won over bin Laden. Progressives have seized on the story to excoriate the United States for extra-judicial murder that brutalizes us all. Some on the left-wing bought into the 9/11 story because of the emotional satisfaction they received from oppressed Arabs striking back at their imperialist oppressors. These left-wingers are delighted that it took the incompetent Americans an entire decade to find bin Laden, who was hiding in plain view. The American incompetence in finding bin Laden simply, in their minds, proves the incompetence of the US government, which failed to protect Americans against the 9/11 attack.

Those who ordered, and those who wrote, totally incompetent legal memos that torture was permissible under US and international law, thereby setting up George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for the possibility of prosecution, are riding the euphoria of bin Laden’s death by declaring that it was torture that led the American assassins to bin Laden. All of a sudden, torture, which had fallen back into the disrepute in which it had been for centuries, is again in the clear. Anything that leads to the elimination of bin Laden is a valid instrument.

Those, who want to increase the pressure on Pakistan to shut up about Americans murdering Pakistani citizens in Pakistan from the air and from troops on the ground, have gained a new club with which to beat the Pakistani government into submission: “you hid bin Laden from us.”

Those who want to continue to fatten the profits of the military/security complex and the powers of Homeland Security, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, use bin Laden’s second, or ninth, death as proof that America is being successful in its war on terror and that the war must continue on such a successful path until all enemies are slain.

Most ominous of all was the statement by the CIA director that bin Laden’s death would lead to new attacks on America and new 9/11s from al Qaeda seeking revenge. This warning, issued within a few hours of President Obama’s Sunday evening address, telegraphed the inevitable “al Qaeda” Internet posting that America would suffer new 9/11s for killing their leader.

If the Taliban knew in December 2001 that bin Laden was dead, does anyone think that al Qaeda didn’t know it? Indeed, no member of the public has any way of knowing if al Qaeda is anything more than a bogyman organization created by the CIA which issues “al Qaeda” announcements. The evidence that al Qaeda’s announcements are issued by the CIA is very strong. The various videos of bin Laden for the last nine years have been shown by experts to be fakes. Why would bin Laden issue a fake video? Why did bin Laden cease issuing videos and only issue audios? A person running a world-wide terrorist organization should be able to produce videos. He would also be surrounded by better protectors than a couple of women. Where was al Qaeda, which according to former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, consists of “the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.” Had these most dangerous men alive abandoned their leader?

The CIA director’s warning of future terrorist attacks, followed by a suspect “al Qaeda” threat of the same, suggests that if the American public continues to lose its enthusiasm for the governments open-ended wars, which are conducted at the expense of the US budget deficit, the dollar’s exchange value, inflation, Social Security, Medicare, income support programs, jobs, recovery, and so forth, “al Qaeda” will again outwit all 16 US intelligence agencies, those of our allies, NORAD, airport security, Air Traffic Control, etc. etc., and inflict the world’s only superpower with another humiliating defeat that will invigorate American support for “the war on terror.”

I believe that “al Qaeda” could blow up the White House or Congress or both and that the majority of Americans would fall for the story, just as the Germans, a better educated and more intelligent population, fell for the Reichstag Fire–as did a number of historians.

The reason I say this is that Americans have succumbed to propaganda that has conditioned them to believe that they are under attack by practically omnipotent adversaries. Proof of this is broadcast every day. For example, on March 9, I heard over National Public Radio in Atlanta that Emory University, a private university of some distinction, treated its 3,500 graduating class to a commencement address by Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security.

This is the agency that has goons feeling the genitals of young children and adults and which has announced that it intends to expand this practice from air travelers to shopping malls, bus and train stations. That a serious university invited such a low-lifer, who clearly has no respect for American civil liberty and is devoid of any sort of sense of what is appropriate, to address a graduating class of southern elite is a clear indication that the Ministry of Truth has prevailed. Americans are living in George Orwell’s 1984.

For those who haven’t read Orwell’s classic prediction of our time, Big Brother, the government, could tell the “citizens” any lie and it was accepted unquestioningly. As a perceptive reader pointed out to me, we Americans, with our “free press,” are at this point today: “What is really alarming is the increasingly arrogant sloppiness of these lies, as though the government has become so profoundly confident of its ability to deceive people that they make virtually no effort to even appear credible.”

A people as gullible as Americans have no future.

May 10, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Iran: No Sorcery But A Constitutional Struggle

Moon of Alabama | May 8, 2011

So there is sorcery within the Iranian government of president Ahmadinejad, allies of him have been arrested for it and he will step down?

Today Yves Smith links to a Raw Story piece which is headlined Iranian president may resign after allies arrested, charged with sorcery. Raw Story has no sources for that claim but a link to a Guardian piece which claims:

Several people said to be close to the president and his chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, have been arrested in recent days and charged with being “magicians” and invoking djinns (spirits).Ayandeh, an Iranian news website, described one of the arrested men, Abbas Ghaffari, as “a man with special skills in metaphysics and connections with the unknown worlds”.

The Guardian provides no source for its report but that Iranian website Ayandeh it links to.

But there is little Iranian with that website except its use of Farsi language. It has an English title “Iranian Futurist”. It’s full domain name is www.ayandeh.nu and it is registered via Loopia Webbhotell AB in Vasteras, Sweden. The admin email for that website is info@ayandehnegar.org and that domain is registered to one Hossein Mola with an address in Kesta, Sweden.

Hossein Mola also registered the domain vahidthinktank.com. That site only has a Farsi Donation page (google translate link) and a button “English” which brings one to a blogspot page of one Vahid V. Motlagh who claims to be a futurist and looks into “Ideas for a deeper sense of life”.

But back to the Guardian’s source, the futurist Iranian/Swedish/Norwegian website ayandeh.nu. I can not find (google translate link) any article that would fit this as a source for the “sorcery” and “arrests” the Guardian reports. The website is a mix of futurology including from Vahid V. Motlagh, Iranian human rights stuff and a few news items about Iran. It is neither really Iranian nor a reliable source.

The whole sorcery and arrests claims are likely nonsense invented to make a little reported constitutional crisis within Iran’s ruling class look more mysterious than it is.

Now lets talk about that crisis.

While the “west” always claims that Ahmedinejad is a “hardliner” or “conservative” that claim has never been true. He is a rather progressive social democrat with a more laical and secular outlook than many of the “principalists” in the Iranian parliament and the conservative clerics. This was already obvious back in 2006 when Ahmedinejad allowed women into soccer stadiums but was overruled by conservatives and the supreme leader Khamenei.

After the 2009 elections, which he won with a comfortable 60% of the votes, an emboldened Ahmedinejad again pressed for a more laical society. His point man for this project was Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei. Mashaei, an engineer and politician, is a war-comrade of Ahmedinejad. His daughter is married to Ahmadenejad’s son. He is known for a relative liberal view especially with regards to women’s rights and even on relations to people in Israel.

In July 2009 Ahmedinejad made Mashaei his first vice president. Conservatives protested and within a week the supreme leader ordered him out. Ahmedinejad showed them the finger and made Mashaei his chief of staff and gave him most of the powers he would have had as first vice president. It is rumored that he is grooming him for taking up the presidency when Ahmedinejad will end his current last term.

Recently Mashaei made several comments which set out Iranian nationalism and Shia Islam as two equal pillars of Iranian strength. For the clerics this was an unbearable attack on their position and on the prerogative of Islam and they fought him bitterly. In early April this year Ahmedinejad was pressed to let Mashaei go and to get a new chief of staff. The conservative intelligence minister Hojatoleslam Haydar Moslehi, himself a hardline cleric and the cabinet watchdog of the supreme leader, was thought to have led the campaign against Mashaei.

But then Mashaei reasonably claimed that he found his office bugged and Haydar Moslehi was fingered as being behind the plot. The president did not liked being spied on by his intelligence minister and by mid April Ahmdinejhad fired Haydar Moslehi as minister and reinstated Mashaei as chief of staff. The supreme leader Khamenei then demanded the reinstatement of his spy Moslehi.

There was a lot of back and forth on the issue, including Friday sermons from the pulpit,  but Ahmedinejad did not retreat. The Iranian constitution gives the president as the chief executive the right to seat and fire ministers. The supreme leader’s constitutional position is comparable a U.S. chief justice position in the supreme court.  He is certainly not a dictator without bounds. As part of the judicature he has a (small) formal say in (vice-)presidential positions but no formal say at all in cabinet positions.

This led to a situation where Moslehi still acted as minister but was ignored by Ahmedinejad who either boycotted cabinet meetings when Moslehi was attending or ordered him out before they started. For some fourteen days the situation was hanging in balance.

Finally the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, stepped in. In the end a majority requested that Ahmedinejad follow the wishes of the supreme leader. As the parliament has the power to impeach the president Ahmedinejad had little choice but to, for now, give in.

Today Ahmedinejad attended a cabinet meeting with Moslehi present. Also present was Mashaei.

While this all may sound dramatic it was a quite normal situation in the Islamic Republic. Since its foundation, power struggles between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches are a regular occurrence. The conservatives and the Islamic judges, usually somewhat wrongly described as clerics, demand a higher ranking for the judiciary branch led by the supreme leader. The executive points to its democratic legitimation and sees this as an equal source of power. The legislative is usually split on the issues.

So there is nothing in this story about sorcery or arrests. There may have been rumors of such but those were likely more a part of a smear campaign against Mashaei than a real issue.

What astonished me was how little this whole issue was reported on in the “west” over the last weeks. That may well be because the “western” distorted viewpoint of Ahmedinejad as a “hardliner” who “lost the elections” and of the Iranian judiciary branch as “clerics” gives the wrong frame of reference to understand simple politics in Iran. Not understanding what was going on let reporters turn to nonsensical claims.

PS: The above overview on what happened in Iranian politics in the last month is based on many sources I read over the last month and which I currently have no time to collect and link appropriately. The best source to follow the issue was the blog of Nader Uskowi, not a fan of the Islamic Republic but knowing it reasonably well, who regularly posted on it over the last weeks. The, at times quite partisan, discussion in the Race for Iran comments also helped.

May 9, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Since Fukushima the real dangers of nuclear power are now better known

By Andrew McKillop | VHeadline | May 9, 2011

In an article published August 1, 2010 I stated what is now clearer than ever, after the Fukushima disaster, and more and more threatening, after perhaps the last time the USA triumphally announces that Bin laden is dead (announcements of his death stretch back as far as December 2001).

In the August 2010 article I said:

Conventional wars, like the conventional nation states that make or “wage” war, are less and less credible due to the new nuclear threat, due to certain or assured massive or total destruction and economic damage, when or if large reactors and nuclear installations are hit.

A quick roundup of admitted and officially announced damage to the 6-reactor Fukushima site in Japan, and economic losses due to this disaster as of early May is as follows:

– At least 4 of the reactors are destroyed and unable to be repaired, and the 2 that could or might be repaired face rising Japanese public opinion in rejection of nuclear power. Radiation levels on-site remain very high, also making it difficult to envisage repair of the 2 potentially recoverable reactors. Dismantling the reactors and safe store entombment and neutralization of radiation danger at the site will cost at least US$12 billion and take several years – perhaps more than 10 years.

-Around 90,000 Japanese have been forced out of their homes, jobs and livelihoods in the 20-kilometre Total Exclusion Zone around the disaster site, that many scientists say should be extended to at least 30-kilometres. There is no known date for when these persons can or might return inside the exclusion zone, resulting in total economic loss. Some 25+ years after the Chernobyl disaster, its 7,800 square kilometre total exclusion zone remains uninhabitable.

– Economic costs and losses from the Fukushima nuclear disaster are presently estimated at a total of around US$130-175 billion, but may further increase.

– The total radiological inventory or radiation potential of each reactor at the Fukushima site is about 200 times the radiation released by the Hiroshima atom bomb, which killed about 60,000 persons by radiation (blast and fire, also killing at least as many persons, in August 1945).

-Including fuel rods in fuel pond storage, ancillary equipment, on-site nuclear wastes and nuclear materials, the total radiological inventory of the Fukushima site is probably more than 10,000 times the radiation released by the Hiroshima atom bomb.

Worldwide, there are about 440 civil reactors of similar size to the Fukushima reactors, in service at this time, as well as about 290 research, scientific and military reactors, and about 370 submarine and surface ship reactors. The radiological inventory of these mostly non-military reactors is vastly higher than the radiation release potential of all nuclear weapons held by the so-called “declared nuclear powers” (USA, Russia, China, France, UK), and the “non-declared powers” (India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea)

PLAYING WITH FIRE

Since late 2010, world media has repeatedly carried reports claiming Al Qaeda intends to become nuclear capable. One example is a February 2, 2011 article in UK Daily Telegraph headlined Wikileaks: Al Qaeda is planning a dirty bomb, and continuing: “Al-Qaeda is actively trying to secure nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build a radioactive”dirty” bomb, according to leaked diplomatic documents”.

The antiquated, technological naivety of this Wikileaks claim reminds us that Wikileaks has possibly multiple agendas and multiple masters in its so-called quest for truth. The article citing Wikileaks goes on to repeat claims of Al Qaeda being “interested” in dirty bombs, basically nuclear wastes or radioactive material packed in any kind of container and exploded, for example in a city center dustbin.

Al Qaeda operatives would however have no interest in the vast dirty bombs also known as civil nuclear reactors. They would also eschew fuel rod fabrication centers, waste reprocessing and storage centers, road, ship and train convoys transporting ultra-deadly materials, notably plutonium, the world’s uranium mines, and remaining large quantities of smaller sized nuclear ordnance, including atomic mines, torpedoes and artillery shells, leftover from the Cold War period!

Nuclear reactors are in no way designed to resist military attack – even so-called military reactors which are mostly high neutron reactors able to quickly “breed” or produce plutonium and highly enriched uranium, to make atomic weapons, are themselves rarely hard-shell protected or located underground. Most nuclear reactors have so-called containment features rarely exceeding 20 to30 centimetres of concrete and in some cases a few centimetres of mild steel protection of the reactor cores. Fuel rod dumps or cooling ponds – as shown in the case of Fukushima – are sometimes located in open air surroundings with zero protection.

The range and types of conventional military ordnance able to penetrate and destroy reactor cores, or their cooling systems, or both are very wide-ranging. They range from conventional bombs, artillery shells, mines, mortars, anti-tank and anti-building shoulder-fired missiles, to conventional short-range or long-range missiles. These missiles are owned by more than 20 nations, including Iran’s Shahab-4. Other than conventional military ordnance, unconventional and so-called terror war ordnance able to destroy any civil nuclear reactors include a large range of potential weapons. These range from kamikaze explosives like the suicide belt, to long range anti-tank missiles, improvised devices using conventional military or civil explosives, drone-launched explosive charges, and electronic and Internet based hacking attack on the control systems of nuclear plants.

Only after covering some of the more rational and likely weapons choices, do we come on to hijacked airplanes deliberately crashed on nuclear sites – whether reactor sites, reprocessing sites, fuel fabrication centres, waste storage centres, and other parts of the so-called nuclear value chain.

NO NEED FOR TERROR WAR

The Fukushima disaster has prized open previously semi-secret information on the fantastic death toll in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus from the Chernobyl catastrophe of 1986. Some 60,0000 Liquidators were forced to work at the site, under panic conditions, with little or no protection and today perhaps one-third to one-half of these Liquidators are already dead. Economic loss from the Chernobyl disaster, in today’s money, was at least US$250 billion. This was not a military attack or terror attack, but a nuclear catastrophe due to human error. The Fukushima disaster was due to earthquake and tsunami, of course aggravated by the proven irresponsibility, lying and cost-cutting of the site operator, Tepco.

Nuclear power is therefore already a dagger pointed at the jugular vein of the global economy and consumer economy. Today, with what is likely the last gasp of the Al Qaeda farce, and its violence and loss of life, created by American geopolitical strategy for unknown or absurd reasons, we have a new and additional asymmetric nuclear war threat.

Western media and the Wikileaks communication side-channel provides false information on the supposed Dirty Bomb threat of Al Qaeda, but totally ignores the reality of existing and vast dirty bomb civil reactors and other nuclear infrastructures in the worldwide nuclear value chain. Since Fukushima the real dangers of nuclear power are now better known. Whatever may remain of Al Qaeda’s operatives will also know.

Andrew McKillop
xtran9@gmail.com
Senior Partner
EP Capital Pty Ltd
Mount Hawthorn
Western Australia
Australia 6016
Phone: +61 411 771 895

May 9, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

Murder without Corpse

By Linh Dinh | May 8, 2011

In a photograph, Bush is shown in an Army jacket, his hands holding a tray with a picture-perfect turkey, garlanded by grapes. He is surrounded by American troops, most of whom are not looking at him. This is meant to convey that the photo was spontaneous, casual, and not posed. It is authentic.

In another photograph, Obama is shown in the Situation Room of the White House, surrounded by his top security advisors. They are watching something. Of the thirteen faces, none is looking at the camera. Again, this is to convey that the photo was natural and spontaneous. Obama is shown in a casual jacket, Biden in shirt sleeves, details that indicate they are at work, and not posing for a propaganda photo, god forbid. This image is so authentic, in fact, that it borders on the illicit. This was a secret session, after all. That’s why all of the laptop monitors have been blackened out, and the photo in front of Hillary Clinton has been blurred. We should be thankful, then, for this courtesy peep at a scene we shouldn’t even have access to. The spontaneity is also reinforced by an unfamiliar face at the back, peeking in. She is younger and shorter than the rest, truly a little person among heavyweights, nearly all of whom are men, by the way, yet only the most cynical would conclude that this small woman was added to double the female representation in the room. A really tall and large woman would not do. Like that worm in the British royal wedding photo, this tiny woman provides just enough intrigue without distracting.

As we all know, Bush served up a plastic turkey, so the turkey propaganda photo was itself a turkey, but a much bigger turkey is the Situation Room image. Releasing it, the White House explained that Obama and company were watching the raid and execution of Bin Laden in real time, with the snuff film made possible by a camera mounted on the helmet of a Navy Seal. Now, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that any head during a firefight is not likely to be stationary, not long enough, in any case, to broadcast steadily and clearly to the folks back home, not unless it wants to be a dead head, that is.

“Hey, Seal with the camera, run up that stairs and fix your gaze on Geronimo, will you? Remember to stand still and don’t duck, so our Commander in Chief will have a vivid stream of images, OK?”

Soon after, the White House explained that there was no live feed of the crucial moment, after all, that the camera actually didn’t work for 25 of the 38-minute raid, so there was absolutely no video footage of Bin Laden, but why this sudden reversal? Can’t these people work out their lies before they broadcast them to us?

The White House had to backtrack because it had painted itself into a corner. It had already refused to produce photos of a dead Bin Laden. He had been shot above the eye, it said, shattering his skull, so such a gory image would inflame Muslim sentiments. “We don’t want to spike the football,” Obama explained. But if we can’t see a dead Bin Laden, how about a photo of him alive? If a helmet mounted camera could deliver a live feed to the Situation Room, surely it can produce at least one image of Bin Laden with his head still intact, and in that house? But this, too, was out of the question, incredibly enough.

With webcams, surveillance cameras, Google street view and the ubiquitous camera phones, it seems that the entire world is always photographed, or ready to be photographed these days, that anyone at any moment can be captured by that voracious shutter, then uploaded onto a screen. There are cameras hidden inside pens, books, boom boxes, clocks, air purifiers and smoke detectors. You can probably google any name, a grade school chum, your first lover, long lost cat, dead grandma, bless her soul, and find photos of them online, uploaded by the Pentagon, or maybe God himself.

After any political assassination or execution, the public has also come to expect a photo as evidence or trophy. Just think of the strung up Mussolini, bloody Ngo Dinh Diem inside an armored car, a shirtless Che Guevara or the bandaged head of Leon Trotsky.

We are drowning in photographs, most of which we can do without, yet the one image that everyone wants to see this week, of a Bin Laden dead or alive during the raid, is not available. Instead, we are treated to a wealth of irrelevant information. We are told that there was “a hero dog” involved; that Obama and company had turkey pita wraps, cold shrimp, potato chips and soda, bought from Costco, the cheapo outlet—how nice, this common man touch—in the Situation Room; that Obama has met to congratulate his commandos, all highly intelligent and responsible family men between the ages of 30 and 40. Whatever.

The Bin Laden photos would not matter if there was a corpse, but that too, has gone missing, so without a cadaver or even the flimsy evidence of a photoshopped photograph, what is there to this sensational murder, really? Nothing but words from the CIA and the White House. Though they lied to us about Jessica Lynch’s “rescue” and Pat Tillman’s murder, we are to believe them this time because they have suddenly decided to speak the truth. Honestly.

May 9, 2011 Posted by | Deception | Leave a comment

So It Begins! Sen. Charles Schumer Proposes Increased Security And No Fly List For Amtrak Trains

The Intel Hub | May 8th, 2011

Just days after the CIA released information allegedly found in the compound of Osama Bin Laden that indicated Al Qaeda is planning to target U.S. railways, a leading Democratic has proposed new security measures for all Amtrak stations in America.

The simple fact is that the staged death of a long ago dead man is being used to implement further totalitarian police state actions in a country billed as land of the free.

Soon after the staged media spectacle began, western intelligence sources claimed that they had found evidence that Al Qaeda was planning to attack U.S. railroads.

Instead of doing their job and vetting information given to them by a corrupt government, the corporate controlled media immediately broadcasted the fake videos as 100% truth.

Now in response to the Al Qaeda terror fear, Sen. Charles Schumer is taking the lead in the establishment of these so called “security” checkpoints.

“Circumstances demand we make adjustments by increasing funding to enhance rail safety and monitoring on commuter rail transit and screening who gets on Amtrak passenger trains, so that we can provide a greater level of security to the public,” the New York Democrat said at a news conference, reported Reuters.

These adjustments include a new Amtrak no fly list similar to the list that is already in place in our nation’s airports.

This is a classic example of Problem – Reaction – Solution.

May 9, 2011 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception | Leave a comment

‘Bin Laden dead long before US raid’

Press TV – May 8, 2011

Iran’s intelligence minister says the country has reliable information that former head of the al-Qaeda terrorist group Osama bin Laden died of disease some time ago.

“We have accurate information that bin Laden died of illness some time ago,” Heidar Moslehi told reporters on the sidelines of a Cabinet meeting on Sunday.

He questioned Washington’s claim that bin Laden was killed by American troops in a hiding compound in Pakistan on May 1.

“If the US military and intelligence apparatus have really arrested or killed bin Laden, why don’t they show him (his dead body) why have they thrown his corpse into the sea?” Moslehi asked.

“When we apprehended [former Jundallah ringleader Abdul Malik] Rigi, we showed him and also aired his interview,” ISNA quoted the intelligence chief as saying. […]

A US official later announced that bin Laden’s body was abruptly buried at sea, falsely boasting that his hasty burial was in accordance with the Islamic law, requiring burial within 24 hours of death.

However, burial at sea is not an Islamic practice and Islam does not have a time frame for burial.

US officials also claimed their decision for a sea burial was made because no country would accept bin Laden’s remains, without elaborating on which countries were actually contacted on the matter.

Analysts, however, have raised serious questions as to why US officials did not allow for the application of a DNA test to officially confirm the identity of the corpse before its hasty burial.

May 8, 2011 Posted by | Deception | Leave a comment

Bodyguard of Lies protects the truth about Osama bin Laden

 Los Angeles Times Says: Time to Stop Doubting the Media and Government

With an Afterword by Michael Hoffman – May 7, 2011

OBSERVATIONS AND PROVOCATIONS
FROM THE OPINION STAFF OF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES

A note to selected readers: Osama bin Laden really is dead
May 6, 2011 |  http://tinyurl.com/64u54y8

Sunday’s announcement by President Obama that a team of U.S. commandos had killed Osama bin Laden gave rise to a number of, umm, interesting comments on the blog and at the Opinion section’s Facebook page declaring that the whole thing was faked. Like the moon landing, I suppose, or Elvis’ death.

Convinced that the burial at sea was a telltale sign of a cover-up, some argued that bin Laden wasn’t really dead. Others said that he had been dead for years, but Obama staged an assault on a Pakistani compound in order to boost his popularity. Sometimes the same people made both arguments.

So I wonder what the skeptics will make of the Associated Press’ report Friday morning that Al Qaeda had confirmed its leader’s passing at the hands of the Great Satan? According to the AP, the shadowy terrorist group posted an 11-paragraph statement online that said, in part:

“The blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is too precious to us and to all Muslims to go in vain. We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries.”

Of course, there’s no proof that the statement actually came from Al Qaeda. Like the Mafia, the group doesn’t have an official spokesman. The new statement, dated Tuesday, appeared Friday on the same jihad-friendly websites that had posted previous statements purportedly from the terrorist organization’s upper echelon. So that may be too flimsy to convince hard-core skeptics.

Still, I thought I’d throw this out there so the naysayers would come forth again to explain how we’re all being suckered into believing that U.S. troops pulled off a Mission: Impossible in the shadow of an elite Pakistani military installation. Granted, the ever-shifting versions of what actually happened inside the compound haven’t helped the administration’s credibility. But given the apparent confirmation from Bin Laden’s comrades in improvised arms, why persist in the unbelief?
*****
Afterword by Michael Hofman
They really believe the American people are stupid. Or perhaps stupid is too inadequate a word to describe the depth of contempt the media and the government have for our intelligence.

Notice the resort to denunciation by association: moon flights, Elvis.

Hey media dorks, all we are asking for is a little something called e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. We walk by faith when dealing with the Word of God. The government and the media are not God and do not speak the Word of God. With them, we walk by sight, because more often than not, they speak with a forked tongue.

For stating this truth we are ridiculed. For requiring forensic evidence we are mocked. For asking why the alleged body of Bin Laden was dumped at sea before being brought to the U.S. for forensic examination, we are scorned. For pointing to the imaginary story issued by the White House of a gun battle in the supposed Bin Laden compound, we are derided.

It is declared from the media on high, that we must believe Bin Laden was killed by Navy Seals in Pakistan last week because “Al Qaeda” has said so. Isn’t this the same Al Qaeda that issued a press release attacking George W. Bush, timed to coincide with the eve of the 2004 presidential election?

“President George W. Bush said his 2004 re-election victory over Sen.  John Kerry was… aided by Osama bin Laden, who issued a taped diatribe against him the Friday before Americans went to the polls…’I thought it was going to help,’ Bush said. ‘I thought it would help remind people that if bin Laden doesn’t want Bush to be the president, something must be right with Bush.” (“Bush says bin Laden tape aided re-election,” Reuters, Feb. 28, 2005).

The record shows that, as if on cue, “Al Qaeda” issued proclamations from its leaders at crucial moments when George W. Bush needed a boost in his presidency. In addition to helping get Bush reelected in 2004, “Al Qaeda” conveniently responded to his State of the Union speech on Jan. 23, 2007 announcing an additional 21,000 troops for Iraq, by challenging Bush to “send the entire army.” (“Group Says Al-Qaida No. 2 Mocks Bush,” AP, Jan. 23, 2007).

To what degree is Al Qaeda a creature of U.S. Intelligence agencies or their assets? Why is it naughty for America’s infantilized citizenry to ask these questions? Why are we being herded into Group Think on this subject?

Winston Churchill, the American government’s most esteemed foreign statesman, stated, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

Is this truism no longer the case? Have the Pentagon and the CIA suddenly been transformed into units of the Boy Scouts? Have they shuttered their psychological warfare departments? Of what does psy war consist?

What if the “truth” decided upon by the Cryptocracy is that Barrack Obama needed a boost in his sagging presidency, and that the ghost of Osama bin Laden had to be resurrected in order to achieve that objective? Bin Laden has not been seen in public in any verifiable appearance, since the American carpet-bombing of his redoubt in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan in December, 2001, where it is believed by intelligence analysts such as Ghislaine Alleaume, a historian and Arabist at the French national research center, that he was killed.

There’s one final hole in the Obama administration/Establishment media account of the “raid on Bin Laden in Pakistan,” and it’s the size of the Grand Canyon. They now tell us there was no gun battle, just a lone sentry on the ground floor who was quickly neutralized. Everyone else in the compound was without a firearm. Navy Seal Force Six, possibly the most formidable commando unit on earth, then proceeded to kill Bin Laden and his aides rather than capture them alive.

Those of you who have a police detective or prosecuting attorney in your family, or among your acquaintances, without mentioning Bin Laden, please ask them which they would prefer the police do when they have apprehended a murderer and his gang — kill or capture them? Almost invariably, the answer will be “Capture them,” because no computer disk or hard drive is equivalent in intelligence value to what can be elicited by interrogators from the perpetrators themselves.

And yet, the Navy Seals needlessly executed the leader of the western world’s most feared terror network,  thereby forfeiting priceless sources of intelligence on terrorist operations which could have been extracted from him.  Anyone who questions why this would have been done if it really were Bin Laden that had been apprehended, is made the object of scorn and ridiculed as a “conspiracy theorist.”

We’re dealing with a case in which the story changes day to day, the body cannot be produced and the alleged execution of the master criminal violates the most basic procedures of any police department in the United States.

But how dare we doubt the tale? To do so is equivalent to doubting the death of Elvis. To be considered a patriot, we must believe and obey the bodyguard of lies in this, the low bottom twelve of the history of America.

May 8, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Media Scrambles as Bin Laden Story Crumbles

By Alex Newman | The New American | 06 May 2011

While the establishment media was busy parroting President Obama’s announcement of Osama bin Laden’s supposed assassination, reporting the unsubstantiated claims as if they were unquestionable facts, much of the so-called “alternative” press was far more cautious — and accurate, it turns out. But more importantly, with the new official storyline indicating that bin Laden was in fact unarmed, bigger and much more important questions are beginning to emerge.

In terms of coverage, it turns out that the skeptical approach proved far superior in terms of getting it right. Countless mainstream sources were so confident in Obama’s word that they reported many of the claims as fact without even attributing them to the President.

But the official White House narrative has been changed so many times in recent days that now it’s almost unrecognizable. There wasn‘t even a fire fight; yet this was one of the crucial elements of the original story that justified the assassination of a person the government painted as the most valuable source of information on the planet — the leader of al-Qaeda. And in reporting the statements as fact, the establishment press has officially been left with egg all over its face again.

“[Bin Laden] was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house he was in,” said terror czar John Brennan. Similarly, Obama said that “after a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.” The next day, however, the White House spokesman admitted bin Laden “was not armed.” Trying to save face and justify the killing of an unarmed man, the spokesman added, without elaborating, that “resistance does not require a firearm.”

More than a few other important parts of the storyline have been altered, contradicted, or simply exposed as false, too. Everything from which of  bin Laden’s sons was supposedly killed to the claim that his wife was killed after being used as a “human shield” — all of it has changed for some reason or another. The transcript after Brennan’s speech was altered to change the name of the dead son. The new and improved narrative now says that not only was bin Laden’s wife not killed, but that she was not used as a human shield.

Originally the White House also suggested top officials watched the raid live through a video feed. Terror czar Brennan, for example, claimed that they “had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation.” CIA boss Leon Panetta later exposed that claim as false in an interview with PBS, saying: “There was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on.”

That means the “photo op” of Obama and other officials intently “watching” the operation in the “Situation Room” was almost certainly staged for the press. And almost every media outlet that ran the picture used inaccurate captions parroting the White House claims.

And there’s more. The night of the raid, one administration official told reporters that a helicopter was lost due to mechanical failure. During that same briefing, another administration official said, “We didn’t say it was mechanical.” Now they claim the crash had something to do with the temperature at bin Laden’s supposed compound.

A poorly photo-shopped image of a dead bin Laden embarrassed a large swath of the world press and several Senators, too. Shortly after newspapers and television stations around the globe ran the image, it was exposed as a shoddy forgery that had been circulating for years. Now Obama said he “decided” not to release any pictures — or any other evidence that any element of the story is true, for that matter.

And then there’s the burial issue. The Obama administration originally claimed no country would accept the body; so, it was dumped at sea — Mafia style — in accordance with what Obama alleged were Islamic traditions and customs. When prominent Muslim theological leaders repudiated that lie and noted that it was actually a violation of Islamic tenets to bury Osama bin Laden in the ocean, the new line was that the decision was to avoid the creation of a “shrine.” That lie fell apart, too, when it was widely reported that bin Laden’s brand of Islam calls for unmarked graves — building any sort of shrine would have been blasphemous. So far, no new excuses have been concocted for allegedly feeding the body to the fish.

After the numerous discrepancies and falsehoods in the storyline became painfully obvious, the Associated Press, USA Today, Fox News and other outlets slowly and begrudgingly started to report it. “From the first moments, a good number of the details about bin Laden’s killing, on points large and small, have been wrong,” admitted a Fox reporter in one of the more candid acknowledgements to appear in the mainstream press.

But of course, most of the media were also dutifully offering and parroting all manner of excuses. “Fog of war” was to blame for the confusion, claimed the White House spokesman after that excuse was suggested to him by a member of the “press” corps asking a question. Virtually every major news outlet reporting the changes in the official story promptly blamed “fog of war,” too.

An apologist reporter at USA Today wrote that “the administration did its best to get the story quickly,” adding “it’s common situation with military action.” The paper quoted a Pentagon spokesperson under the Bush administration to bolster its case.

The AP offered a similar excuse along with the “fog of combat” line offered by the White House. “The contradictions and misstatements reflect the fact that even in the case of a highly successful and popular mission, the confusion inherent in a fast-paced, unpredictable military raid conducted under intense pressure in a foreign country does not lend itself immediately to a tidy story line,” the reporter claimed, citing “some experts.”

Several excuses for the ever-changing story were offered by other publications, too. The possibility that they were deliberate lies or worse was virtually never addressed. But the U.K. Independent noted: “The impression persists that the administration sought to cast the operation in the most heroic light possible, at the expense of the facts.”

Now, the President and his spokespeople and subordinates are refusing to offer more details or explanations. The government has also announced that it will not be releasing pictures or any other evidence to support its claims even as suspicions continue to mount.

But as analysts pointed out, the newly revealed fact that there was no fire fight begs the question about where the “fog” may have come from. And even more importantly: Why, in the absence of a fire fight, would U.S. forces put a bullet through the brain supposedly containing the most valuable intelligence on the planet? What if bin Laden knew where that alleged nuclear bomb in Europe was located that was set to detonate after his capture or death? None of those questions have been addressed so far.

But prominent critics are sounding the alarm. “When such a foundational story as the demise of bin Laden cannot last 48 hours without acknowledged ‘discrepancies’ that require fundamental alternations to the story, there are grounds for suspicion in addition to the suspicions arising from the absence of a dead body, from the absence of any evidence that bin Laden was killed in the raid or that a raid even took place,” noted Paul Craig Roberts, a senior official in the former Reagan administration in a piece entitled “The Agendas Behind the bin Laden News Event.”

Roberts raised several important questions, too, as well as some comparisons. “The entire episode could just be another event like the August 4, 1964, Gulf of Tonkin event that never happened but succeeded in launching open warfare against North Vietnam at a huge cost to Americans and Vietnamese and enormous profits to the military/security complex,” he suggested, citing a series of government deceptions that have led to war based on lies and other atrocities.

Roberts suspects there are more lies about the bin Laden narrative than those exposed so far. And he’s certainly not alone. It emerged recently that the man who owned the house next to bin Laden’s supposed compound doesn’t even believe the story either. “To be honest, it’s not true,” he told Al Jazeera.

As the official story continues to be re-written by the administration and those in the media who simply re-package government press releases, critics and skeptics would seem to be justified in wondering what other lies and “fog of war” changes may emerge in the coming weeks and months. And perhaps even more importantly, we might also wonder if there are lies that may never be exposed in their entirety?

May 7, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Leave a comment

Do We Really Need an International Criminal Court?

A Pretext for War

By DIANA JOHNSTONE | CounterPunch | May 7, 2011

Year after year, people in the Arab countries are helpless spectators to the ongoing destruction of Iraq and Palestine by the United States and Israel. They see families wiped out by bombs in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. They see Arabs tortured and humiliated in Abu Ghraib and in Guantanamo. They see Israel regularly carrying out “targeted” assassinations in the Occupied Territories (splashing death around the target) while extending its illegal settlement of land belonging to Palestinians. Probably no people have greater cause to yearn for an equitable system of international justice. But where are they to look for it?

Well, what about the International Criminal Court (ICC)? The ICC is supposed to punish perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It has been in operation since July 2002, but seldom gets as much attention as it received during a symposium in mid-January at the Academy of Graduate Studies in the Libyan capital, Tripoli. Underlying the two-day discussion on the “ambition, reality and future prospects” of the ICC was the question: is the ICC a first baby step toward international justice? Or is it just another element of Western “soft power”, imposed on small countries?

Although Libyan leader Moammer Gadhafi has expressed the second view, on balance most of the legal experts and academics — from Libya and other Arab countries, but also from Europe, China and South America — tended to lean toward the first view. Although nobody denied the evident shortcomings of the ICC, lawyers and jurists generally see it as “better than nothing” and point out that democratic legal systems have evolved from institutionalized power relations toward greater justice.

Selectivity

Meanwhile, a new war front was opening up. Urged on by the United States, Ethiopia invaded Somalia to restore disorder. U.S. war planes bombed fleeing members of the Islamic Courts Council that only recently managed to end the clan fighting that had ravaged Mogadishu for some fifteen years. The newly installed, U.S.-backed president, Abdulli Yusuf Ahmed, 73, announced that there would be “no talks” with the defeated Islamists, who were to be wiped out as they fled.

Now it so happens that among the war crimes listed in the Statute of Rome that governs the ICC is this one (Article 8.2.b.xii): “Declaring that no quarter will be given”. This is exactly what the Ethiopian-U.S.-backed conquerors were doing. But there was no chance that the ICC would deal with this latest outburst of international criminal behavior.

Indeed, after four and a half years of existence, the ICC has taken just one suspect into its custody: Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, head of a rebel militia in the impenetrable Ituri forest in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex-Zaïre). He is held under Article 8 (war crimes), section 2.e.vii on charges of recruiting children under the age of 15 to fight in his militia.

This is certainly bad behavior, but considering all that is going on in the world today, it hardly seems to rank among “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole” (Article 5, defining the crimes within jurisdiction of the court). A French judge working as an investigator in the ICC Prosecutor’s office, Bernard Lavigne, acknowledged that since it is clearly unable to deal with all the crimes in the world, the Court is necessarily selective. He defended the selection of this lone suspect by the need to start off with an air-tight case that the Prosecution was sure to win.

Therein, however, lies one of the ICC’s more subtle and insidious vices. Although the Statute formally upholds the “presumption of innocence”, all the details point to a Court whose job is not meant to sort out the innocent from the guilty, but to punish the (presumed) guilty. Politically, the creation of the ICC responds to demands of various NGOs, given great resonance by Bosnia and especially Rwanda, to “end impunity” and to comfort victims. The underlying political assumption is that both the criminals and the victims can be easily identified prior to trial — the trial being more a demonstration of the concern of the international community for justice than the search for a justice, and a truth, that may be elusive or seriously contested.

Like the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the ICC, despite its title, is not essentially set up to deal with international conflicts, but rather to administer “international” justice to internal conflicts, in countries too weak to resist its authority.

The total impotence of the ICC to deal with the most dangerous crimes truly “of concern to the international community as a whole”, those that outrage public opinion not only in the West but in all parts of the world, those that seriously threaten world peace, is most strikingly due to:

— the fact that the crime of aggression is not covered;

— the fact that the United States and its citizens are immune to prosecution, first of all because the United States has not ratified the ICC Statute, and secondly, because the United States has used its unprecedented economic and political clout to pressure countries into signing Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) that exempt Americans from prosecution. One hundred and two countries have signed BIAs with the United States.

Aggression exempted

Article 5 of the Rome Statute limits the jurisdiction of the Court to:

(a) The crime of genocide;

(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression.

However, it goes on to specify that the Court “shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted […] defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime.” In short, the crime of aggression is for the time being exempted from the Court’s jurisdiction.

The formal reason is that aggression is “not defined”. This is a specious argument since aggression has been quite clearly defined by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3314 in 1974,

which declared that: “Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State”, and listed seven specific examples including:

— The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

— Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the :territory of another State;

— The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State…

The resolution also stated that: “No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.”

The real reason that aggression remains outside the jurisdiction of the ICC is that the United States, which played a strong role in elaborating the Statute, before refusing to ratify it, was adamantly opposed to its inclusion. It is not hard to see why.

This went against the nearly unanimous opinion of most of the world, which recalls that the Nuremberg Tribunal condemned Nazi leaders above all for the crime of aggression, as the “supreme international crime” which “contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.

It may be noted that instances of “aggression”, which are clearly factual, are much easier to identify than instances of “genocide”, whose definition relies on assumptions of intention.

Defenders of the ICC stress that “aggression” may be defined, and thus come under the active jurisdiction of the Court, at the Review Conference which should be held in 2009 to consider amendments. Even so, an amendment comes into force only one year after ratification by seven eighths of State Parties to the Statute, and applies only to State Parties (which so far notoriously do not include the United States). And should the United States turn around and choose to ratify the Statute, it may still declare that for a period of seven years it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court for its nationals (Article 124). All this means that the earliest conceivable (but highly improbable) date when U.S. crimes, including aggression, might be brought under ICC jurisdiction would be 2017. Even then, there is scarcely any possibility that an American citizen, or any person acting on behalf of the United States, would end up in the dock at the ICC.

For one thing, the ICC must turn over jurisdiction to any State which proves “willing and able” to try the case in its own courts.

Moreover, Article 16 allows the Security Council to suspend any ICC investigation or prosecution for a period of 12 months. The suspension can be renewed indefinitely. These days, the Security Council is generally viewed throughout the world as an instrument of U.S. policy.

The BIAs would still apply.

And incidentally, employing poison gases counts as a war crime, but not the use of nuclear weapons.

In short, the ICC is established according to double standards to deal with small fry.

A court for “failed states”

Indeed, it is hard to see how the ICC can deal with any but extremely weak or “failed” States. According to Article 17, a case is not admissible unless the State concerned is genuinely “unwilling or unable” to investigate and prosecute it. The Court itself can determine whether the State concerned is “unwilling or unable”.

At this point, the scene grows very murky. The Democratic Republic of Congo cooperated in turning over the case of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo to the ICC because he was a rebel against the State, and that troubled State has reason to want to be in the good graces of the ICC. But what if a State refuses, or shows itself “unwilling or unable” to pursue a case? What then? The ICC has no police force of its own. Will it then call on the Security Council to authorize arrest — meaning military action on the territory of the “unwilling” State?

The preamble to the Rome Statute emphasizes that “nothing in this Statute shall be taken as authorizing any State Party to intervene in an armed conflict or in the internal affairs of any State”. But this seems to be contradicted by the provisions of the Statute itself in regard to “unwilling” States.

Rather than a Court to keep the peace, the ICC could turn out to be — contrary to the wishes of its sincere supporters — an instrument to provide pretexts for war.

“If you can’t beat them, join them.”

It appeared from the Tripoli symposium that Arab intellectuals have an ambivalent attitude toward the ICC. On the one hand, many fear that the ICC can be instrumentalized to serve what they see as the long term U.S.-Israeli policy of breaking up Arab States and fragmenting the Middle East along ethnic or religious lines, as a way of “divide and rule”. In such a strategy, ethnic conflicts over territory and resources can be depicted by Western media and NGOs as one-sided cases of “genocide” requiring urgent international intervention. The trial run was Yugoslavia, and Iraq is the prime example.

Jurists themselves, professionally attached to the construction of a new legal institution, may be oblivious to strategic aspects. But the very emphasis on applying criminal law to political conflicts tends to reinforce the Manichean view (typical of the Bush administration and of Israel) that the world’s troubles are due to “bad guys”, “terrorists”, criminals that must be rooted out and punished. This precludes analysis of underlying causes of conflicts.

Like other Arab States, except for Jordan (and two formerly French territories, Djibouti and the Comoro Islands), Sudan is not a Party to the Rome Statute and thus does not fall under ICC jurisdiction. This fact has not prevented the mounting campaign for international intervention to stop what is described as “genocide” in Darfur. Some observers on the ground contend that this campaign is characterized by a limitless inflation of the number of casualties, to upgrade massacres to the status of “genocide”. Whatever the reality, the call for “intervention”, implying military intervention, is not accompanied by any clear explanation of how this would solve the underlying problems of religious identity and claim to scarce resources that have caused the crisis in Darfur. The well-financed and (largely) well-intentioned campaign to “save Darfur” actually tends to eclipse any effort to find genuine political and economic solutions by way of negotiation carried out by parties familiar with the history and culture of the region.

As can be seen in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the armed “rescue” of a country or region tends to be followed by a sharp drop in interest, and above all of the economic and practical aid promised at the outset.

In Tripoli, some argued that Sudan would be better placed to defend itself from impending military intervention if it were Party to the ICC. As a Belgian lawyer put it, for small countries the problem is to “avoid being entrapped”, and for this purpose it is better to join the ICC than to stay out of it.

Many Arab and Third World intellectuals are tired of standing on the sidelines and “complaining”. Joining the ICC might be a way to “join the world” and improve their own countries. This viewpoint seems particularly frequent among women lawyers and human rights NGOs.

But as one participant put it, “Inside or outside; the small countries are on the sidelines”.

The view from Tripoli

To conclude with a subjective note, from the peaceful atmosphere of Tripoli the rabid Bushist-Blairist fantasies about the deadly threat from “Islamo-fascism” seem particularly grotesque. The semi-socialist regime installed 37 years ago by Colonel Moammer Kadhafi has widely redistributed oil revenues, educating the population and creating a large middle class thanks to a service sector (largely bureaucratic) that employs some 80 per cent of the population. This makes it a singularly tranquil society — some bureaucrats may be superfluous, but they are not homeless, begging or thieving. Colonel Kadhafi is eccentric, sleeping in tents instead of palaces, but it is hard to avoid the feeling that he has been demonized not for his faults but for his support to Arab unity (which failed), to the Palestinians and to other liberation causes — which was natural for a country like Libya that had been the victim not so very long ago of a ruthless colonization by Mussolini’s forces, which subjected the local population to summary executions, mass deportations and concentration camps. Looking around, one may conclude that Kadhafi’s “soft” dictatorship could well be the best transitional modernizing regime that exists in the Arab world.

In any case, the ICC symposium followed its own ambivalent course without interference from the government. The overall impression was of a great thirst for peace, development and justice — all under threat from the fanatic Western “war on terror”. Islamic extremism is a problem to be dealt with in a growing number of Arab countries (not Libya, apparently, where the devout but moderate Muslim practice seems to preempt the extremists), but which is clearly aggravated by U.S. aggression and Israeli persecution of the Palestinians.

Justice and globalization

I give the last word to excerpts from the contribution of a retired Libyan gentleman who has held high positions in the past, but now prefers to remain anonymous:

“The dominant system is oriented towards an international business law considered as the supreme reference overhanging all national law and of course international public and private law. The WTO has defined in this context an arsenal of principles and procedures all the way to and including a juridical system based on the negation of the elementary principles of separation of powers that characterize democracy.

“This is totally unacceptable. We need exactly the opposite. We need a business law that is respectful of the rights of nations, people and labor, and respectful of the environment, rights of communities, women, while ensuring the conditions for further progress of democratization of societies.

“We have to advocate an International Law of the Peoples, which should combine:

“– The respect of national sovereignty, allowing people to choose their future according to their wishes.

“– The respect of Human Rights, not only political rights but also social rights and the right to development and peace.

“No solution is reached through abolishing one of the two terms of the equation. We can neither abolish sovereignty nor can we abolish human rights.

“The principle of respect for the sovereignty of nations must be the cornerstone of international law. The fact that this principle is violated today with so much brutality by the democracies themselves constitutes an aggravating, rather than mitigating circumstance. […] The solemn adoption of the principle of national sovereignty in 1945 was logically accompanied by the prohibition of recourse to war. […] With the militarization of the globalization process, which is closely associated with the neo-liberal option and with its predilection for the supremacy of international business law, it has become more imperative than ever that priority be given to this reflection on people’s rights.”

Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions. She can be reached at  diana.josto@yahoo.fr

May 7, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Leave a comment

BBC Proves Jessica Lynch “Rescue” Story Was A Hoax

US Soldier Jessica Lynch Rescued in ‘Dramatic’ Special Operations Mission

US Special Operations forces rescue captured Private Jessica Lynch from Saddam Hussein Hospital hospital near Nasiriyah (see March 23, 2003). According to the Pentagon, the rescue is a classic Special Forces raid, with US commandos in Black Hawk helicopters blasting their way through Iraqi resistance in and out of the medical compound. [Baltimore Sun, 11/11/2003] The Associated Press’s initial report is quite guarded, saying only that Lynch had been rescued. An Army spokesman “did not know whether Lynch had been wounded or when she might return to the United States.” [Project for Excellence in Journalism, 6/23/2003]

‘Shooting Going In … Shooting Going Out’ – Subsequent accounts are far more detailed (see April 3, 2003). Military officials say that the rescue was mounted after securing intelligence from CIA operatives. A Special Forces unit of Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, and Air Force combat controllers “touched down in blacked-out conditions,” according to the Washington Post. Cover is provided by an AC-130 gunship circling overhead; a reconnaissance aircraft films the events of the rescue. One military official briefed on the operation says: “There was shooting going in, there was some shooting going out. It was not intensive. There was no shooting in the building, but it was hairy, because no one knew what to expect. When they got inside, I don’t think there was any resistance. It was fairly abandoned.” [Washington Post, 4/3/2003] CENTCOM spokesman General Vincent Brooks says he is not yet sure who Lynch’s captors were, but notes: “Clearly the regime had done this. It was regime forces that had been in there. Indications are they were paramilitaries, but we don’t know exactly who. They’d apparently moved most of them out before we arrived to get in, although, as I mentioned, there were buildings outside of the Saddam Hospital, where we received fire—or the assault force received fire—during the night.” [New York Times, 4/2/2003]
‘Prototype Torture Chamber’ – According to a military official, the Special Forces soldiers find what he calls a “prototype” Iraqi torture chamber in the hospital’s basement, equipped with batteries and metal prods. US Marines are patrolling Nasiriyah to engage whatever Iraqi forces may still be in the area. [Washington Post, 4/3/2003]

Related articles

May 6, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , | Leave a comment

Cook-ing up (pro-Israel) reform of the Middle East

By Maidhc Ó Cathail | The Passionate Attachment | May 6, 2011

How many pro-Israelis have to support the Arab uprisings before people begin to suspect that Israel might be partial to a little “democratic change” in the region?

Among those who have enthusiastically backed what Shimon Peres approvingly refers to as the Arab “awakening,” I’ve already noted the following Israel partisans: Robert Kagan, Elliott Abrams, Ellen Bork, William Kristol, Carl Gershman, Martin Peretz, Natan Sharansky, Bernard Lewis, David Keyes, Ronald Lauder, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Diamond, Jared Cohen, Tamara Wittes, George Soros, Peter Ackerman, Kenneth Wollack, Sheldon Himmelfarb, Robert Satloff, David Pollock, Norman J. Pattiz, Walter Issacson, Nicholas Kristof, Anne Applebaum, Kenneth Pollack, Josh Block, Max Kampelman, Joshua Muravchik, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Nicole Lapin, Jason Liebman, Madeleine Albright, Joe Lieberman, and last, but certainly not least in his fealty to the Jewish state, John McCain.

The latest pro-Israel advocate of democracy promotion in the Middle East to come to my attention is Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) senior fellow Steven A. Cook. Writing on his CFR blog on May 3 about the unrest in Syria, the Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies urged President Obama to publicly back the opposition, increase sanctions, and call for President Assad’s departure. Despite the risk of “generalized instability” that would likely ensue from Assad’s fall, Cook opined that the “potential for isolating Iran … is worth the risk.”

Like many a policy “expert” willing to take risks with American interests, Cook has quite an impressive pro-Israel pedigree. In the late 1990s, he was a Soref Research Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the AIPAC-created think tank. In 2004, he authored “The Unspoken Power: Civil-Military Relations and the Prospects for Reform” for the Saban Center for Middle East Policy — named after Haim Saban, the Egyptian-born Israeli-American media mogul who admitted to the New York Times that Israel was the only issue that concerned him. In that paper, Cook advocated political liberalization and economic reform in the Middle East and the broader Islamic world, a theme which he pursued as director of the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on U.S. policy toward reform in the Arab world, and in his 2007 book, “Ruling But Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt, Algeria, and Turkey.” But when he isn’t busy promoting democratic reform in Israel’s neighbourhood, he reportedly “works overtime” to make sure the U.S. shares Israeli policy objectives.

And like the National Endowment for Democracy’s program officer for Middle East and North Africa, Amira Maaty, and former State Department official and CFR adjunct fellow Jared Cohen, (who “has written about how technology can empower citizens in repressive regimes”), Cook just happened to arrive in Cairo in time to witness the protests that could herald the reform he has long sought.

May 6, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Leave a comment

Raid on Abbottabad- Precedent to up the attacks on Pakistan

Penny For Your Thoughts | May 5, 2011

As many already know. All operations, psychological or otherwise have multiple purposes.

The Abbottabad op, offered the US an opportunity to end the Osama Bin Laden psy-op, because plainly speaking, that ship had sailed, hit a storm and sunk long, long ago.

An aside, hoping we all recall that Osama Bin Laden was never wanted for 9/11?

Despite the reinforcement of the myth and legend. He was never wanted for any connection to the 9/11 attacks.

I see the FBI has updated their site. Still no mention of being wanted for 9/11!

What other opportunity was presented by the Abbottabad raid?

From what I have been reading we are looking at two fresh opportunities.

First: The US is stating, flat out they will carry out raids such as this again.

We’re not talking drone flights. We are talking targeted raids. So, who or what is going to be targeted? I guess we shall find out soon enough. But here is the talk–

The US will again carry out special operations in Pakistan if required.

( Meaning: as the US see’s fit)

Press Secretary Jay Carney said the Obama Administration would continue with this policy if that country(Pakistan) does not act against terror suspects holed up in that country.

Q) Are you saying that the US reserves the right to, as the President said back in the campaign, if Pakistan will not act against terror suspects, to go and enter Pakistani territory and act against them?”.

A) “Yes. He made very clear during the campaign that that was his view. He was criticized for it. He maintained that that was his view, and by the actions he has taken as President, feels that it was the right approach and continues to feel that way,” the press secretary said.”

US President Barack Obama has consistently said that he would go ahead to target high profile terrorists, if he had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani Government was not willing to act.

In other words, the US will begin undertaking targeted raids within Pakistan, when ever they dam well feel like it! Using any excuse they want. This OBL psy-op set the precedent. Pakistan and it’s people had better watch out. … Full article

May 6, 2011 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »