Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Obama Administration Fails to Make Progress on Reforming US Drone Program

Sputnik — February 23, 2016

US President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to implement reforms regarding the controversial drone policy to make it more transparent, accountable and consistent with national security interests, according to a report by the US think tank Stimson Center published Tuesday.

“Little progress has been made during the past year and a half to enact reforms that establish a more sensible US drone policy consistent with America’s long-term security and economic interests. The lack of a clear drone policy risks leaving a legacy on drone use that is based on secrecy and a lack of accountability that undermines efforts to support the international rule of law,” the report reads.

In 2014, the Stimson Task Force, comprising senior military and intelligence officials, recommended public disclosure of targeted drone strikes, thorough review of past and present drone strikes and their effectiveness and detailed reports explaining the legal basis of the US lethal drone program, among other recommendations.

The proposals were later backed by UN experts, including the adviser to Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Sarah Knuckey.

The US military has increasingly relied on drones to conduct operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq. Critics have slammed the practice for resulting in a significant number of civilian deaths and the destruction of infrastructure unrelated to terrorists.

Data collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism shows that US drone strikes have killed up to 1,000 civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen over the past 10 years.

February 23, 2016 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

DoD, State Dept. struggle to explain Libya strike legality with 15yo authorization & some intl law

RT | February 20, 2016

A view shows damage at the scene after an airstrike by U.S. warplanes against Islamic State in Sabratha, Libya, in this February 19, 2016 handout picture. © Sabratha municipality media office

A view shows damage at the scene after an airstrike by U.S. warplanes against Islamic State in Sabratha, Libya, in this February 19, 2016 handout picture.
© Sabratha municipality media office / Reuters

Having confirmed a strike on an ISIS camp in Libya, Washington officials had difficulties explaining under which legal authority the US acts. While the Pentagon cites post-9/11 legislation, stripped of such powers, the State Department refers to unnamed international laws.

On Friday, the US announced that its warplanes targeted a training camp near the Libyan city of Sabratha, reportedly killing up to 40 people. The Pentagon has treated the attack as a success as it declared the elimination of a Tunisian national, Noureddine Chouchane, who was an Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIL/ISIS) facilitator in Libya.

Also known as “Sabir,” the militant is believed to be behind the deadly attack on the Bardo Museum in Tunis in March 2015.

However, regardless of its achievement, the US authority to carry out strikes on Libyan soil has again come into question. It has appeared that Washington does not have a single answer.

After briefing reporters on Friday, the Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook was asked to clarify under what authority the US came to Libya, given that no Americans had been killed in the 2015 Tunisia attack.

“We have struck in Libya previously under the existing Authorization for the use of [military] force,” Cook replied.

The Pentagon’s spokesperson allegedly referred to the AUMF, which was passed and then signed by President George W. Bush shortly after 9/11, in September 2001, to target al-Qaeda. It authorized United States Armed Forces to carry out attacks against those responsible for September 11.

However, the Defense Department “believes” that the AUMF can be used 15 years later to fight ISIS.

“We believe that this was carried out under international law and, specifically, that this operation was consistent with domestic and international law,” Cook said, while not explicitly referring to any particular legislation.

In February 2015, President Obama did propose his own AUMF, which “does not address the 2001 AUMF”, but the draft was rejected by the Congress in December.

Other AUMF drafts, including for example, one of the most recently submitted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have not gotten Congressional approval either.

RT has also tried to clarify the US’s authority for the attack with the State Department, but failed to get a conclusive answer.

RT’s Gayane Chichikyan: “Under what legal authority did the US carry out strikes in Libya this morning?”

State Department’s Mark Toner: “It was in full accordance with international law. We’ve talked about this many times. I’d refer you to the Department of Defense to speak about specifics.”

Chichikyan: “So not the AUMF? It’s – it was international law?”

Toner: “Exactly. I mean – exactly.” He then refused to “get into details here,” again readdressing the question back to the Pentagon.

Approved by ‘some Libyan authority’?

At the same time both departments unanimously stress that “the Libyan authorities were aware” about the US’s strike. However, when asked to specify what “Libyan authorities” he referred to, Toner seemed to be at a loss, saying that “there is some governmental structure present” there.

“The new – well, I mean, there’s obviously Libyan authorities on the ground,” he replied to a question about Libya’s recently announced unity government. “It’s not – we’re still working to stand up the Government of National Accord. We want to see it returned and establish itself in Tripoli.”

Meanwhile, as experts tell RT, until its approval, the UN-backed unity government does not have powers to authorize foreign intervention.

“There is really no Libyan authority in existence that’s able to invite them [the US], so I think they did it on their own authority,” Oliver Miles, former UK ambassador to Libya, said. Miles believes the Libyans would oppose “very strongly” any foreign intervention.

Five years after the US-led force toppled Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Libya remains in a power vacuum, which dragged the country into a civil war and let terror groups gain a foothold in the region.

There is a glimpse of hope for improvement and stability as the unity government, consisting of 13 ministers and five ministers of state, was formed Sunday and is currently expecting Libya’s eastern parliament’s approval.

The State Department “disagrees” that the US’s devastating intervention in Libya in 2011 has been a reason for its current involvement in Libya.

“We’re very clear-eyed in our assessment that when we see ISIL take these kinds of actions, we need to be able to strike at them,” Toner said, stressing that it is not “second intervention.”

In the meantime, the Pentagon has announced that it “will go after ISIL whenever it is necessary, using the full range of tools at our disposal.” 

February 20, 2016 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama admits US-ISIS terror link

By Finian Cunningham | American Herald tribune | February 18, 2016

Call it a Freudian slip, but US President Barack Obama appears to have come clean, for once, on the connection between American foreign policy and the so called Islamic State (ISIS) terror group.

In an address earlier this week to the leaders of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), gathered in California, Obama was answering questions from news reporters on various international topics. On the matter of terrorist groups expanding their foothold in Libya, the president said the following: “With respect to Libya… we will go after ISIS wherever it appears, the same way we went after al Qaeda wherever they appeared.”

In casual parlance the phrase “go after” can mean “to destroy”. But the more literal meaning and perhaps the one that Obama inadvertently let slip is simply “to follow”–as in a partnered way.

In that case, what Obama is referring to is the actual foreign policy function of ISIS and its related al Qaeda terror network. Wherever these groups appear, then Washington appoints itself to follow them under the pretext of fighting terrorism.

This pretext works very efficiently to nullify problems of international law. When the US sends its military into a foreign country to ostensibly combat terrorism then it is untrammeled by legal objections that it is violating other countries’ sovereignty. What would normally be seen as a gross violation –a military invasion by the US –is neatly transformed into an “anti-terror”operation. And if the incumbent foreign government complains about the “benevolent US assistance” then it can be toppled because it is “siding with the terrorists”.

This is, of course, the whole rationale behind the so-called War on Terror that Washington crafted in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Just uttering the phrase War on Terror gives Washington license to invade and ransack any foreign state it chooses, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, where more than one million people were killed by US forces “hunting down terrorists”.

Before that, the official pretexts were “War on Communism”or “War on Drugs”. But with the collapse of the “Evil Soviet Empire”, the first of these pretexts became redundant. Although, Washington and its NATO allies are trying their best to revive the “Russian Scare” by demonizing Vladimir Putin as the “new Hitler in Europe”. As for the War on Drugs, it didn’t quite have the required kick to pump up the Pentagon’s $600 billion annual budget, or to enthuse the American public, many of whom rather enjoy drugs anyway.

But the War on Terror, now that is, or at least was, a satisfying wheeze. It also has the added benefit of allowing federal authorities to crack down on civil rights and make all sorts of invasive controls over individual liberty, as in the latest controversy of the FBI demanding that Apple give them a digital key for unlocking phones and computers.

The primary function, however, remains: the terror groups, whether they go by the name of al Qaeda or ISIS, give Washington the convenient cover to militarily invade any country on the globe. The real agenda being regime change or commandeering the natural resources of the target country for the gratification of Wall Street banks and other American corporations –in the exact same scam that pertained in the old days of Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, who later confessed to being a henchman on behalf of US capitalism, by overthrowing governments in Central America and the Caribbean during the early 1900s.

Admittedly, sometimes the terrorists do get whacked by the Pentagon. No doubt about it that Obama and his generals have killed numerous al Qaeda-linked operatives with assassination drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Many more innocent civilians have also been murdered along the way by US drones.

The assassination of terror cadres by Washington may seem like a contradiction to the overall argument here that there is a mutual connection between the two. However, we shouldn’t think of Washington as a monolith. There are no doubt people within the US establishment who are dedicated to genuinely fighting terrorism, and sometimes they succeed.

But that doesn’t negate the central point that the US has covertly created these same terrorist groups to expedite its own foreign policy and geopolitical ambitions. We can’t go into the full history here, but it is well documented that the CIA engendered, mobilized and weaponized al Qaeda “the database” to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s. It wasn’t just the CIA. British MI6, French DGSE and Pakistani ISI were involved, as were the Saudi regime who provided the billions of dollars of finance and fundamentalist Wahhabi ideology that perversely empowers cadres to kill anyone –men, women and children –whom is designated an “infidel”. In other words, perfect proxy killers for the powers-that-be.

Despite the propaganda pumped out in the Western mainstream media of a US-led coalition “fighting terrorism” in Syria, the hard fact is that al Qaeda, ISIS and a plethora of other terrorist mercenary brigades were sent into Syria by the same US-led coalition for the purpose of regime change against the Russian and Iranian-allied government of President Bashar al-Assad. Readers can look up the candid admission of Lt General Michael Flynn, the former chief of US Defense Intelligence Agency as to the cynical calculations that Washington made in unleashing the terrorists on Syria.

If the US were really fighting terrorism in Syria then how do you explain this headline from McClatchy News referring to the huge discrepancy in Russian bombing raids compared with American. “Russia hit 1,888 targets in Syria in a week; the US count? Just 16”.

Face it. Until Russia intervened last September, the ISIS terror network had proliferated under US “bombing” to such an extent that Syria was in danger of being overthrown (as according to Washington’s plan).

Having failed in that mission largely because of Russia’s military intervention over the past five months, the fallback option provided by the terror groups is that they could be used to justify an outright military invasion of Syria by the US-led coalition, in the form of NATO-member Turkey and Saudi Arabia along with the other American-Arab puppet-regimes.

As Obama let slip at the ASEAN summit this week: “Wherever ISIS or al Qaeda appears, we will go after them.”

Well said Mr President. For once, you told the plain truth.

PS. The ASEAN venue where Obama was speaking at in Sunnylands, California is called “Rancho Mirage”. Kind of appropriate, don’t you think?

February 20, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Brandon Turbeville: “The connections between the United States and Daesh are there for all to see”

Interview by Mohsen Abdelmoumen | American Herald Tribune | February 16, 2016

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Do you think that the agreement on a ceasefire in Syria that the US has got to Russia is not intended to give a new breath the terrorist groups to enable them to reorganize, but also to erase the traces of links between the United States and Daesh? Some information from various intelligence sources reveal that Daesh elements were exfiltrated further to Russian bombardments, what do you think?

Brandon Turbeville: I think the major reason behind the ceasefire was an attempt on the part of the Western powers, particularly the United States, to buy time for the terrorists in Syria who are now on the run because of the Russian assistance being provided to the SAA. The connections between the United States and Daesh are there for all to see – from the “ineffective” bombing campaign, the links between virtually all other groups fighting against the Syrian government to al-Qaeda and Daesh, and the leaked DIA documents that revealed the creation of a “Salafist principality” was actually the desire of the U.S. and its allies. So simply eliminating specific elements of the terrorist groups would not necessarily erase the clear connections between the United States and Daesh. Remember, Daesh is merely the progression of a series of name changes made by al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, not some mystery army that appeared in the middle of the desert without warning. It is true enough that allowing groups designated as ISIS proper to be eradicated might satisfy the curiosity of some but it would also eliminate the justification for direct American involvement in Syria also and it is not likely that the NATO powers want to see that happen. Also remember, this is a pattern we have seen since the Syrian military began launching a series of successful counter-offensives a few years ago and even more so since the Russian involvement. By this I mean that, whenever the terrorists (call them what you will – “ISIS,” “Nusra,” or “moderate rebels,”) begin to gain ground, the Western powers scream for Assad to step down. Then, there is no negotiation. But, when the Syrian military gains ground, we hear incessant calls for “peace” and “ceasefires.”

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: How you explain the commitment in Syria of the Saudi army which is massacring in all impunity in Yemen in full sight of the planet. Don’t you think that Saudi Arabia sends reinforcement to Daesh?

Of course Saudi Arabia sends reinforcements to Daesh! Saudi Arabia has been one of the main financial backers of the group long before it was named “ISIS” in the Western media. Saudi Arabia has long been known as a major financial backer, supporter, and commander of terrorism. As far as their commitment to Syria, I would suggest that any direct Saudi or, for that matter, Qatari forces inside Syria are no more than decoys and proxy deterrents for the Russians and Syrians. The whole world has seen that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are paper tigers when it comes to military force. Neither country would stand a chance against any opponent in the Syrian theatre. But they can function as a state actor on the ground that would justify greater NATO involvement if bombed by the Russians or the Syrians. The Gulf forces would thus be much more than mere reinforcements for ISIS and other related terror organizations. They would be “untouchables” committing acts of war against Syria, supporting terrorists, and daring the Russians or Syrians to hit them with the possible repercussions being an American or NATO military response.

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: You mentioned 36 reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be president. No more than 36? How do you explain the mediocrity of the presidential debates?

There were many more than 36 but, at some point, a book has to come to an end if it is to be released before the primary elections which was the goal. By far, Hillary Clinton is the most odious Presidential candidate in the race. Her ties to Wall Street, Foundations, NGOs, oligarchs, and treacherous think tanks are too numerous to mention. Her support for every single war since she was first lady, her assault on Constitutional rights, and her numerous scandals should disqualify her from being legitimately considered as a candidate for President.

I think the candidates appear mediocre because every single one of them represents the continuation of the present system. For instance, can you name one who does not support war in some form? Can you name one that has a modicum of respect for Constitutional rights? You can’t! Even the more seemingly radical candidates like Sanders and Trump are supportive of “safe zones” in Syria, essentially direct military invasion. Both are selective in their support for Constitutional rights with Trump demonstrating a willingness to clamp down on the First Amendment and Sanders willing to crack down on the Second.

It is also important to note that the Establishment here in the United States appears to favor Hillary Clinton as its figurehead. Thus, we see a major push by the American oligarchs to install her as President. Hence, we see the air of inevitability given her by the Republicans and mainstream media, Sanders’ weakness when debating and campaigning against her, and the possibility that Republican candidates like Donald Trump are actually working with her on the Republican side of the field.

Essentially, the candidates are mediocre because American political discourse is mediocre. The oligarchs in the United States have made sure that truly original ideas or those that do not reflect the position of the oligarchy never make it through in a political debate.

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: There was the show of the COP 21 where the major powers have said that it was a success and that the agreements would be respected. Do you think that with a carnivorous capitalism and a criminal imperialism, it is possible to lead to any agreement for environment?

I don’t see the COP 21 meeting as positive in any way. Particularly because the solutions to environmental degradation are based upon the idea of Anthropogenic Man-Made CO2-based Global Warming and amount to nothing more than genocidal austerity measures that drastically reduce the living standards of the First World and condemn the Third World to remain in its current conditions. The tragedy is that it does not have to be this way. The world’s people are very much able to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to higher living standards, development, and a clean environment. However, an obsession with faulty “climate science” that blames CO2 for everything under the sun and a world corporatist system that would sooner eliminate every tree from the planet if it meant increasing profits are combining to provide the worst of both worlds – austerity and corporate feudalism.

My suggestion to people of good will is to abandon the CO2 alarmism and focus on real world solutions to real world problems like deforestation, fracking, radioactive contamination, genetically modified crops, and the like. Ending imperialist wars would also go great lengths to providing an opportunity to tackle environmental issues. Focusing on true environmentally friendly development and the repair of damage already done should be the focus of the world community. Money is already available for this from any nation that has the courage to nationalize its central bank and use credit stimulus for the purpose of research and implementation.

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: About the Zika virus, one speaks of a great manipulation which serves the interests of industrial groups and various lobbies. What is your opinion?

Zika Virus represents a potential world health emergency but it also represents the possibility that certain lobbies – medical, pharmaceutical, vaccine, and many others – are attempting to generate panic for increased profits. It is also possible that certain elements within the ruling elite are helping push the concern over Zika for the purpose of distraction or even the eventuality where many societies may see a government crackdown on their civil liberties under the guise of a public health emergency. Remember, only months ago, Ebola was touted as the disease that would kill us all. We saw preparations for vaccines, quarantines, and virtual martial law. In February, 2016, few Americans even remember the Ebola scare.

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: What is your assessment of both Obama mandates, and is he free from the arguments of the neocons?

Obama was rushed to office in 2008 in what could almost be deemed a color revolution. There were certainly elements of a well-funded personality cult. 2012 seemed to represent more of a fear of Romney on the part of the electorate than support for Obama, who, for some, still retains his personality cult superstardom. I would be careful of calling it a mandate, however.

As for the neocons, Obama is no different than a neocon. His policies are essentially the same as George W. Bush and one could scarcely point to one that is different. Only in implementation are differences visible. For instance, Bush’s years were marked with direct military invasion while Obama’s involved “humanitarian bombing” and proxy forces but the overarching agenda of imperialism continued. The crackdown on domestic civil liberties has continued at an increasing speed. Neocons themselves are still visible in the Obama cabinet. All this is a demonstration of the fact that the office of the President has become a mere puppet post, where a dominant elite changes figureheads every four to eight years. The agenda of that elite simply moves forward under a different brand. Mark my words, regardless of who is elected, 2016-2020 will be no different.

Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen

Who is Brandon Turbeville?

Brandon Turbeville is an author and a writer who resides in Florence, South Carolina.  He is – article archive here – the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2,The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria,and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Brandon joined Anti-Media’s team as an independent journalist in July of 2014. He has written over 700 articles dealing with the Middle East, Geopolitics, Syria, Economics, Health, government corruption, and Civil Liberties. Turbeville has been interviewed by a number of media outlets in the alternative media as well as the independent and mainstream. He has been interviewed by PRESS TV, al-Etejah, FOX, ITAR-TASS, LPR, and Sputnik International. Brandon Turbeville’s radio show Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.

His website is BrandonTurbeville.com.

February 16, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Despite Anti-War Claims, Sanders Endorses President Obama’s Foreign Policy

ShadowProof | February 13, 2016

WASHINGTON — On Sunday, Bernie Sanders endorsed President Barack Obama’s violent, expansive foreign policy in an effort to distance himself from accusations of inexperience in matters of war.

At the beginning of an interview on CBS’ “Face The Nation” between John Dickerson and the Vermont senator, Dickerson noted:

Senator, while you were in New York, North Koreans launched a long range missile. As President, you’d face that kind of thing all the time, very often. And what Secretary Clinton is saying is that you don’t have the experience to be ready for those kinds of challenges on day one.

Sanders responded:

Well, that’s what she said about Barack Obama in 2008, and it turned out not to be true. I am impressed by the quality of his foreign policy.

Sanders also emphasized his vote against the Iraq War, which he said was “most important foreign policy issue in modern history.”

Under Obama, the U.S. military has expanded its presence throughout the globe, with bases or military advisors found in over 100 countries. Africa, in particular, has been transformed into what military scholar and journalist Nick Turse called a “laboratory for a new kind of war.”

Sanders has also been clear that he supports Obama’s use of drones, despite the weapons’ track record of killing mostly civilians.

While he claims to be against income inequality and wasteful spending, the U.S. spends $3.1 billion annually on aid to Israel, despite the occupation of Palestine, and Sen. Sanders has supported this deadly conflict with his votes.

In another echo of Obama’s foreign policy, Sanders made it clear during the interview that he won’t seek to end the wars in the Middle East, but rather would shift more of the burden of fighting them to foreign forces.

“We’ve got to learn the lessons of Iraq,” Sanders told Dickerson, “and that is that the United States of America cannot do it alone. We have to work in coalition with major countries and with Muslim countries whose troops will be on the ground.”

He added: “My main concern, in terms of the Middle East, is the United States does not get involved in perpetual warfare.”

However, Obama’s military aid to the Middle East has supported a number of deadly conflicts that show no signs of ending, and may even contribute to the rise of extremism. Saudi Arabia, one of Washington’s closest Middle Eastern allies and a buyer of billions of dollars worth of U.S. arms annually, is embroiled in a deadly conflict in Yemen that’s killed over 6,000 people, including more than 2,800 civilians.

The Obama administration aided local forces in the destabilization Libya, leading to the rise of extremism in that country. Last month, the Pentagon began laying the groundwork for new military actions in Libya, in order to quell the rise of Daesh (an Arabic acronym for the group commonly known in the West as ISIS or ISIL), which has flooded into the power vacuum left after the overthrow of the Gadhafi government.

And in Syria, U.S. aid has gone to so-called “moderate” rebels that were often allies of Daesh or al-Qaida. These rebel allies helped destabilize the nation, leading to one of the worst refugee crises the world has ever seen.

Sanders’ remarks reflect his consistent and familiar approach to foreign wars. Shadowproof’s Dan Wright, in a recent analysis of Sanders’ proposed foreign policy, noted:

If it sounds like another term of Obama’s foreign policy, at least rhetorically, that’s because it is. Minus the inclusions of fair trade … it is nearly identical to the principles espoused by President Obama.

February 14, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama to sign trade agreement that equates settlements with Israel

Ma’an – February 12, 2016

BETHLEHEM – US President Barack Obama intends to sign a sweeping trade agreement including provisions that fail to differentiate between Israel and illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as discourage the boycott of Israeli goods.

The agreement — H.R. 644: Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 — was passed 75-20 on Thursday, and includes a provision that no US court can enforce judgement from a foreign court on a US citizen who “conducts business operations in Israel, or any territory controlled by Israel.”

The provision in effect allows US citizens immunity from conducting trade with illegal Israeli settlements, while its terminology fails to distinguish Israeli settlements from the state of Israel, violating the US’ official line against the construction of settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The White House in a statement released Thursday regarding the agreement said: “As with any bipartisan compromise legislation, there are provisions in this bill that we do not support.”

Of those provisions that the Obama administration did not support was a provision that “contravenes longstanding US policy towards Israel and the occupied territories, including with regard to Israeli settlement activity,” the statement said.

Despite the contravention, Obama plans to sign the agreement into law “to help strengthen enforcement of the rules and level the playing field for American workers and businesses.”

The agreement also includes a provision that in creating commercial partnerships with foreign countries, the US should “discourage politically motivated boycotts of, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel.”

The US government opposes the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, and while US law requires that products made in illegal Israeli settlements may not be labeled “Made in Israel,” the law is rarely enforced.

Israel has been struggling to tackle a growing Palestinian-led boycott campaign which has had a number of high-profile successes abroad.

The BDS movement aims to exert political and economic pressure over Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories in a bid to repeat the success of the campaign which ended apartheid in South Africa.

However, BDS initiatives have also faced pushback abroad, notably in France, where a court ruled in October that a group of activists advocating for BDS were guilty under French hate speech legislation.

February 13, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US Propaganda Budget Reaches All-Time High

Sputnik – 13.02.2016

Western governments routinely sound the alarm over Russian “propaganda.” But President Obama’s new budget calls for a drastic increase in spending to America’s own foreign media arm, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which already spends millions more than its Russian counterpart.

Last year, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the US federal agency responsible for Voice of America and Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe, among others, requested a substantial budget increase. Seeking a boost of $30 million, the BBG’s budget soared to $751.5 million.

That was, evidently, not enough money. President Obama’s newly proposed budget for fiscal year 2017 proposes another massive increase in spending for the BBG. If granted, the agency will receive nearly $778 million, a roughly $27 million increase.

That sum is even more surprising given that the US repeatedly accuses Russia of spending vast sums on a “propaganda war” against the West through news outlets like RT and Sputnik. Yet the BBG’s budget is approximately twice that of Russia’s foreign media budget.

MIA Rossiya Segodnya, the parent company of Sputnik News, operates on a budget of $75 million, including both domestic and foreign media — 10 times less than the BBG.

RT, a publicly-funded, autonomous non-profit organization whose popularity is incomparable to VOA and Radio Free Europe, has an annual budget of slightly more than $300 million. That money — also significantly less than the sum allocated to the BBG — is used operate a number of satellite TV channels in multiple languages, a much costlier endeavor than the radio programs produced by the BBG’s outlets.

Taken together, both RT and Rossiya Segodnya’s budgets are a far cry from the BBG’s coffers, and while the agency claims to pursue objective journalism, this is hardly the case.

“[The BBG wants] to promote points of view that conform to American foreign and domestic policy,” political cartoonist Ted Rall told Sputnik.

“Objectivity does not exist in journalism. It’s impossible,” he added. “The best that a viewer, listener or reader can hope for when she or he consumes journalism is to understand the bias or biases of the relevant news outlet so that she or he can consider that point of view while consuming the news.”

The BBG, it seems, is especially unconcerned with objectivity. Last March, US Assistant Secretary of European Affairs Victoria Nuland told Congress that the BBG was specifically committing $23.2 million to “Russian-language programming,” adding that “the Kremlin’s pervasive propaganda campaign is poisoning minds across Russia, Russia’s periphery, and across Europe.”

The real reason for the budget increase has less to do with concerns of objectivity, and is actually about Washington’s concern that channels like RT are actually doing their job effectively, presenting audiences with a viewpoint that challenges those presented by the mainstream press.

Despite its relatively meager budget, RT has an international audience of millions. In the US alone, 2.8 million people in major cities watch RT weekly, according to 2014 Neilsen ratings. In the United Kingdom, RT viewership tops American behemoth Fox News. Across the Middle East, RT Arabic is watched by 6.7 million people every day.

With that kind of reach, it should come as no surprise that the US government is concerned enough to beef up its foreign media arm. Last April, Helle Dale, Senior Fellow for Public Diplomacy at the Heritage Foundation, pointed out that Voice of America ranks 3,828 in Russia, while RT ranks 61.

“[Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty]’s presence and reputation in Russia, it must be added, took a beating in 2012,” Dale admitted, citing poor management and the lack of qualified journalists. She also noted that RT is “flourishing.”

This lack of popularity could be directly proportional to its credibility.

“If the topic is something embarrassing to the United States, such as Julian Assange or Edward Snowden,” Rall told Sputnik, “I would trust Russian media more.”

February 13, 2016 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

US keeps bans against Iran’s Mahan Air

Press TV – February 12, 2016

Almost a month after Iran saw a series of nuclear-related economic sanctions lifted, new indications show certain segments of the Iranian economy still remain shut out in what could be a violation of the nuclear deal that the country reached with the P5+1 last summer.

The US Treasury Department is reportedly warning European countries and companies to shut out a leading sanctioned Iranian airline – Mahan Air – or risk US retaliation.

“Treasury is engaging closely with stakeholders around the world, including our partners in Europe, regarding our sanctions targeting Iran,” a Treasury official told Al-Monitor. “Regarding Mahan Air specifically, we are doing this by working with our partners to prevent Mahan Air from acquiring aircraft and aircraft parts and software, preventing the opening of new routes and working to get existing routes canceled.”

Certain economic sanctions against Iran were lifted in mid-January when a deal that the country had reached with the P5+1 – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – was implemented.

A central sector that saw the sanctions lifted was Iran’s aviation industry and a lucrative contract that the country later signed with Airbus over the purchase of planes clearly testified to that.

Even before the JCPOA was implemented, US President Barack Obama ordered to lift a decades-long ban on the sales of planes to Iran.

The Treasury official – who has not been named by Al-Monitor – has emphasized that the JCPOA “does not preclude us from designating any entities that support Mahan Air or facilitate its activities.”

Iranian officials are yet to react to this.

Mahan Air, which isn’t sanctioned by the European Union, currently operates flights to Milan, Athens, the German cities of Dusseldorf and Munich, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine and several other destinations in the Middle East and Asia. Mahan Air had announced that flights to Copenhagen, Denmark, were to start next month but the route opening was discreetly delayed last month.

February 12, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

Obama regime seeks to roll back human rights conditions on aid to Egypt

RT | February 11, 2016

Despite reports that state repression in Egypt is taking place on a greater scale than it has been for generations, the Obama administration is seeking to roll back human rights conditions Congress had placed on foreign aid to Egypt’s military.

The request, which was tucked into the Obama administration’s 182-page budget proposal, seeks foreign aid to Egypt’s military regime and “the sale of crowd control weapons to ‘emerging democracies.’” The discovery was made by The Intercept.

If the new proposal, which was released on Tuesday, is adopted, it would end a Congressional restriction stipulating “that 15 percent of aid to Egypt is subject to being withheld based on human rights conditions.”

Interestingly, Congress was able to temporarily waive those restrictions in a foreign aid bill in June of 2015, arguing it was in the national security interest of the United Station, according to Al-Monitor.  The conditions were that Egypt would have to hold “free and fair” parliamentary elections and take steps to foster democracy and protect human rights for an additional $1.3 billion in military aid to be released.

The US State Department issued a scathing report in May of 2015, arguing that “while Egypt had implemented parts of its ‘democracy roadmap’ the overall trajectory of rights and democracy had been negative.”

It pinpointed restrictions on freedom of expression, the press, and freedom of association, as well as lack of due process. It further said that “impunity remains a serious problem in Egypt.”

It was well known at the time the Egyptians were “infuriated” by the report.

Cole Bockenfeld, deputy director for policy at the Project on Middle East Democracy, told The Intercept that the White House probably didn’t want to explain why it had to waive restrictions this year.

“They had to basically do an assessment. … Here’s how they’re doing on political prisoners, here’s how they’re doing on freedom of assembly, and so on,” Bockenfeld said.

The Guardian reported in January that Egypt has jailed more journalists than any other country on earth except China under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Three reporters were imprisoned, one forcibly “disappeared” and was later charged with being a member of a banned organization, and six were referred to judicial hearings because of their work.

Also in January, Italian academic Giulio Regeni, who was researching labor unrest and independent trade unions in Egypt, went missing during a security crackdown on the fifth anniversary of the beginning of Egypt’s revolution. His body was discovered nine days later by the side of the road marked with cigarette burns, bruising, and multiple stab wounds. The Guardian reported more than 4,600 academics worldwide have signed an open letter protesting his death and demanding an investigation into the growing number of forced disappearances. Egyptian officials appear to be cooperating with the investigation, according to the Italian foreign minister.

The budget also contains a request that would remove a provision from a law passed in 2012 in reaction to the Arab Spring protests that prohibits the transfer of tear gas and other crowd control weapons to countries that are “undergoing democratic transition.”

“It’s basically going to be free for all,” Husain Abdulla, executive director of Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain, told the Intercept when speculating on the results of the administration rolling back that provision.

Among the Middle Eastern countries seeking this equipment are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain – all of which are simmering with pro-democracy challenges.

February 11, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite, Subjugation - Torture | , , , | Leave a comment

New US Spy Satellite Lifts Off as Obama Criticizes N. Korean Launch

Sputnik – 11.02.2016

Days after criticizing North Korea for launching a satellite into space, the United States sent its own, brand new military satellite into orbit Wednesday morning.

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) is the agency in charge of the United States’ fleet of spy satellites, and early Wednesday morning, the NRO sent its latest above stratosphere. The NROL-45 satellite was sent into space on the back of a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Delta IV rocket launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base.

The NRO already has three additional launches scheduled for the upcoming year. Two will lift off in May and June, both from Florida’s Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The third will launch from Vandenberg in December.

The NRO will not say, specifically, what kind of operations these satellites will be conducting. Its payload remains classified, and a statement on the ULA’s website vaguely describes NROL-45 as being necessary for the “support of national defense.”

The timing of this launch is surprising given Washington’s condemnation of a North Korean satellite launch on Sunday.

The United States views any rocket launch by Pyongyang as a veiled attempt to perfect its ballistic missile technology. In the wake of Sunday’s launch, President Obama reaffirmed America’s commitment to defending South Korea.

“The United States stands in solidarity with the ROK [South Korea] and will take the necessary steps to fulfill our ironclad commitment to defend the ROK and our other allies in the region,” Obama told South Korean president Park Geun-hye on Monday night.

“Our concern though is that they do a space-launch but really it’s the same technology to develop ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles],” a US official said earlier this month, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Leaders from South Korea, Japan, and the US have already agreed to pursue stricture United Nations sanctions against Pyongyang over Sunday’s launch.

“[The sides] agreed to closely cooperate to make sure that the Security Council can adopt a resolution for strong and effective sanctions on North Korea,” said a press service for South Korean President Park.

It’s hard to imagine that the NRO’s series of satellite launches will elicit a similar reaction from Washington’s allies.

February 11, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , | 1 Comment

White House pushes ahead with plan to slash pensions for up to one million retirees

By Andre Damon  | WSWS | February 9, 2016

The Obama administration is pushing ahead with its plans to slash pension benefits for up to one million participants in “underfunded” multi-employer pension funds as part of its drive to make defined-benefit pensions a thing of the past for all US workers.

The White House campaign, carried out in a conspiracy with the major trade unions and multinational corporations, takes place in the wake of the 2013–2014 bankruptcy of Detroit, which set a precedent for slashing the legally protected pension benefits of retirees.

Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration’s appointee to oversee the pension cuts, held a hearing on behalf of the Treasury Department in Detroit Monday to hear objections to the plan to slash the pension benefits of some 270,000 retired truck drivers, package handlers and other members of the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund.

Kenneth Feinberg

Kenneth Feinberg

The hearing, which took place at Wayne State University, drew an overflow crowd at a 500-seat lecture hall, with up to 1,000 people participating in total. With the exception of the World Socialist Web Site, the media ignored the event, with no US video crews present.

Although retirees had initially been told that the cuts to their benefits would average less than 30 percent, nearly all of those who spoke at the hearing said they had been notified over the Christmas holiday that they would lose between 50 and 80 percent of their pension benefits.

During the two-hour hearing, not a single one of some two dozen pre-selected speakers spoke in favor of the plan to slash pensions. Instead, retirees voiced scathing denunciations of the managers of the Central States Pension Fund, who have received six-figure annual payouts even as they have moved to impose massive benefit cuts. Many made pointed criticisms of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union that jointly administers the fund.

“I suffered the loss of my first marriage, twisted ankles, and a damaged back, 21 dog bites, and all for that pension,” said one retired UPS delivery driver.

This overwhelming opposition by pensioners does not matter, according to Feinberg. When asked by the World Socialist Web Site after the hearing what would happen if workers voted down the proposed pension cuts, Feinberg said he had the prerogative to impose pension cuts regardless.

“The law says that I must impose it over their objections” Feinberg said. “So if I accept the plan and it’s rejected by a vote, the law requires me in that situation to overrule the vote.”

The law Feinberg was referring to is the Multi-employer Pension Reform Act of 2014, passed by Congress in December 2014 with virtually no public discussion as part of an omnibus appropriations bill. Acting on this law, in October 2015 the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund unveiled its plans to cut the benefits of workers it covers.

That law is itself the outcome of a February 2013 proposal, entitled “Solutions not Bailouts,” from the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, composed of major corporations and unions. The document lists among its signatories the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), both of which have since sought to publicly distance themselves from the pension-cutting bill.

Workers denounced the Teamsters’ lobbying on behalf of the bill, as well as the decision by the union to allow shipping company United Parcel Service (UPS) to exit the fund in 2007. This removed the largest base of active employees in the fund in exchange for allowing the Teamsters to extract union dues from the company’s freight division workers. As a result, UPS retirees said at the meeting that they are facing pension cuts of more than 50 percent, despite the fact that UPS earned record profits in the fourth quarter of 2015.

“Why on Earth would you let UPS leave the fund?” asked Debra Bakus, the daughter of Dennis Siecienski, a member of Teamsters Local 51 who worked for Entenmann’s for 41 years. She added, “I find it appalling that the trustees of this fund would pay millions to lobbyists out of your fund to get [the Multi-employer Pension Reform Act] passed.”

“I have to move in with my daughter if they cut my pension,” said Mr. Siecienski, who faces a reduction of 51 percent. “His employer is still contributing to the fund,” added Ms. Bakus.

Nationwide, there are some 10 million beneficiaries of multi-employer pension funds, of whom about 1 million receive benefits from “underfunded” plans.

As the Obama administration’s “special master” of executive compensation during the 2008 bank bailout, Feinberg rubber-stamped multi-million-dollar bonuses for executives at companies whose activities helped cause the financial crash.

Now, as the official responsible for imposing sweeping benefit cuts on hundreds of thousands of workers, Feinberg is working diligently to ensure that the transfer of social resources from working people to Wall Street continues unimpeded.

In 2009, the Obama administration justified giving multi-million-dollar bonuses to executives at American International Group, which had received a $185 billion bailout from the federal government, on the grounds that contractual obligations were sacrosanct and could not be abridged by the government.

Asked by the World Socialist Web Site whether he would use a similar approach with regard to workers’ pensions, Feinberg declared that he never approved multi-million-dollar bonuses to Wall Street executives.

Retiree Richard Fairley asked Feinberg, “can you fix my ignition switch?” in reference to his kid glove treatment of General Motors in the deaths of over a hundred people due to defective ignition switches.

But a 2012 report by Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the TARP bank bailout, exposes Feinberg’s statement as a lie. Barofsky found that Feinberg “approved total compensation packages in the millions” and did not “effectively rein in excessive compensation.”

Barofsky’s report added, “In 2009, OSM [Office of the Special Master, i.e., Feinberg] approved total compensation of cash and stock of more than $1 million each for five AIG employees including a $10.5 million pay package for AIG’s new CEO that included a $3 million cash salary.” Barofsky added that Feinberg “approved compensation ranging from $4.3 million to $7.1 million each for four AIG employees who that year were also scheduled to receive cash retention awards of up to $2.4 million.”

At the hearing, speaker after speaker described how the proposed pension cuts would financially devastate them and their families. They appealed for Feinberg to see reason and deny the proposal by the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund.

But far from being an independent arbiter, Feinberg is a bag-man for Wall Street and its representatives in the Obama administration. His role is not to arbitrate an equitable solution to the chronic de-funding of employee pensions in the United States, but rather to facilitate the outcome most favorable to the banks and major corporations.

Monday’s meeting took place in the context of a growing resistance and opposition by the working class. Over the past month, Detroit teachers and students have defied the Detroit Federation of Teachers to stage sick-outs at over eighty schools. Teachers in Chicago, Illinois have launched protests against efforts to further starve public schools and slash wages and benefits.

Meanwhile, protests in Flint, Michigan have made the lead poisoning of residents by officials at the state, local, and federal level a national and international issue. These actions follow the eruption of opposition among US autoworkers last year against efforts by the United Auto Workers to ram through contracts that further undermine jobs and benefits.

In each case, workers are being drawn into conflict with both big business parties, along with the trade unions, which defend the capitalist system and are collaborating with the corporations in driving down the conditions of the working class.

The task now is to unify these struggles in a common working class movement, armed with a socialist perspective of breaking the power of the financial oligarchy and reorganizing society in the interest of social need, not private profit.

February 10, 2016 Posted by | Corruption, Economics, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 3 Comments

Petition calls for Obama to be tried for ‘war crimes’ in The Hague

RT | February 10, 2016

A petition accusing Barack Obama of war crimes and demanding he be prosecuted has been published on the White House website. It has already gained about 4,000 signatures.

“We demand conviction of a war criminal Barack Obama and trial in the International Criminal Court in [The] Hague. He is guilty of crimes not only against the USA citizens, but against the whole world,” the petition states.

The authors also note that “one of the most dreadful prisons in history – Guantanamo – continues to function.”

The US added to the de-stabilization of the situation in the Middle East, too, the petition’s authors state.

“Libya was destroyed as a result of Obama’s aggression. In Syria, Obama’s agents train, fund and organize terrorist groups, deceitfully naming them ‘moderate opposition,’ who, among other things, bear a relation to Al-Qaeda, implicated in crimes against the American people.”

Last but not least, the petition accuses the US government of constant illegal surveillance.

“Secret services collect the Americans’ personal data information on a 24-hour basis under the canopy battling terrorism, using electronic surveillance tools on political undesirables, effectively stomping on the Americans’ right for privacy.”

If the petition – published on Monday – gets 100,000 votes by March 9, the White House administration will have to respond to it.

February 10, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »