INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-SPAIN:100 YEARS OF ANARCHOSYNDICALISM: As was stated previously on this blog this year marks the 100th anniversary of the foundation of the Spanish Confederación Nacional de Trabajo, the CNT. Today anarchosyndicalism in Spain is divided, but all the heirs of the CNT claim its rich heritage. Previously I translated and published the statement of the CGT on this anniversary. Today it is the turn of the eponymous CNT, and their statement on this event. The original Spanish can be found at the CNT website.@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ CNT, 100 years of anarcho-syndicalism (1910-2010): On November 1, 1910, in Barcelona's Círculo de Bellas Artes, the CNT (National Confederation of Labor) was constituted. This organization, heir to the Spanish region to the Spanish ... (continue)
INTERNATIONAL ANARCHIST MOVEMENT-SPAIN:100 YEARS OF ANARCHOSYNDICALISM: As was stated previously on this blog this year marks the 100th anniversary of the foundation of the Spanish Confederación Nacional de Trabajo, the CNT. Today anarchosyndicalism in Spain is divided, but all the heirs of the CNT claim its rich heritage. Previously I translated and published the statement of the CGT on this anniversary. Today it is the turn of the eponymous CNT, and their statement on this event. The original Spanish can be found at the CNT website.@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ CNT, 100 years of anarcho-syndicalism (1910-2010): On November 1, 1910, in Barcelona's Círculo de Bellas Artes, the CNT (National Confederation of Labor) was constituted. This organization, heir to the Spanish region to the Spanish of the 1st International (1870), was born from within the labor movement itself as the first independent trade union in this country. Assuming the international slogan "the emancipation of the workers will be the work of the workers themselves, or it will not be", the CNT made itself the repository of that popular rebellion which, like a subterranean stream, opposed power over the length of time, to emerge triumphant at specific times, from the Egyptian Middle Kingdom to the French Revolution, the origin of the unique historical processes in which humanity obviously advanced along the path of freedom, justice, equality, dignity and progress. Upon the simple agreement to create a labor organization independent from the political, religious and economic powers as a prerequisite for improving the living conditions of the workers through to the end of exploitation, the CNT began its anarchosyndicalist activity. In a few years it brought together most of the labor movement with significant social and economic advances that are now an invaluable legacy for today's society. The work day of eight hours, the work week of thirty-six hours, the elimination of child labour, equality of women and incorporation into the daily lives of values such as solidarity, federalism, ecology, feminism, free love, anti-militarism, atheism ... so in vogue today, are part of that legacy that reached its zenith in the Social Revolution of 1936, when the utopia-libertarian communism- transformed everyone's daily life in all the liberated territories. The reaction of international capitalism enabled Franco's fascist army to turn that revolutionary dream into a nightmare of hundreds of thousands of people persecuted, murdered and disappeared after the victorious coup in 1939. But not one of the culprits – all known, some active politicians -of that regime of terror, one of the most murderous in history, was even publicly reproved, thanks to the shameful impunity pact with Franco, which the national democratic left y (PSOE, PCE, UGT and CCOO) sealed in its surrender agreement with capital, known as "Spanish Transition" (1977). Nevertheless, the people continued to defend, often with their lives, the simple principles of anarcho-syndicalism: independence, autonomy, federalism, self-management, assemblies, solidarity and direct action, ie self-organization, to reject any interference by political parties or other institutions, economic, religious, etc., in labor affairs. Strikes, demonstrations, repression and torture were the daily chronicle of the dictatorship (1939-1976), until their disappearance when the labor movement thrillingly came back to rebuild their beloved CNT (1977). We live in new years of incessant labor conquest. The days of Montjuic, or San Sebastian de los Reyes, marked the powerful rebirth of the confederation in the 1970s. The progress of the labor movement, again self-organized by the CNT, through examples like the strike struggles of gas stations in 1978, prompted the reaction of capitalism, this time supported by the democratic state and its institutional apparatus (governments, parties, judges, trade union bureaucracies , ...). The successful union of the CNT was suppressed by the police (Case Scala, 1978) and, with the silence and propaganda campaigns of defamation in the media, this has generated disastrous consequences for the labor movement in this country. The weakening of the anarcho-syndicalist presence in the labor movement made possible the loss of rights acquired after a long and bitter union struggles, by deregulation and labor precariousness implanted with the worst of the corruptions plaguing the country: Union Corruption. An officially silent corruption, which corrupts the union movement in general in the eyes of workers, but mainly it stars institutional unions –the CCOO and the UGT, whose unionist "yuppies" acquire grants and amounts in the millions from governments and businesses as payment to their treason, for accepting whatever measures are taken in defence of capital accumulation and rising profits (EREs, labour reforms, lay offs, etc ...) Despite all that, thousands of workers now follow the genuine labor organization which we call the CNT, keeping it exclusively their own, making it the only living example of class unionism, capable of dealing with oppression and social control, ecological destruction and overexploitation of the world economy, all aspects inherent to capitalism. 2010 has for us a special connotation: it marks a century of existence of the CNT. It is the centenary of a people and the invaluable struggle of thousands of people, over the last hundred years has provided us with a shining blueprint, to be followed by the world’s working class, by their own culture, self-organizing capacity, radical struggles, popular spread and revolutionary achievements in order to build an anti-authoritarian society based on solidarity. These ideals form the noble cause to which we invite you here and now. (show less)
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s visit to Turkish last month shows that Turkey and Russia are rapidly developing close economic and political ties, notes Eric Walberg
For all intents and purposes, Turkey has given up on the European Union, recognising it as a bastion of Islamophobia and captive to US diktat. As Switzerland bans minarets and France moves to outlaw the niqab, the popular Islamist government in Istanbul moves in the opposite direction -- supporting the freedom to wear headscarfs, boldly criticising Israel and building bridges with Syria. This is nothing less than a fundamental realignment of Turkish politics towards Turkey’s natural allies -- the Arabs ... and the Russians.
This new alignment with Russia began in 2001 when Turkish and Russian foreign ministers signed th... (continue)
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev’s visit to Turkish last month shows that Turkey and Russia are rapidly developing close economic and political ties, notes Eric Walberg
For all intents and purposes, Turkey has given up on the European Union, recognising it as a bastion of Islamophobia and captive to US diktat. As Switzerland bans minarets and France moves to outlaw the niqab, the popular Islamist government in Istanbul moves in the opposite direction -- supporting the freedom to wear headscarfs, boldly criticising Israel and building bridges with Syria. This is nothing less than a fundamental realignment of Turkish politics towards Turkey’s natural allies -- the Arabs ... and the Russians.
This new alignment with Russia began in 2001 when Turkish and Russian foreign ministers signed the Eurasia Cooperation Action Plan. It went into high gear in February 2009, when Turkish President Abdullah Gul made a state visit to Russia, including a visit to the Russian Federation’s thriving and energy-rich Autonomous Republic of Tatarstan, populated by a majority of Muslim Turks, with pipelines, nuclear energy and trade the focus of attention.
In the past, Russia had poor relations with Turkey, which since its founding as a republic in 1922 was firmly in the Western camp and seen by Moscow as a springboard for infiltration into the Caucasus and its Turkic southern republics. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Yeltsin’s Russia acquiesced to US hegemony in the region, and as part of this opening to the West, Turkish schools, construction firms and traders came in great numbers to the ex-Soviet “stans” (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan). 9/11 convinced Russian president Vladimir Putin to go so far as welcoming US military bases in the most strategic “stans”. The old Great Game appeared to be over, lost resoundingly by Russia.
But as the world tired of the US-sponsored “war on terrorism”, it seemed the Great Game was not over after all. A NATO member, Turkey was soon joined by Bulgaria and Romania, making the Black Sea a de facto NATO lake, alarming a now resurgent Russia.
Ukraine’s Western-backed “Orange Revolution” in 2004 further tilted the balance away from Russia, with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko defiantly vowing to join NATO and kick the Russian fleet out of Crimea. He even armed Georgia in its war with Russia in 2008.
However, not only Russia was fed up with the new pax americana. Over 90 per cent of Turks had an unfavourable view of the US by 2007. It is no surprise that Turkey began to back away from unconditional support of NATO and the US, notably, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, by its refusal in 2008 to allow US warships through the Bosphorus Strait to support Georgia, and by its outspoken criticism of Israel following the invasion of Gaza that year.
In contrast to the US-sponsored colour revolutions in the ex-socialist bloc, Turkey’s “Green Revolution” brought the religious-oriented Justice and Development Party to power in 2002. Its political direction has been in search of balance in the region and peaceful relations with its neighbours, including Armenia and the Kurds. In 2004 Russian president Vladimir Putin signed a joint declaration of cooperation in Ankara, updated in February 2009 by Gul and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in Moscow. Gul declared, “Russia and Turkey are neighbouring countries that are developing their relations on the basis of mutual confidence. I hope this visit will in turn give a new character to our relations.”
Key to this is Turkey’s proposal for the establishment of a Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform. Following Gul’s visit, Turkish media even described Turkish-Russian relations as a “strategic partnership”, which no doubt set off alarm bells in Washington.
None of this would be taking place without solid economic interests. Turkish-Russian economic ties have greatly expanded over the past decade, with trade reaching $33 billion in 2008, much if it gas and oil, making Russia Turkey’s number one partner. They may soon use the Turkish lira and the Russian ruble in foreign trade.
This is the context of Medvedev’s visit 13 January to Ankara, which focussed primarily on energy cooperation. Russia’s AtomStroiExport had won the tender for the construction of Turkey’s first nuclear plant last year, and Medvedev was eager to get final approval on Turkish cooperation in Gazprom’s South Stream gas pipeline to Europe. Turkey will soon get up to 80 per cent of its gas from Russia, but this dependency is no longer viewed as a liability in light of the two countries’ new strategic relations.
Just what will happen to the West’s rival Nabucco pipeline, also intended to transit Turkey, is now a moot point. Nabucco hopes to bring gas from Iran and Azerbaijan to Europe through Turkey and Georgia. Given the standoff between the West and Iran and the instability of Georgia, this alternative to Russia’s plans looks increasingly unattractive. Azerbaijan, shrewdly, has already signed up with South Stream.
Kommersant quoted Gazprom officials as saying that Turkey could soon join Italy and Germany as Russia’s “strategic partner”. Italy’s ENI is co-funding the South Stream project. The other arm of Gazprom’s pincer move around Ukraine is Nord Stream, and Germany late last year gave its final approval for Nord Stream. A Polish minister compared the Russia-Germany Nord Stream project to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentropp pact, because the pipeline allows Russia to deliver gas to Western Europe and “turn off the taps” to Ukraine in case it stops paying or starts stealing gas as happened several times under the Orange revolutionaries.
Turkey is very much a key player in this new Great Game, only it appears to have changed sides. The Russian and Turkish prime ministers voiced the hope that their trade would triple by 2015, and announced plans to for a visa-free regime by May this year. “In the end, without doubt, [a visa-free regime] will lead to activating cooperation between our countries,” said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan.
The presidential elections now in progress in Ukraine could take some of the wind out of the sails of South Stream. Its rationale could be brought into question if the new Ukrainian president succeeds in convincing Moscow that s/he will make sure no further hanky-panky takes place. Ukraine, in dire economic straits, needs the transit fees, which would disappear if current plans go ahead. But the damage the Orange revolutionaries did to Ukraine’s economy and relations with Russia is already a fait accompli. Says Alexander Rahr at the German Council on Foreign Relations, “Under every leadership, Ukraine will try to make use of its geographical position and the Russians realised this some time ago. This is why they desperately need a way to circumvent Ukraine.”
Even if Ukraine, too, changes teams and rejects NATO expansion plans, it will still have to thrash out a new role, most likely minus its gas transit commissions. Contender Viktor Yanukovich has signalled he would sign up to an economic cooperation agreement with Russia and smooth over existing political problems like the question of the Russian fleet and possibly the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Turkey could well follow suit. “If any Western country is going to recognise the independence of Abkhazia, it will be Turkey because of a large Abkhazian diaspora there,” says Rahr.
There is no reason why Ukraine couldn’t join the budding Russian-Turkish alliance, founded on regional stability and peace, unlike the current NATO-led one of confrontation and enmity. This would leave only the mad Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili quixotically fighting his windmills, dictator of a rump state -- the very opposite of his intended role as NATO’s valiant knight leading its march eastward. Even inveterate Turkish foe Armenia seems eager to join the new line-up, as last year’s exchange of ambassadors demonstrated.
*** Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/(show less)
A heartfelt message from Amazon rainforest communities in Ecuador to the new Chairman and CEO of Chevron: “We don’t want to continue dying of cancer.”
Over the course of three decades in Ecuador, Chevron dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste water and spilled roughly 17 million gallons of crude oil. “Surpassing the [...]
By 2080, anyone with a direct interest in learning how Dr. David Kelly died, will themselves be dead.That's how an Oxford coroner reacted to a recent ruling ordering the details of the former United Nations weapons inspector's death locked away for 70 years, according to a Mail Online report.Kelly's story, however, was gravely important in 2003, just before he was found dead in the woods behind his home in Oxfordshire, U.K. As the BBC revealed in the wake of his passing, he had been the key source behind a story claiming intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was "sexed up."Hours before his death, he reportedly e-mailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, warning her of "many dark actors playing games," according to the BBC.Lord Hutton, the British judge who led t... (continue)
By 2080, anyone with a direct interest in learning how Dr. David Kelly died, will themselves be dead.That's how an Oxford coroner reacted to a recent ruling ordering the details of the former United Nations weapons inspector's death locked away for 70 years, according to a Mail Online report.Kelly's story, however, was gravely important in 2003, just before he was found dead in the woods behind his home in Oxfordshire, U.K. As the BBC revealed in the wake of his passing, he had been the key source behind a story claiming intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was "sexed up."Hours before his death, he reportedly e-mailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, warning her of "many dark actors playing games," according to the BBC.Lord Hutton, the British judge who led the state's investigation into Kelly's death, also ordered his written records pertaining to the case sealed for 30 years, according to UK's Morning Star Online. Story continues below...The report added that Hutton's inquiry "concluded that Dr Kelly had killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist. But the finding has been challenged by doctors who claim that the weapons inspector's stated injuries were not serious enough to have killed him."A paramedic who responded to the scene was quoted by The Guardian, saying: "There just wasn't a lot of blood... When somebody cuts an artery, whether accidentally or intentionally, the blood pumps everywhere. I just think it is incredibly unlikely that he died from the wrist wound we saw."The claims eventually led a group of six doctors to bring formal demands for an investigation into Kelly's death. An initial inquiry was headed up by the British Ministry of Defense."[Just] how far were the Blair/Bush administrations willing to go in order to fabricate a reason for the Iraq war?" asked RAW STORY's Investigative News Editor Larisa Alexandrovna in a post to her blog, At Largely. "The Bush administration was at the very least willing to out a covert CIA officer, committing treason in the process. What was Tony Blair willing to do?"Sadly, with the court's inquiry ended, the questions seem doomed to persist.(show less)
Pre-order and distribute 150 copies of the upcoming Spring 2010 issue of Presente, the newspaper of the movement to close the SOA, for only $26! (http://www.soaw.org/orderpresente)SOA 4. (http://soaw.org/article.php?id=1789) The SOA 4, Nancy Gwin, Michael Walli, Ken Hayes, and Fr. Louis Vitale (http://soaw.org/article.php?id=1789), were arrested for nonviolently taking our call to end U.S. backed repression in Latin America onto Fort Benning on the morning of November 22, 2009. Their January 25th trial will be an opportunity for them to speak truth to power in the courtroom, and there will be no better place to read all about it then in the Feburary issue of Presente! Help to spread the word about the SOA 4. (http://www.soaw.org/orderpresente)
"In the 18th century, Haiti was France’s imperial jewel, the Pearl of the Caribbean, the largest sugar exporter in the world. Even by colonial standards, the treatment of slaves working the Haitian plantations was truly vile. They died so fast that, at times, France was importing 50,000 slaves a year to keep up the numbers and the profits...France did not forgive the impertinence and loss of earnings: 800 destroyed sugar plantations, 3,000 lost coffee estates. A brutal trade blockade was imposed. Former plantation owners demanded that Haiti be invaded, its population enslaved once more. Instead, the French State opted to bleed the new black republic white. In 1825, in return for recognising Haitian independence, France demanded indemnity on a staggering scale: 150 million gold francs, ... (continue)
"In the 18th century, Haiti was France’s imperial jewel, the Pearl of the Caribbean, the largest sugar exporter in the world. Even by colonial standards, the treatment of slaves working the Haitian plantations was truly vile. They died so fast that, at times, France was importing 50,000 slaves a year to keep up the numbers and the profits...France did not forgive the impertinence and loss of earnings: 800 destroyed sugar plantations, 3,000 lost coffee estates. A brutal trade blockade was imposed. Former plantation owners demanded that Haiti be invaded, its population enslaved once more. Instead, the French State opted to bleed the new black republic white. In 1825, in return for recognising Haitian independence, France demanded indemnity on a staggering scale: 150 million gold francs, five times the country’s annual export revenue. The Royal Ordinance was backed up by 12 French warships with 150 cannon.The terms were non-negotiable. The fledgeling nation acceded, since it had little choice. Haiti must pay for its freedom, and pay it did, through the nose, for the next 122 years...Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, is calling for a “reconstruction and development” conference. “It is a chance to get Haiti once and for all out of the curse it seems to have been stuck with for such a long time,” President Sarkozy said.This seems uncomfortably close to Mr Robertson’s insulting suggestion that Haitian slaves made a “pact with the Devil” to free themselves from Napoleon’s grip. The original curse was economic, not religious, and laid on Haiti by imperial France." (thanks Nu`man)(show less)
Peace Of The Action 3 Dec 2009cindyforcongress
Peace Of The Action
Peace Of The Action website is here peaceoftheaction.org Please visit the site and sign up to Join us in Washington DC March 2010. Thanks to the following film makers for their contribution to the video www.youtube.com and Harvey at www.youtube.com and his website www.operationmindseed.com Thanks guys for your help and hard work.
From:
cindyforcongress
Views:
2859
66
ratings
Time:
09:46
More in
News & Politics
Workers Reach Comprehensive Settlement with Prominent Seafood Company
Protracted Grassroots Campaign Saw Over 75 Leading Restaurants Stop Serving Wild Edibles Products
New York, NY- Lawyers filed with a federal bankruptcy judge a global settlement agreement totaling over $340,000 and containing strong workplace protections in a high-profile set of litigation brought by workers against one of New York's leading seafood companies, Wild Edibles, Inc.
The comprehensive settlement comes after a bitterly-contested campaign in which some two-dozen recent immigrant workers and their non-profit organization, Brandworkers, used grassroots actions, media advocacy, and community organizing in an effort t... (continue)
For Immediate Release:
Brandworkers
January 20, 2010
Contact: press (at) brandworkers.org
Workers Reach Comprehensive Settlement with Prominent Seafood Company
Protracted Grassroots Campaign Saw Over 75 Leading Restaurants Stop Serving Wild Edibles Products
New York, NY- Lawyers filed with a federal bankruptcy judge a global settlement agreement totaling over $340,000 and containing strong workplace protections in a high-profile set of litigation brought by workers against one of New York's leading seafood companies, Wild Edibles, Inc.
The comprehensive settlement comes after a bitterly-contested campaign in which some two-dozen recent immigrant workers and their non-profit organization, Brandworkers, used grassroots actions, media advocacy, and community organizing in an effort to win legal accountability at Wild Edibles, which supplies seafood to some of NYC's most famed restaurants in addition to operating retail seafood outlets.
"We're on top of the world today because more than anything we showed that ordinary workers can get organized, take action together, and win," said Raymundo Lara Molina, a former Wild Edibles employee and member of Brandworkers.
This is really out of control … how do you ever recover from that kind of deficit? Hard times are ahead in the U.S., the only question being how long can the government postpone the inevitable. This report at Marketwatch:
The U.S. budget deficit will hit $1.3 trillion in 2010, congressional budget analysts estimated Tuesday, in a fresh piece of grim news for President Barack Obama.
The estimate from the Congressional Budget Office assumes current laws and policies remain unchanged.
Economic growth will also probably be “muted” for the next few years, the CBO said in its budget outlook for 2010.
The CBO’s estimates come about a week before Obama transmits his fiscal 2011 budget to Congress, on Feb. 1. Obama is under mounting pressure to cut the deficit but also to create jobs, in the wak... (continue)
This is really out of control … how do you ever recover from that kind of deficit? Hard times are ahead in the U.S., the only question being how long can the government postpone the inevitable. This report at Marketwatch:
The U.S. budget deficit will hit $1.3 trillion in 2010, congressional budget analysts estimated Tuesday, in a fresh piece of grim news for President Barack Obama.
The estimate from the Congressional Budget Office assumes current laws and policies remain unchanged.
Economic growth will also probably be “muted” for the next few years, the CBO said in its budget outlook for 2010.
The CBO’s estimates come about a week before Obama transmits his fiscal 2011 budget to Congress, on Feb. 1. Obama is under mounting pressure to cut the deficit but also to create jobs, in the wake of last week’s victory in a special Senate election in Massachusetts by Republican Scott Brown.
In his first State of the Union address on Wednesday night, Obama is expected to call for a three-year freeze in spending for a portion of the federal budget in a first step toward reining in the deficit.
The federal government recorded a staggering deficit of $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009 — more than three times as much as in 2008.
The government has reported a consistent flow of red ink in the past several months. In December, the federal government ran a budget deficit of $91.8 billion, marking the 15th consecutive month in which outlays exceeded receipts…
DRONES KILL KIDS: PEACE OF THE ACTION BANNER DROP 17 Jan 2010Cindy Sheehan Today (January 17th) some members of Peace of the Action hung this banner near the killer-drone exhibit at the Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC.
Robby Diesu (DC Coordinator) and Cindy Sheehan hung the banner while Joshua Smith (Media coordinator/co-organizer) and Mike Hearington (VFP liaison) took pics and video and singer/songwriter, David Rovics kept watch.
We hung the banner and hung around and watched people watch it for about 5 minutes before it got taken down--then we left.
Many families there with children--taking in the Military hardware and mostly not thinking that others are suffering so badly!
Freedom's Just Another Word For...Bechtel On the Loose 24 Jan 2010BoRev World-renowned fake NGO "Freedom Haus" released its annual fake Freedom Report this week. Once again, Bolivia has been downscaled to "partly free," a designation it has held since earlier this decade. Before that it was just plain old "free."
What changed? In the ensuing years, the country elected its first indigenous president, dramatically increased the economic, political and social mobility of its population and oh yes one other small thing...finally ended the practice of actual RACE BASED SLAVERY that had been in place since the colonial period.
On the other hand, Bolivia has tightened regulations on foreign extractive corporations, et voila: less free! See how this works? Way to go, Freedom! You are totally on the march.
Herbert Hoover, 31st President, by Douglas Chandor. Just sayin'. (photo: cliff1066)
Breaking tonight, the President will propose a discretionary, non-security spending freeze for three years starting in FY 2011 as part of his State of the Union address.
The move, intended to blunt the populist backlash against Obama’s $787 billion stimulus and an era of trillion-dollar deficits — and to quell Democratic anxiety over last Tuesday’s Massachusetts Senate election — is projected to save $250 billion, the Democrats said.
The freeze would not apply to defense spending or spending on intelligence, homeland security or veterans.
The proposal is in line with a plan floated by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a fiscal hawk, who told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt last week that there was a “fighting chance” Obama w... (continue)
Herbert Hoover, 31st President, by Douglas Chandor. Just sayin'. (photo: cliff1066)
Breaking tonight, the President will propose a discretionary, non-security spending freeze for three years starting in FY 2011 as part of his State of the Union address.
The move, intended to blunt the populist backlash against Obama’s $787 billion stimulus and an era of trillion-dollar deficits — and to quell Democratic anxiety over last Tuesday’s Massachusetts Senate election — is projected to save $250 billion, the Democrats said.
The freeze would not apply to defense spending or spending on intelligence, homeland security or veterans.
The proposal is in line with a plan floated by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a fiscal hawk, who told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt last week that there was a “fighting chance” Obama would propose a freeze in most discretionary spending by the federal government as part of his address.
I have to head out the door here in a moment, so more on this tomorrow. But Obama is basically saying that the stimulus fixed the economy, that there will be no further government support measures and that he’ll govern like a hybrid of John McCain and Herbert Hoover for the rest of his term to curry favor with the deficit maniacs.
And of course, the truly unbelievable thing about this is how it’s framed as non-security discretionary spending, as if spending on the military is magic and somehow doesn’t affect budgets. If anything is bankrupting the country, it’s the bloated military budget, which is currently at a higher level than during the Cold War buildup of the Reagan Administration. So this freeze will do exceedingly little for the budget deficit, but is sure to hurt a lot of poor and middle-class people.
Matt Yglesias was on a conference call about this, where the line was that some programs would go up while others would go down, baselining the final number. Theoretically, this could mean a slash of farm subsidies by half while increasing community health centers or TANF payments. You can read him for additional context. I like this line:
I’m attempting not to freak out because (a) I don’t have details and (b) I suspect this initiative was deliberately leaked to progressive bloggers in an effort to get denounced by the left and I don’t want to give them the satisfaction.
Shared by whitehouseprotest
Fuck you, Rahm Emmanuel. Fuck you, Obama.
Conservatives have had it with President Barack Obama -- in the latest Gallup poll, he earned a just 23 percent approval rating from Republican voters. Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, have the president's back, awarding him an 88 percent backing.But liberal support -- at least for the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel -- seems to be waning. And Emanuel seems to be slapping back.According to a report Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal, Emanuel told a liberal strategy group in August that a plan to run advertisements against conservative Democrats who were "balking at Mr. Obama's health-care overhaul" was grossly unwise."F—ing retarded," Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to participants cited by the paper... (continue)
Shared by whitehouseprotest
Fuck you, Rahm Emmanuel. Fuck you, Obama.
Conservatives have had it with President Barack Obama -- in the latest Gallup poll, he earned a just 23 percent approval rating from Republican voters. Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, have the president's back, awarding him an 88 percent backing.But liberal support -- at least for the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel -- seems to be waning. And Emanuel seems to be slapping back.According to a report Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal, Emanuel told a liberal strategy group in August that a plan to run advertisements against conservative Democrats who were "balking at Mr. Obama's health-care overhaul" was grossly unwise."F—ing retarded," Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to participants cited by the paper."He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items," the reporter said. Story continues below...
Cenk Uygur, a liberal talk-radio host, calls Mr. Emanuel "Barack Obama's Dick Cheney." One group has run ads against Mr. Emanuel in his hometown of Chicago. And Jane Hamsher, a prominent liberal blogger, is going after Mr. Emanuel's service—10 years ago—on the board of housing-finance giant Freddie Mac.For the president, Mr. Emanuel is a useful foil, playing a role akin to that of James Baker, who absorbed attacks from unhappy conservatives while chief of staff to Ronald Reagan. Mr. Emanuel is a centrist cut from the Bill Clinton mold, and his presence is useful as the president tries to cut deals with centrists and conservatives.
After a recent meeting between the White House and civil liberties critics -- among them, the American Civil Liberties Union -- the ACLU's executive director said he'd grown suspicious of Emanuel. ACLU director Anthony Romero said he believed Emanuel was more focused on politics than policy.Romero asserted that he'd seen a shift since Emanuel became "consigliere at the White House," where he believes he's focused "less on the policy outcomes and more on maintaining a Democratic agenda that will keep the party in power.""Everyone seems to be waiting around for the Chicago street brawler Rahm, because the one that showed up in the White House has little apparent fight in him," Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos remarked. "Sure, he's quick to attack progressives when they criticize Obama or put legislative pressure on him from the left, but he's far too quick and happy to accommodate the Democratic Party's corporatist wing."Ire at Emanuel has come so far that even a liberal blogger has teamed up with tax-hater and conservative darling Grover Norquist to call for a federal probe into his activities while at Freddie Mac."We write to demand an immediate investigation into the activities of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel," blogger Jane Hamsher and Norquist wrote. "We believe there is an abundant public record which establishes that the actions of the White House have blocked any investigation into his activities while on the board of Freddie Mac from 2000-2001, and facilitated the cover up of potential malfeasance until the 10-year statute of limitations has run out."The purpose of this letter is to connect the dots to establish both the conduct of Mr. Emanuel and those working with him to thwart inquiry, and to support your acting speedily so that the statute of limitations does not run out before the Justice Department is able to empanel a grand jury."Emanuel's supporters, meanwhile, argue that he's just being politically pragmatic in an effort to pass the president's priorities. "Rahm's approach, like the president, is not ideological. It's practical," Bruce Reed, chief executive of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, told the Journal. "The administration's strategy has been to pass health-care reform, not die trying."(show less)
It's bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with "the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon" (Mellon was Herbert Hoover's Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to "liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness".)
...
And it's a betrayal of everything Obama's supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view - and more specifically, he has embraced the policy ideas of the man he defeated in 2008. A correspondent writes, "I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy."
Our first post on the American Turkish Council’s new chairman, Richard Armitage, focused on his early years and his involvement with Southeast Asia’s Golden Triangle. Our second post focused on Armitage’s history in Washington and his involvement with the Iran-Contra Affair. This post will focus on Armitage’s role as the Deputy Secretary of State for the second Bush administration and the 11 September attacks.
In 1999 Richard Armitage joined an “advisory team” put together by Condoleezza Rice for the George W. Bush presidential campaign. Other members of this “advisory team” included Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Zoellick, and Donald Rumsfeld all of whom, along with Armitage, were signatories to the 1998 PNAC letter to President Clinton that advocated regime change in Iraq through the bogus... (continue)
Our first post on the American Turkish Council’s new chairman, Richard Armitage, focused on his early years and his involvement with Southeast Asia’s Golden Triangle. Our second post focused on Armitage’s history in Washington and his involvement with the Iran-Contra Affair. This post will focus on Armitage’s role as the Deputy Secretary of State for the second Bush administration and the 11 September attacks.
In 1999 Richard Armitage joined an “advisory team” put together by Condoleezza Rice for the George W. Bush presidential campaign. Other members of this “advisory team” included Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Zoellick, and Donald Rumsfeld all of whom, along with Armitage, were signatories to the 1998 PNAC letter to President Clinton that advocated regime change in Iraq through the bogus “Weapons of Mass Destruction” argument. It should have been no surprise, therefore, to see where these “advisors” were to lead as soon as they were appointed to key positions in the Bush administration in early 2001.
Armitage was appointed as the number 2 man at the State Department but not without protest from a certain former Republican congressman:
“General Colin Powell has named Richard Armitage to the key position as his deputy secretary of state.
“Mr. Armitage served in the Pentagon back in the 1980s and, in the process, caused so many problems that by 1989 he twice had to withdraw his name from consideration for high-ranking positions in the first Bush administration.
“Simply stated, the U.S. Senate would not confirm him for any job.
“The FBI agent in charge of compiling the ‘file’ on Armitage said at the time, ‘The Armitage file is the thickest file ever for any nominee for any position.’”
“Now, 12 years later, the new Bush administration is again trying to ram Armitage through the confirmation process. Powell wants him because ‘Rich Armitage is my best friend in the world.’”
Both Armitage and Powell had served in Vietnam and it’s worth remembering that prior to his performance at the UN National Security Council in early 2003, Colin Powell was best known for helping to cover up the My Lai Massacre.
Armitage was confirmed by the Senate as the Deputy Secretary of State in late March, 2001, in plenty of time to implement the plan for regime change in Iraq that he had supported in 1998 and which PNAC had argued for in September, 2000:
“Further, the process of [US military] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
The “new Pearl Harbor” that was so desired by Armitage and the rest of the PNAC crowd occured on 11 September, 2001. Immediately after 11 September, Armitage threatened to “bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age”:
“During last week’s US media blitz to promote his new book, Musharraf claimed soon after 9/11, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage warned Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, head of ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service, the US would ‘bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age’ if it did not immediately turn against its Afghan ally, Taliban, and allow the US to use military bases in Pakistan to invade Afghanistan.
[ . . . ]
“I’ve heard various versions of Armitage’s exact words. But I know whatever he said put the fear of god into Pakistan’s military leadership.
“ISI sources say the Bush Administration threatened to bomb faithful old ally Pakistan, cut off its oil, collapse its banking system, and call in its loans. More frightening, Washington also threatened to ‘unleash’ India against Pakistan, either allowing India to conquer the Pakistani-held portion of disputed Kashmir, or give Delhi a green light to invade all of Pakistan, possibly with American assistance.”
Such language by Armitage would be consistent with other ultimatums issued by the US government, such as this gem by a Bush administration State Department negotiator to the Taliban in August, 2001, more than a month before the “new Pearl Harbor”:
“At the final meeting with the Taliban, on Aug. 2, 2001, State Department negotiator Christine Rocca, clarified the options: ‘Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold [for 'secure access to the Caspian Basin for American companies'], or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.’ With the futility of negotiations apparent, “President Bush promptly informed Pakistan and India the U.S. would launch a military mission into Afghanistan before the end of October.”
“This was five weeks before the events of 9/11.”
Almost a year later, Armitage was sent by the Bush administration to deliver, perhaps, the same message to the Pakistanis:
“Bush has stopped short of publicly admonishing Pakistan, Washington’s key ally in the war on terror, but he’s dispatching burly Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage to Islamabad next week, and his mission will be to deliver a heavy, private bruising. ‘If anyone can threaten to crack Musharraf in half, it’s Armitage,’ says one State Department source.”
“Bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age”? “Crack Musharraf in half”? It should be no surprise that Armitage was tasked with delivering these messages. He was sent by the Reagan administration to deliver a similar message to Manuel Noriega a year before the US invasion of Panama:
“The Reagan Administration sent a high-ranking Pentagon official on a secret mission to Panama last week to press its strongman, Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega, to step down and allow free elections in the country, State Department and congressional sources said Thursday.
“The emissary, Richard L. Armitage, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, held what one U.S. official called ‘a lengthy session’ with Noriega early last week to urge him to withdraw from politics.
“Armitage was picked to deliver the Administration’s strongest direct message to date to Noriega because the Panamanian strongman is a ‘military man’ and Washington wanted “the most effective interlocutor possible,” the official said.”
Having arrived in the US a week before 11 September “on a regular visit of consultations”, the ISI’s General Mahmoud Ahmed met with State Department officials, including Armitage, on 12 and 13 September:
“The press reports confirm that Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad had two meetings with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, respectively on the 12th and 13th. After September 11, he also met Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the powerful Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
“Confirmed by several press reports, however, he also had ‘a regular visit of consultations’ with US officials during the week prior to September 11, –i.e. meetings with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon.
“What was the nature of these routine ‘consultations’? Were they in any way related to the subsequent ‘post-September 11 consultations’ pertaining to Pakistan’s decision to cooperate with Washington, held behind closed doors at the State Department on September 12 and 13? Was the planning of war being discussed between Pakistani and US officials?”
The article continues:
“The meeting behind closed doors at the State Department on September 13 between Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad was shrouded in secrecy. Remember President Bush was not even involved in these crucial negotiations:
“‘Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage handed over [to ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad] a list of specific steps Washington wanted Pakistan to take’. ‘After a telephone conversation between [Secretary of State Colin] Powell and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Pakistan had promised to cooperate.’ President George W. Bush later confirmed (also on the morning of September 13th) that the Pakistan government had accepted “to cooperate and to participate as we hunt down those people who committed this unbelievable, despicable act on America’.
[ . . . ]
“Armitage was one of the main architects behind US covert support to the Mujahedin and the ‘militant Islamic base’, both during the Afghan-Soviet war as well as in its aftermath. US covert support was financed by the Golden Crescent drug trade.”
We know that Armitage was no stranger to the Golden Crescent drug trade.
General Mahmoud Ahmed met with someone else in those days immediately following 11 September, and that “someone else” worked directly under Richard Armitage. That “someone else” was none other than Marc Grossman:
“ISI Chief Lt-Gen Mahmood’s week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council. [ . . . ] But the most important meeting was with Mark Grossman, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. US sources would not furnish any details beyond saying that the two discussed ‘matters of mutual interests.’”
Or, as Sibel Edmonds stated back in 2005:
“Although Grossman ‘has not been as high profile in the press’ FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds cryptically told me the other day, ‘don’t overlook him – he is very important.’”
Chris Deliso elaborates further:
“Marc Grossman has served in a number of interesting countries and positions over the past 29 years. From 1976-1983, at a pivotal point in the Cold War, he was employed at the U.S. embassy in Pakistan – America’s key regional ally, through which millions of dollars in weapons and other “aid” were delivered by Pakistan’s ISI intelligence service to the mujahedin following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.
[ . . . ]
“Grossman’s professional ties with Pakistan apparently long outlived his nine-year tenure there. The Guardian, among others, mentioned the fact that in the days immediately preceding Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistani ISI chief Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed – financier of 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta – paid a visit to senior administration officials, including Grossman, then undersecretary of state for political affairs.”
As The Times reported in January, 2008 (although not mentioning Grossman by name), Grossman was so deeply involved in the sale of nuclear secrets to Pakistan that he was under FBI surveillance. Since Grossman was directly responsible to Armitage, what did Armitage know about Grossman’s dirty dealings?
That question does not stretch the imagination because Armitage became involved in another event that Grossman was also involved with–Plamegate and the exposure of CIA front company Brewster Jennings, and those events will be included in our next post.
This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.(show less)
[news] Chavez Supporters and Opposition Rally in Venezuela on Anniversary of Overthrow of Dictator 24 Jan 2010Kiraz Janicke - Venezuelanalysis.com Caracas January 24, 2009 (venezuelanalysis.com) – In politically polarised Venezuela, both supporters and opponents of President Hugo Chavez marched peacefully in the capital, Caracas, on Saturday to mark the anniversary of the civic-military uprising that overthrew US-backed dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez on January 23, 1958. By Kiraz Janicke - Venezuelanalysis.com read more
32000 Scientists 9 Jan 2010greenman3610
32000 Scientists
32000 leading scientists signed a petition against global warming? Is that really true? Well, no.... But to get to the bottom of this crock , we'll have to go back in history, and meet someone who really was, at one time, a leading scientist.
From:
greenman3610
Views:
33091
1358
ratings
Time:
09:55
More in
Science & Technology
Monday, Jan. 25th, 2010 25 Jan 2010authoritysmashers SMASHERS ASSEMBLE!!!
The Authority Smashing! Hour with
Mr1001Nights and Chomskyan, featuring Thomas Ferguson of UMass Boston
Gaza, January 26, 2010 (Pal Telegraph) - Fifteen young female students from the Gaza Strip capped off a trip of a lifetime today at United Nations Headquarters in New York, the final stop on a week-long visit to the United States they received for their achievements in a human rights education programme run by the world body.
The visit to New York, including today's meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, followed stops in Atlanta, where they met with former US President Jimmy Carter at the Carter Center, as well as Washington D.C., for visits to the White House and other national monuments.
The group, which included 15 Palestinian eighth graders and three of their teachers, are the top achievers in the human rights, conflict resolution and tolerance programme taught in Gaza by t... (continue)
Gaza, January 26, 2010 (Pal Telegraph) - Fifteen young female students from the Gaza Strip capped off a trip of a lifetime today at United Nations Headquarters in New York, the final stop on a week-long visit to the United States they received for their achievements in a human rights education programme run by the world body.
The visit to New York, including today's meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, followed stops in Atlanta, where they met with former US President Jimmy Carter at the Carter Center, as well as Washington D.C., for visits to the White House and other national monuments.
The group, which included 15 Palestinian eighth graders and three of their teachers, are the top achievers in the human rights, conflict resolution and tolerance programme taught in Gaza by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
The agency operates one of the largest school systems in the Middle East, with nearly 700 schools, and has been the main provider of primary education to Palestine refugees for 60 years.
Education is UNRWA's largest programme, accounting for more than half of the agency's regular budget, and one of its key projects promotes non-violent communication skills, conflict resolution, human rights and tolerance.
The trip to the US is the first time these girls have ever been outside Gaza in their lives. Tasneem Al-Ashquar, who wants to be a doctor someday, said she was very proud to be able to come to the US. "There are a lot of other students, especially college students, who wish to come to the US for studying but the siege is stopping them," the 15-year-old told the UN News Centre.
Asked what she liked best about the human rights programme, she said: "I liked that I could speak my mind and give a voice to the suffering of the people of Gaza."
Another student, Tasneem Al-Lulu, said that in addition to learning about her basic human rights, she learned a lot about how African-Americans were able to achieve their rights in a peaceful and non-violent way.
"The most interesting thing for me was respect... here all people respect each other," she stated. Meeting the Secretary-General was the highlight of the trip for Bara Abu Shawish, who described the UN chief as "a very important man and very nice. I want to thank him for all he is doing to help us."
An identical group of boys will be following the same itinerary this week, ending up in New York next Monday.
Source: UN
Photo Mohammed Asad(show less)
¡Matt Lawrence y Hermanos al Rescate, para el fondo del aula!
Traducido por CubaNews – Inglés
Ya se acabaron las vacaciones, y Machetera por fin puede volver a atender su vasto imperio editorial y su desbordado buzón.
Como nuestros fieles lectores conocen, de vez en cuando tomo una de las cartas de la sección de comentarios y la publico por separado si merece una respuesta punto por punto. El remitente de esta carta en particular, un tal Matt Lawrence, que la envía desde una dirección de correo electrónico creada en honor al divertido nombre de su “ficticio” personaje piloto, Trig Combs, comenzó a copiar y pegar su carta no sólo para Machetera sino para otros activistas de solidaridad, y lo está haciendo en nombre de los Cinco Héroes. Copiar y pegar es pura vagancia (si uno va a defende... (continue)
¡Matt Lawrence y Hermanos al Rescate, para el fondo del aula!
Traducido por CubaNews – Inglés
Ya se acabaron las vacaciones, y Machetera por fin puede volver a atender su vasto imperio editorial y su desbordado buzón.
Como nuestros fieles lectores conocen, de vez en cuando tomo una de las cartas de la sección de comentarios y la publico por separado si merece una respuesta punto por punto. El remitente de esta carta en particular, un tal Matt Lawrence, que la envía desde una dirección de correo electrónico creada en honor al divertido nombre de su “ficticio” personaje piloto, Trig Combs, comenzó a copiar y pegar su carta no sólo para Machetera sino para otros activistas de solidaridad, y lo está haciendo en nombre de los Cinco Héroes. Copiar y pegar es pura vagancia (si uno va a defender a terroristas como Hermanos al Rescate lo menos que puede hacer es tratar de ser original), pero en fin, ese grupo nunca se ha destacado por su gran capacidad intelectual. (Nota para Lawrence: hangar se escribe con “a”.)
El principal objetivo de la carta de Lawrence parece ser pregonar su libro. Déjenme aclarar, tomando prestada la frase favorita de Obama. Eso no va a pasar aquí. Su segundo objetivo es desprestigiar a los corajudos Cinco Héroes. Eso seguro que no va a pasar aquí.
Comencemos:
Lawrence: Gracias por publicar el artículo sobre los cinco espías cubanos.
Buen intento, ese de empezar con un halago seguido de una calumnia. En ningún momento de su amañado juicio en Miami los Cinco Héroes fueron condenados por espionaje, que por lo general se define como el intento de obtener secretos de estado. Y fue así porque no obtuvieron ni trataron de obtener secreto alguno. Por el contrario, fueron condenados por lo que los abogados llaman la “niña mimada de la guardería del fiscal”, o sea, “conspiración para cometer espionaje”, lo cual significa que hubo acuerdo en que quizás podrían haber recopilado secretos de estado en algún momento indeterminado del futuro. Vea mi referencia anterior a la película Minority Report, que explora este tópico con mayor detalle, en la que Tom Cruise hace el papel de un detective Pre-Delito que arresta a las personas sobre la base de delitos pensados. Esto no le resulta inusual a casi nadie en Miami, pero en el resto de los Estados Unidos de América todavía este concepto nos aterroriza un poco.
Lawrence: Junto con mi coautor (designado tres veces para ocupar puestos en el Pentágono), he volado en misiones de salvamento con Hermanos al Rescate, propietarios de los dos aviones derribados por MIG cubanos gracias a la labor de estos mismos espías.
Una admisión interesante, aunque no especialmente inusual. A muchas personas les gustaba volar con el grupo terrorista por diversión. David Lawrence, ex editor del periódico Miami Herald (¿algún parentesco?) y Dennis Hays (quien luego fuera Embajador en Surinam) hablaban sin tapujos de sus vuelos con los “Hermanos”. Por supuesto, alguien nombrado para el Pentágono hubiera sido bien recibido. HaR volaba con toda la confianza y el apoyo del gobierno de los Estados Unidos. Naturalmente, los que iban con ellos prefieren llamar a esos vuelos en antiguos aviones militares “misiones de rescate”, ignorando el hecho de que además de ser sobre todo una muy exitosa operación lucrativa, HaR planificó “entrar armas de contrabando en Cuba o lanzarlas desde un avión.” (Informe de la OIAC, pag. 86.)
Lawrence: Nuestro libro (anuncio publicitario no pagado eliminado de esta parte), fruto de 13 años de investigación, es una recopilación de documentos del tribunal, pruebas presentadas en el juicio, y actas públicas sobre este caso. (Otro anuncio no pagado eliminado) fue tema de un reciente informe investigativo de la televisora CBS4 de Miami que llegó a las mismas conclusiones que nosotros….
Imagínense eso. Una estación de televisión de Miami sale en apoyo a una causa terrorista. ¡Eso sí que es increíble!
Lawrence: 1) Funcionarios del gobierno de EE.UU., en específico el Gobernador Bill Richardson y los miembros del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional Sandy Berger y Richard Nuccio, supieron de antemano que se derribarían los aviones y no hicieron nada al respecto.
Esto es en parte verdad. El gobierno de EE.UU. sabía que las provocaciones de HaR eran insensatas y peligrosas y le pidió a HaR que no siguieran haciéndolo. El Sr. Charles Smith, supervisor de la oficina de la AFA (Administración Federal de Aviación) de Miami durante la primera mitad de la década de los 90, sostuvo varias reuniones con HaR en 1992, 1993, 1994 y 1996 “para tratar de convencerlos de que no violaran las leyes internacionales ni las regulaciones norteamericanas y advertirles que estaban cometiendo un delito por el que podían y debían ser castigados.” (Ref. examen de la NTSB: suspensión de la licencia de piloto de José Basalto, 5 de julio de 1996). Pero al mismo tiempo, aunque le habían suspendido la licencia a Basulto, él continuó volando y le informó sin rodeos al Sr. Smith que seguiría haciéndolo, razonando correctamente que el gobierno de EE.UU. no iba a tomar medidas adicionales en contra suya.
El día en cuestión, HaR presentó un plan de vuelo donde se indicaba que volarían a lo largo de la porción oriental de la península de la Florida en dirección al centro de Cuba, y luego pondrían rumbo al oeste para regresar a Cayo Hueso. Pero de inmediato hicieron lo contrario, volando al oeste hacia Cayo Hueso, luego al sur, y después al oeste otra vez, plenamente conscientes de que los estaban viendo los controladores de tráfico aéreo, quienes poseían el plan de vuelo y sin embargo no le dijeron nada a los pilotos sobre su desviación del plan de vuelo autorizado.
Hacía rato que Basulto estaba molesto porque el ejército estadounidense no envió sus propios aviones de combate el 24 de febrero de 1996 a iniciar la largamente esperada confrontación militar con Cuba. Después de todo, él había hecho lo suyo para desencadenar los acontecimientos. ¡Otra traición igual que en Playa Girón! El ha enviado cartas donde cuestiona la integridad de los oficiales militares que se negaron a dar la orden de despegue, y es de suponer que ese sea el meollo de la invención literaria que Lawrence está promoviendo. Sin embargo, hay un motivo increíblemente sencillo por lo que la esperada confrontación militar nunca ocurrió. Los MIG cubanos estaban operando totalmente dentro del territorio soberano de Cuba, y los militares lo sabían, así que una intervención armada era plenamente injustificable. El enfrentamiento tendría lugar en otra parte a través de presiones diplomáticas, y sería cuestión de Basulto y otros beneficiarse de la reubicación.
Lawrence: Miembros del gobierno cubano le preguntaron una y otra vez a los diplomáticos estadounidenses: “¿Qué pasaría si los derribáramos?” Esto revela que el gobierno cubano planificó los ataques a partir de la información obtenida por los cinco espías y los otros agentes cubanos de la Red Avispa, que en su mayoría se declararon culpables y no fueron a juicio….
Sinceramente, esto es tonto. ¡Claro que el gobierno cubano cuenta con planes para defenderse! ¿Es Dick Cheney el único en el mundo con esa prerrogativa? No necesitaban a los Cinco Héroes que lo hicieran por ellos. Para eso son los radares y los aviones de combate. Ahora revisemos los hechos, para que Machetera no reciba una avalancha de cartas argumentando que los Cessnas operados por HaR eran aviones civiles en una misión puramente humanitaria a pesar de todas las pruebas del informe de la OIAC que evidencian lo contrario. Los aviones de HaR fueron adquiridos del ejército norteamericano por Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, y habían servido militarmente en América Central. Y Cuba tiene un largo y terrible historial de ataques lanzados contra la Isla desde aviones de este tipo. Por ejemplo:
“Cañaverales cubanos han sido quemados por pequeños aviones. Ciudades cubanas han sido atacadas desde pequeños aviones. Se han lanzado explosivos desde pequeños aviones. Se han hecho sabotajes desde pequeños aviones. Se han introducido sustancias biológicas desde pequeños aviones. Con aviones como los de [HaR] se han planificado y se están planificando actos de sabotaje contra instalaciones de la República de Cuba.” — (Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada, reunión del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, 26 de julio de 1996.)
Ahora bien, resulta interesante la mención de que la mayor parte de los cubanos arrestados en Miami admitieron su culpabilidad para no ser juzgados. Es cierto que originalmente fueron arrestados 14 cubanos miembros de la Red Avispa, cuatro de los cuales se las arreglaron para retornar a Cuba sin percances, mientras otros cinco cedieron a las fuertes presiones y los incentivos (¿alguien desea una tarjeta verde, reubicación, programa de protección de testigos?) ofrecidos por la fiscalía de EE.UU. y optaron por no ir a juicio. Mi aritmética dice que no fue la mayoría que se declaró culpable, sin importar cómo se cuenten.
El hecho de que los Cinco Héroes no cedieran a tanta presión ilegal e inhumana hace que su proceso sea incluso más excepcional. Conscientes de que no habían hecho nada malo, y totalmente convencidos de la justicia de su causa, que era salvar las vidas de sus compatriotas poniendo al descubierto y frustrando planes terroristas contra Cuba antes de que pudieran llevarse a cabo, rechazaron cuanto acuerdo con la fiscalía les fuera ofrecido y se negaron a delatarse entre sí para salvarse a sí mismos sin importar las consecuencias. Fueron acciones de hombres inocentes, no culpables. Muchos años después, a pesar de las consecuencias que han sido realmente atroces y de haber sido obligados a soportar el castigo extra-judicial de la demora o total negación de visitas de sus familiares sobre la base de absurdos pretextos presentados por el Departamento de Estado norteamericano, siguen siendo lo que siempre fueron: hombres inocentes y héroes cubanos.
Lawrence: 2) Los espías cubanos se infiltraron en bases militares, organizaciones del exilio y Hermanos al Rescate, así como en nuestra Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa (re: Ana Belén Montes). Recibieron juicios justos donde fueron declarados culpables y sentenciados a penas de prisión por sus crímenes.
Vaya atrás y lea de nuevo la transcripción del juicio de los Cinco Héroes. Es risible que se hable aquí de “infiltración de bases militares”. ¿Quién presionó a Antonio Guerrero para que empezara a trabajar dónde y como qué? Le ayudaré: tomó un empleo como conserje en el aeródromo de Boca Chica, tal y como se lo sugirió una trabajadora de una agencia de empleo temporal que testificó en el juicio sobre su continua insistencia para que él cogiera ese trabajo.
Si Ana Belén Montes tuvo o no un juicio justo es cuanto menos cuestionable. Casi seguro se puede afirmar que el castigo que se le impuso tuvo más que ver con la necesidad de la AID de proteger su imagen tras haberla promovido a un puesto tan prominente que a cualquier daño real que ella pueda haberle causado al gobierno de EE.UU. No obstante, en el caso de los Cinco Héroes, resulta ofensivo insistir en que tuvieron un juicio justo luego de que el Tribunal de Apelaciones de Atlanta dijo lo contrario. No fue justo. Fue un proceso completamente amañado en el que la fiscalía ocultó pruebas exculpatorias argumentando razones de seguridad nacional bajo una tormenta perfecta de prejuicio comunitario.
Lawrence: 3) Nuestro ejército tenía múltiples radares monitoreando el Estrecho de la Florida el día del derribo y mantuvo sus aviones interceptores en tierra en HAFB, Homestead, Florida, durante los ataques. Los dos aviones fueron derribados sobre aguas internacionales y en ningún momento plantearon una amenaza para Cuba.
Vea el punto 1 anterior. ¿No es curioso que nuestro ejército tuviera emplazados múltiples radares para monitorear el Estrecho de la Florida el día del derribo y aún así ninguno de ellos pudo producir evidencia alguna para la investigación que fue iniciada de inmediato por la Organización Internacional de Aviación Civil (OIAC) de las Naciones Unidas?
Es tan curioso que resulta un aspecto en que tanto Ricardo Alarcón como Basulto están realmente de acuerdo. El Mayor Jeffrey Houlihan del Servicio de Aduanas de EE.UU. fue convocado a una reunión el 17 de febrero de 2006 donde se le advirtió que una semana más tarde, el 24 de febrero, Basulto y sus peones volarían hacia Cuba expresamente para provocar un incidente político. A Houlihan se le recordó el plan el 23 de febrero, día anterior al vuelo, así como en la mañana del 24. ¡Ojo, Houlihan!
Pero Houlihan no fue el único a quien se le avisó. El 13 de febrero, la Oficina de Asuntos Cubanos del Departamento de Estado contactó a la Oficina de Aviación Internacional de la AFA y le informó que “algo podría ocurrir con respecto a estos vuelos y debían ser alertados… el 23 de febrero, los diversos centros de control de las comunicaciones de EE.UU. recibieron instrucciones (avisos) de las autoridades en el sentido de que se debían documentar apropiadamente ciertos vuelos que iban a tener lugar al día siguiente. Sin embargo, ¿cuál fue el resultado de todos estos avisos sobre documentación cuando la OIAC anunció que recopilaría datos del radar para su investigación? Los datos fueron borrados. Los datos de radar que Cuba proporcionó inmediatamente después del incidente (a diferencia de lo que hizo Estados Unidos, que demoró y divagó cuanto pudo antes de admitir que se habían borrado) fueron totalmente ignorados.
Por consiguiente, la localización del derribo no se basó en datos de radar objetivos y concretos (que mostraban claramente que ocurrió en aguas cubanas), sino en una extraña triangulación subjetiva que la OIAC aceptó tras las presiones de los diplomáticos norteamericanos y que consistía en lo siguiente:
Una copia de una grabación de comunicaciones de la que se habían borrado misteriosamente seis minutos cruciales.
La posición, probablemente inexacta, reportada por un crucero.
La posición reportada por un barco pesquero cuya existencia nunca se probó.
Fue únicamente sobre la base de estas falsedades que este ataque, al que Cuba tenia pleno derecho como legitimo acto de auto-defensa en su propio territorio y que Estados Unidos hubiera realizado mucho antes y sin vacilaciones, fue llevado a aguas internacionales y utilizado para desencadenar una serie de acciones, que comenzaron con el saqueo de los bienes congelados de Cuba por parte de las familias de los pilotos abatidos y otras personas y culminaron con la encarcelación y tortura de cinco hombres que no tuvieron nada que ver con el asunto.
Lawrence: (Anuncio no pagado eliminado) es promocionado por el Congresista Lincoln Diaz-Balart, dos analistas de la AID y el director del Instituto de Estudios Cubano-Americanos de la Universidad de Miami, entre otros expertos y académicos.
Lawrence, el hecho de que esta frívola publicación sea promocionada por el zonzo Lincoln Diaz-Balart no le hace a Ud. mucho favor. ¿Dos analistas de la AID, quizás los mismos que promovieron a Ana Belén Montes? ¿La Universidad de Miami, que por tantos años fue sede de la estación JM/WAVE de la CIA? Dejémoslo ahí antes de que esto se ponga incluso más embarazoso.
Lawrence: Por favor, visite nuestra página web (anuncio no pagado eliminado) y suba el volumen de sus bocinas; escuche la presentación… son las voces de los hermanos Pérez-Pérez, los pilotos de los MIG cubanos, acechando y derribando aviones civiles, y sus instructores cubanos.
No, tengo una idea mejor. Veamos un fragmento del excepcional tratamiento “ficticio” que Ud. le da a una de las provocaciones de HaR:
Combs mira a Harevan con ojos como platos de tanta excitación, y dice, “¡Hoy vamos a ver La Habana desde el 33!”
“Me imaginé que te gustaría eso,” Basulto Juan Carlos le dice a su amigo, dándole palmaditas en la espalda. “Pero mantente al norte del 23:30,” le dice a Combs en un susurro, alertando al aviador norteamericano que permaneciera bien al norte del limite territorial cubano de doce millas.
Trig le hace un guiño a Juan Carlos, diciendo en tono superficial, “¡Vamos, tú sabes que yo respeto las reglas!”
“Bien, veamos los números; o no,” dice el taimado Santos sonriendo. “Recuerden decir su ubicación al cruzar la línea de la pizza y luego cuando vean la casa”, les aconseja el coordinador de vuelos. [...] “Recuerden usar primero el número Alfa, después Beta, y así sucesivamente. Resten la latitud del número de teléfono alfa y la longitud del beta. Con un poco de suerte el guardacostas del otro lado llegará al mismo resultado que ustedes cuando calcule las ecuaciones en orden inverso; y el puñetero de Fidel no tendrá forma de saber dónde están las avionetas balsas –a no ser viéndonos sobrevolándolas.” El joven piloto habla con el conocimiento de un operativo de la CIA, aunque todavía pose (cita textual) la inocencia de su ilimitada juventud.
[...]
“Torre Habana, torre Habana, torre Habana, aquí N cero, cero, C, F,” Combs llama a Cuba, pidiendo autorización para penetrar un espacio aéreo que es legalmente internacional, aún si el cabrón barbudo dice que es su “Zona de Información para la Defensa Antiaérea.”
(Nota de Machetera con relación a las Zonas de Información para la Defensa Antiaérea, conocidas como ZIDA: “Todo avión que penetre en estas zonas sin autorización puede ser identificado como una amenaza y tratado como una nave enemiga, lo cual podría dar lugar a una intercepción con aviones de combate. La naturaleza exacta de la reclamación de Estados Unidos sobre la ZIDA exterior es confusa.”)
[...]
“CF,” responde una voz cubana clara pero apesna (cita textual) audible debido a la estática de los auriculares.
“Buenos días, señor, estaremos cruzando la 24 en cinco minutos y volaremos por el área unas cuatro o cinco horas en una misión humanitaria de búsqueda y rescate. Respondemos tres, cuatro, ocho, tres, a quinientos pies. ¿Copió?” Trig le dice con claridad al tolerante porque tienen que estar torre Habana del objetivo de su vuelo.
“Thank you,” responde el controlador cubano en inglés.
“Para su conocimiento, hoy el área de nuestras operaciones está al norte de La Habana, así que estaremos en su área y en contacto con usted. ¿Copió?”, dice Combs mientras sigue presionando al cubano para lograr un acuerdo.
“Señor, le informo que la zona al norte de La Habana está activada, usted está en peligro detrás del paralelo 24 norte,” advierte fríamente y en tono amenazador la voz gruesa y con fuerte acento que emana de la torre de control de tráfico aéreo en La Habana.
Al escuchar perturbado la respuesta del controlador en sus auriculares, Cuesta le mostró el dedo del medio de su mano derecha al panel de control, aun sin decir nada, pero tratando de escribir cada palabra en el reverso de su planilla de misión.
“Estamos conscientes del peligro cada vez que cruzamos el área al sur del 24, pero estamos dispuestos a hacerlo como personas libres,” Combs profesea (cita textual) al controlador comunista antes de soltar el botón de salida del micrófono.
(Nota de Machetera: Las comunicaciones radiales de un piloto con el controlador aéreo no son como en un teléfono abierto, donde varias personas pueden tomar parte en la conversación al mismo tiempo. Sólo se puede escuchar una voz a la vez, pues todas las demás se desplazan. Mientras HaR obstruye el radio con toda esta tontería, los aviones comerciales verdaderos que transportan a centenares de pasajeros no pueden comunicarse con los controladores aéreos en La Habana. Advertencia al Lector: el siguiente fragmento es tan vulgar como revelador de las intenciones reales de esta gentuza.)
“Pues te vas al carajo, comunista mamalón, vamos a tu zona activada detrás del 24 a salvar algunas vidas humanas, y si me encabronas voy a volver con un C-130 lleno de amor para echártelo encima. Como en los viejos tiempos,” suelta Combs en una diatriba vulgar que sólo su tripulación puede escuchar, realmente molesto por la indiferencia del controlador cubano.
Tim Harevan se ríe de la ira de su piloto.
“Gracias, información recibida,” responde el controlador aéreo de Castro, haciendo caso omiso de la furiosa descarga que le lanzaron entre una transmisión “oficial” y otra.
Lawrence: “¡Puede que no siempre escuchemos la VERDAD dicha en palabras, pero siempre la encontraremos en las acciones de las personas!”
¡Ni que decir tiene!
—
Notas:
U.N. Security Council reunión 3683, 26 julio, 1996
http://www.undemocracy.com/securitycouncil/meeting_3683
Carta a Congresista Burton de General DeWolf/respuesta a HaR
http://www.hermanos.org/General%20DeWolf%27s%20letter%20to%20Congressman%20Burton-%20BTTR%20reply.htm
Saul Landau: Entrevista con Gerardo Hernandez
http://www.freethefive.org/updates/IntlMedia/IMSaulGerardo52109.htm
(show less)
Stand with the people of
Haiti! What the U.S. government isn't telling
you
We at the ANSWER Coalition extend our heartfelt solidarity to
all of our Haitian sisters and brothers, as well as to all those who have friends and
family there, as Haiti copes with the destruction and grief of the massive 7.0 magnitude
earthquake that struck yesterday.
All of us are joining in the
outpouring of solidarity from people all over the hemisphere and world who are sending
humanitarian aid and assistance to the people of Haiti.
At such a
moment, it is also important to put this catastrophe into a political and social
context. Without this context, it is... (continue)
Stand with the people of
Haiti! What the U.S. government isn't telling
you
We at the ANSWER Coalition extend our heartfelt solidarity to
all of our Haitian sisters and brothers, as well as to all those who have friends and
family there, as Haiti copes with the destruction and grief of the massive 7.0 magnitude
earthquake that struck yesterday.
All of us are joining in the
outpouring of solidarity from people all over the hemisphere and world who are sending
humanitarian aid and assistance to the people of Haiti.
At such a
moment, it is also important to put this catastrophe into a political and social
context. Without this context, it is impossible to understand both the monumental
problems facing Haiti and, most importantly, the solutions that can allow Haiti to
survive and thrive. Hillary Clinton said today, "It is biblical, the tragedy
that continues to daunt Haiti and the Haitian people." This hypocritical
statement that blames Haiti's suffering exclusively on an "act of
God" masks the role of U.S. and French imperialism in the
region.
In this statement, we have included some background
information about Haiti that helps establish the real
context:
Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive stated today that
as many as 100,000 Haitians may be dead. International media is reporting bodies being
piled along streets surrounded by the rubble from thousands of collapsed buildings.
Estimates of the economic damage are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Haiti’s
large shantytown population was particularly hard hit by the tragedy.
As CNN, ABC and every other major corporate media outlet will be
quick to point out, Haiti is the poorest country in the entire Western hemisphere. But
not a single word is uttered as to why Haiti is poor. Poverty, unlike earthquakes, is no
natural disaster.
The answer lies in more than two centuries of U.S.
hostility to the island nation, whose hard-won independence from the French was only the
beginning of its struggle for liberation.
In 1804, what had begun as
a slave uprising more than a decade earlier culminated in freedom from the grips of
French colonialism, making Haiti the first Latin American colony to win its independence
and the world's first Black republic. Prior to the victory of the Haitian
people, George Washington and then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson had supported
France out of fear that Haiti would inspire uprisings among the U.S. slave population.
The U.S. slave-owning aristocracy was horrified at Haiti’s newly earned freedom.
U.S. interference became an integral part of Haitian history,
culminating in a direct military occupation from 1915 to 1934. Through economic and
military intervention, Haiti was subjugated as U.S. capital developed a railroad and
acquired plantations. In a gesture of colonial arrogance, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was
the assistant secretary of the Navy at the time, drafted a constitution for Haiti which,
among other things, allowed foreigners to own land. U.S. officials would later find an
accommodation with the dictator François “Papa Doc” Duvalier, and then his son
Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, as Haiti suffered under their brutal repressive
policies.
In the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. policy toward Haiti sought
the reorganization of the Haitian economy to better serve the interests of foreign
capital. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was instrumental in
shifting Haitian agriculture away from grain production, paving the way for dependence
on food imports. Ruined Haitian farmers flocked to the cities in search of a livelihood,
resulting in the swelling of the precarious shantytowns found in Port-au-Prince and
other urban centers.
Who has benefited from these policies? U.S.
food producers profited from increased exports to Haitian markets. Foreign corporations
that had set up shop in Haitian cities benefitted from the super-exploitation of cheap
labor flowing from the countryside. But for the people of Haiti, there was only greater
misery and destitution.
Washington orchestrated the overthrow of the
democratically elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide—not once, but twice, in
1991 and 2004. Haiti has been under a U.S.-backed U.N. occupation for nearly six years.
Aristide did not earn the animosity of U.S. leaders for his moderate reforms; he earned
it when he garnered support among Haiti's poor, which crystallized into a mass
popular movement. Two hundred years on, U.S. officials are still horrified by the
prospect of a truly independent Haiti.
The unstable, makeshift
dwellings imposed upon Haitians by Washington’s neoliberal policies have now, for many,
been turned into graves. Those same policies are to blame for the lack of hospitals,
ambulances, fire trucks, rescue equipment, food and medicine. The blow dealt by such a
natural disaster to an economy made so fragile from decades of plundering will greatly
magnify the suffering of the Haitian people.
Natural disasters are
inevitable, but resource allocation and planning can play a decisive role in mitigating
their impact and dealing with the aftermath. Haiti and neighboring Cuba, who are no
strangers to violent tropical storms, were both hit hard in 2008 by a series of
hurricanes—which, unlike earthquakes, are predictable. While more than 800 lives were
lost in Haiti, less than 10 people died in Cuba. Unlike Haiti, Cuba had a coordinated
evacuation plan and post-hurricane rescue efforts that were centrally planned by the
Cuban government. This was only possible because Cuban society is not organized
according to the needs of foreign capital, but rather according to the needs of the
Cuban people.
In a televised speech earlier today, President Obama
has announced that USAID and the Departments of State and Defense will be working to
support the rescue and relief efforts in Haiti in the coming days. Ironically, these are
the same government entities responsible for the implementation of the economic and
military policies that reduced Haiti to ruins even before the earthquake
hit.
The ANSWER Coalition has called for a mass
national march and rally in Washington, D.C., on March 20 to oppose the wars and
occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. We will also demand an end the foreign
occupation of Haiti and reparations to Haiti for the vast wealth that has been looted
from the country by foreign imperialist
countries.
Help build the March 20
March on Washington!
Endorse March
20
Organize
Transportation
Volunteer
Download
literature
Find out about transportation from around the
country
Naomi Klein Issues Haiti Disaster Capitalism Alert: Stop Them Before They
Shock Again 14 Jan 2010mail@democracynow.org (Democracy Now!) Journalist and author Naomi
Klein spoke in New York last night and addressed the crisis in Haiti: “We have to be
absolutely clear that this tragedy—which is part natural, part unnatural—must, under no
circumstances, be used to, one, further indebt Haiti and, two, to push through unpopular
corporatist policies in the interest of our corporations. This is not conspiracy theory.
They have done it again and again.” [includes rush transcript]
US Policy in Haiti Over Decades "Lays the Foundation for Why Impact of
Natural Disaster Is So Severe" 14 Jan 2010mail@democracynow.org (Democracy Now!) We discuss the situation in
Haiti following Tuesday’s massive earthquake, as well as the history of Haiti, with two
guests who have spent a lot of time there: Bill Quigley, the legal director at the
Center for Constitutional Rights, and Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for
Justice & Democracy in Haiti. [includes rush transcript]
AfterDowningStreet.org
After Downing Street is a nonpartisan coalition working to expose the lies that create and sustain wars and occupations and to hold accountable those responsible. We have speakers available. If you register on this site, you will have the option to receive occasional Email updates from us. Please read our policy regarding posting comments on this site. Would you like to see ADS news every time you go to Google.com? Use this widget or this widget to put ADS news on any website. We're on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter, and have an RSS feed.
Focus on Israel: Harvesting Haitian Organs
By Stephen Lendman
On January 15, Haaretz reported that:
"The Israel Defense Forces' aid mission to Haiti left Israel overnight (January 14) with equipment for setting up an emergency field hospital. Around 220 soldiers and officers (were) in the delegation, including 120 medical staff (to) operate the hospital in the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince."
According to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it includes "40 doctors, 25 nurses, paramedics, a pharmacy, a children's ward, a radiology department, an intensive care unit, an internal department and a maternity ward (able to) treat approximately 500 patients each day," including in two surgery rooms.
On January 20, Lebanon's Al-Manar TV reported on the mission, citing a damning You Tube ... (continue)
Focus on Israel: Harvesting Haitian Organs
By Stephen Lendman
On January 15, Haaretz reported that:
"The Israel Defense Forces' aid mission to Haiti left Israel overnight (January 14) with equipment for setting up an emergency field hospital. Around 220 soldiers and officers (were) in the delegation, including 120 medical staff (to) operate the hospital in the Haitian capital, Port-au-Prince."
According to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it includes "40 doctors, 25 nurses, paramedics, a pharmacy, a children's ward, a radiology department, an intensive care unit, an internal department and a maternity ward (able to) treat approximately 500 patients each day," including in two surgery rooms.
On January 20, Lebanon's Al-Manar TV reported on the mission, citing a damning You Tube video posted by an American named T. West from a group called AfriSynergy Productions.
"The video presents something to think about while exploiting the horrible tragedy that has befallen Haiti where Israeli occupation soldiers are engaged in organ trafficking."
read more(show less)
U.S. Mulls Legality of Killing American al Qaeda "Turncoat"
Opportunities to "Take Out" Radical Cleric Anwar Awlaki In Yemen "May Have Been Missed"
By Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito and Brian Ross | ABC News | Submitted by Michael Munk | www.MichaelMunk.com
According to the people who were briefed on the issue, American officials fear the possibility of criminal prosecution without approval in advance from the White House for a targeted strike against Awlaki.
White House lawyers are mulling the legality of proposed attempts to kill an American citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who is believed to be part of the leadership of the al Qaeda group in Yemen behind a series of terror strikes, according to two people briefed by U.S. intelligence officials.
One of the people briefed said opportunities ... (continue)
U.S. Mulls Legality of Killing American al Qaeda "Turncoat"
Opportunities to "Take Out" Radical Cleric Anwar Awlaki In Yemen "May Have Been Missed"
By Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito and Brian Ross | ABC News | Submitted by Michael Munk | www.MichaelMunk.com
According to the people who were briefed on the issue, American officials fear the possibility of criminal prosecution without approval in advance from the White House for a targeted strike against Awlaki.
White House lawyers are mulling the legality of proposed attempts to kill an American citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who is believed to be part of the leadership of the al Qaeda group in Yemen behind a series of terror strikes, according to two people briefed by U.S. intelligence officials.
One of the people briefed said opportunities to "take out" Awlaki "may have been missed" because of the legal questions surrounding a lethal attack which would specifically target an American citizen.
A spokesperson said the White House declined to comment.
While Awlaki has not been charged with any crimes under U.S. law, intelligence officials say recent intelligence reports and electronic intercepts show he played an important role in recruiting the accused "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Awlaki also carried on extensive e-mail communication with the accused Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, prior to the attack that killed 12 soldiers and one civilian. Read more.
read more(show less)
For war protester Eve Tetaz, 78 is hardly the time to retire
By Keith L. Alexander, Washington Post Staff Writer | Washington Post
It's a familiar scene for Eve Tetaz. She sits in the cold, damp holding cell, crammed together with other women. Some, like her, were arrested for protesting. Others are locked up for drugs, assault or prostitution.
The other women in the D.C. jail affectionately call her grandma. Her cellmates, or as she calls them, her "sisters in chains," let her sleep on the bottom bunk so the 78-year-old doesn't have to climb to the top. Instead of letting her stand in line to get her jail-issued bologna or cheese sandwiches, many of the women bring them to her. "These are women I probably even wouldn't see passing on the street," Tetaz said. "They are very gracious to... (continue)
For war protester Eve Tetaz, 78 is hardly the time to retire
By Keith L. Alexander, Washington Post Staff Writer | Washington Post
It's a familiar scene for Eve Tetaz. She sits in the cold, damp holding cell, crammed together with other women. Some, like her, were arrested for protesting. Others are locked up for drugs, assault or prostitution.
The other women in the D.C. jail affectionately call her grandma. Her cellmates, or as she calls them, her "sisters in chains," let her sleep on the bottom bunk so the 78-year-old doesn't have to climb to the top. Instead of letting her stand in line to get her jail-issued bologna or cheese sandwiches, many of the women bring them to her. "These are women I probably even wouldn't see passing on the street," Tetaz said. "They are very gracious to me."
With her white hair and black glasses, Tetaz is a familiar figure to the Capitol Police and at the courthouse. Since 2005, court records show, she has been arrested 20 times and convicted 14 times of various offenses, including unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct, contempt and crossing a police line. As she and other demonstrators march around various parts of the District, from the White House to the Supreme Court to the Capitol, her protests center on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Most District judges who have heard her cases have dismissed them with a citation or fine or sentenced her to time served, usually one or two days in jail, and sent her home. But her repeated arrests have left prosecutors and some D.C. Superior Court judges exasperated. On Thursday, just days before a D.C. Superior Court judge was scheduled to sentence her in another case, Tetaz picked up her 21st arrest when she and about 40 other protesters were charged in a war demonstration on the Capitol grounds. A hearing was scheduled for March. Read more.
read more(show less)
Officials: Obama will propose three-year spending freeze
By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
Looking to signal at least one step toward reining in huge federal budget deficits, President Barack Obama will propose a three-year freeze in non-security discretionary spending, senior administration officials said Monday.
His budget proposal, to be unveiled in part with Wednesday's State of the Union speech and in detail next week, will urge Congress to keep overall spending at $447 billion a year for agencies other than those charged with national security and mandatory-spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
The freeze would take effect with the 2011 fiscal year starting Oct. 1, and wouldn't affect the $787 billion economic stimulus plan already being implemented, the of... (continue)
Officials: Obama will propose three-year spending freeze
By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
Looking to signal at least one step toward reining in huge federal budget deficits, President Barack Obama will propose a three-year freeze in non-security discretionary spending, senior administration officials said Monday.
His budget proposal, to be unveiled in part with Wednesday's State of the Union speech and in detail next week, will urge Congress to keep overall spending at $447 billion a year for agencies other than those charged with national security and mandatory-spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
The freeze would take effect with the 2011 fiscal year starting Oct. 1, and wouldn't affect the $787 billion economic stimulus plan already being implemented, the officials said.
It also wouldn't affect a 154 billion jobs plan pending before Congress and backed by Obama, the officials said. One aide said that plan would be exempt because it would take effect this year, before the freeze.
Administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to not upstage the president, said that the three-year freeze would save $250 billion over a decade — if it's approved by an election-year Congress.
After three years, the total spent would be the lowest as a percentage of the total economy in 50 years. Spending on those agencies has increased by an average of 5 percent a year since 1993, the officials said.
Still, officials acknowledged that the savings wouldn't come close to eliminating the deficit and balancing the budget. "We're not here to tell you we've solved the deficit," one official said. Read more.
read more(show less)
Leftists slam capitalism at Social Forum in Brazil
By Associated Press | Yahoo! News | Submitted by Michael Munk | www.MichaelMunk.com
Tens of thousands of leftists massed Monday to kick off five days of railing against unfettered capitalism at the World Social Forum, a gathering that protests the bankers and other leaders who attend the World Economic Forum at a Swiss ski resort.
Accompanied by thundering drumbeats and samba blaring from sound trucks, a crowd of exuberant activists estimated by police to number 25,000 marched through Porto Alegre waving communist flags and shouting socialist slogans.
They assailed corporate greed as the main reason the world plunged into an economic slump and trumpeted causes ranging from total state control of nations' petroleum reserves to environm... (continue)
Leftists slam capitalism at Social Forum in Brazil
By Associated Press | Yahoo! News | Submitted by Michael Munk | www.MichaelMunk.com
Tens of thousands of leftists massed Monday to kick off five days of railing against unfettered capitalism at the World Social Forum, a gathering that protests the bankers and other leaders who attend the World Economic Forum at a Swiss ski resort.
Accompanied by thundering drumbeats and samba blaring from sound trucks, a crowd of exuberant activists estimated by police to number 25,000 marched through Porto Alegre waving communist flags and shouting socialist slogans.
They assailed corporate greed as the main reason the world plunged into an economic slump and trumpeted causes ranging from total state control of nations' petroleum reserves to environmental preservation and animal rights in the 10th annual version of the event in this city near southern Brazil's border with Uruguay.
Participants said the forum is especially important this year now that governments from the United States to Europe are moving to play bigger roles in managing the global economy.
In contrast, the World Economic Forum that starts Wednesday in Davos is expected to see fewer leaders than in years past, and U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to clamp down on the size and activity of banks is sure to be on the minds of many of the rich and powerful heading to Switzerland.
"They have driven the capitalist system into chaos," said Sergio Bernardo, a Brazilian human rights activist sporting a bright red shirt emblazoned with the words "Bourgeoisie Stinks!" "We're letting them know we can create a world free of exploitation that will help the poor." Read more.
read more(show less)
San Diego Brown Baggers Say No More Money for War at Susan Davis' Office | Progressive Democrats of America
As part of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) Brown Bag Lunch Vigils, a delegation of the Metro San Diego PDA met with staffers in Congresswoman Susan Davis’ office [yesterday] afternoon to let her know that they expect their representative to act in the interest of the working people in her district and not fat-cat corporate lobbyists. In keeping with the theme, "Brown Bag Lunch Vigils" former Democratic Congressional candidate, Jeeni Criscenzo, who led the delegation, brought a basket of brown bag lunches with homemade scones, peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches and organic apples, so people who were taking their lunch break to meet with their representative could have ... (continue)
San Diego Brown Baggers Say No More Money for War at Susan Davis' Office | Progressive Democrats of America
As part of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) Brown Bag Lunch Vigils, a delegation of the Metro San Diego PDA met with staffers in Congresswoman Susan Davis’ office [yesterday] afternoon to let her know that they expect their representative to act in the interest of the working people in her district and not fat-cat corporate lobbyists. In keeping with the theme, "Brown Bag Lunch Vigils" former Democratic Congressional candidate, Jeeni Criscenzo, who led the delegation, brought a basket of brown bag lunches with homemade scones, peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches and organic apples, so people who were taking their lunch break to meet with their representative could have a healthy lunch. She explained to staffer Jessica Poole that most working people in her district (and those looking for work) can’t afford to go out for lunch, and the peanut-butter and jelly sandwich in a paper sack is a representation of who we are.
While they munched on lunch, the delegates, including local activists, Carol Jahnkow, Dan Watman, Jaun del Rio, Pat Gracian and Jerry Malamud, explained to Davis’ staffers that they strongly oppose President Omama’s latest request for an additional $33 Billion dollars for war in Afghanistan. “We need that money here. Congress tells us there isn’t enough money for single payer healthcare, and then turns around and spends billions upon billions to blow up and destroy civilians in other countries. We can’t afford that and it has to end!” Malamud said. Others stated that the mandate in the health care bill being considered by Congress is a giveaway for corporate health insurance that does nothing to help people, many who can barely pay for the necessities in today’s dismal economic climate.
Brown Baggers from around the country, representing America’s working class, will be returning to their representatives’ offices on the third Wednesday of every month to make sure the voice of the people is heard loud and clear. Criscenzo told Davis’ staffer, “What just happened in Massachusetts is a clear wakeup call. We were promised change and we don’t see it happening. Start listening to the people or they will look for someone who will.”
Pictured left: Former Congressional Candidate, Jeeni Criscenzo, brought brown bag lunches for staff and activists meeting at Susan Davis’ office as part of the monthly program sponsored by Progressive Democrats of America.
read more(show less)
By Dave Lindorff
Flash! The Supreme Court’s latest 5-4 decision overturning the over 60-year-old ban on corporations giving money to political campaigns is not the end of democracy as we know it, or the onset of fascism in America, as some of hyperventilating progressives have been claiming.
Sure it’s an outrage to say, as the court majority did, that corporations have the same rights as people. But let’s face it: Corporations have long dominated the American political scene. They didn’t need to be free to donate in their own corporate names. They have had their political action committees to do the job, and that’s worked just fine for them, as witness the current state of the two pro-corporate parties in Congress, and the string of blatantly pro-corporate presidents we’ve h... (continue)
By Dave Lindorff
Flash! The Supreme Court’s latest 5-4 decision overturning the over 60-year-old ban on corporations giving money to political campaigns is not the end of democracy as we know it, or the onset of fascism in America, as some of hyperventilating progressives have been claiming.
Sure it’s an outrage to say, as the court majority did, that corporations have the same rights as people. But let’s face it: Corporations have long dominated the American political scene. They didn’t need to be free to donate in their own corporate names. They have had their political action committees to do the job, and that’s worked just fine for them, as witness the current state of the two pro-corporate parties in Congress, and the string of blatantly pro-corporate presidents we’ve had for as far back as I can remember.
read more(show less)
Eat lunch for peace--become a "brown-bagger" | Progressive Democrats of America
Southern Indiana's new PDA chapter participated in its first event this past Wednesday, when four of us (Darleen Cox, David Cox, Linda Mitchell and Carol Tvaroh) went to Congressman Baron Hill's office in Jeffersonville and met for about an hour with Hill's assistant, Adam Dickey, who told us that he was already aware that we had started a PDA chapter. We explained that we would support Baron Hill, but that would also continue looking for the likeliest candidate to back our progressive agenda in the future.
Hill has privately voiced his support for single-payer healthcare, but we have yet to get him out of the closet on this issue. It looks as though he's planning a run for governor in 2012, but he says ... (continue)
Eat lunch for peace--become a "brown-bagger" | Progressive Democrats of America
Southern Indiana's new PDA chapter participated in its first event this past Wednesday, when four of us (Darleen Cox, David Cox, Linda Mitchell and Carol Tvaroh) went to Congressman Baron Hill's office in Jeffersonville and met for about an hour with Hill's assistant, Adam Dickey, who told us that he was already aware that we had started a PDA chapter. We explained that we would support Baron Hill, but that would also continue looking for the likeliest candidate to back our progressive agenda in the future.
Hill has privately voiced his support for single-payer healthcare, but we have yet to get him out of the closet on this issue. It looks as though he's planning a run for governor in 2012, but he says he doesn't want to make a definite commitment at this time, since he'd like one last term in the House and wants to give that his full attention. Should he run for governor and win, we might get his cooperation in pushing a state single-payer program.
We made our feelings clear about pulling out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (also Yemen), and at least starting to close down our 700+military bases throughout the world—a blue dog shouldn't be so profligate with our money.
read more(show less)
Legal Defense Fund: Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United Case “Inevitable” | Press Release | CELDF
Continues Long History of Expansion of Corporate Rights over the Rights of People, Communities, and Nature
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is the only public interest law firm in the U.S. that has worked with municipalities to question whether corporate “rights” can coexist with the democratic rights of communities to local self-government.
Those communities have recognized that corporate rights and privileges are routinely wielded to override democratic decision making and undermine efforts to protect the environment and public health, local economies and local agriculture. Through the adoption of local, binding laws, these communities are pioneering a new structure o... (continue)
Legal Defense Fund: Supreme Court Decision in Citizens United Case “Inevitable” | Press Release | CELDF
Continues Long History of Expansion of Corporate Rights over the Rights of People, Communities, and Nature
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund is the only public interest law firm in the U.S. that has worked with municipalities to question whether corporate “rights” can coexist with the democratic rights of communities to local self-government.
Those communities have recognized that corporate rights and privileges are routinely wielded to override democratic decision making and undermine efforts to protect the environment and public health, local economies and local agriculture. Through the adoption of local, binding laws, these communities are pioneering a new structure of law which does not recognize the rights and privileges of corporations.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Decision
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – giving corporations the ability to spend money directly to influence federal elections under the Constitution’s First Amendment – was inevitable. It represents a logical expansion of corporate constitutional “rights” – which include the rights of persons which have been judicially conferred upon corporations. “Personhood” rights mean that corporations possess First Amendment rights to free speech, along with a litany of other rights that are secured to persons under the federal Bill of Rights.
The expansion of corporate rights and privileges under the law has been deliberate, beginning nearly two hundred years ago with the Dartmouth decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that private corporations have rights that municipal corporations – governments composed of “we the people” – did not.
The expansion of these rights and privileges occurred during the 1800s, throughout the 1900s, until today. For those who think that the way to stem this tide is to find the perfect lawsuit, we say, stop looking. It doesn’t exist, for there is no magic bullet.
Rather, in order to reverse decisions like Citizens United, the whole concept of corporate “rights” must be examined, and how corporations possessing “rights” interferes with the exercise of rights by people, communities, and nature. And, it’s not simply that corporations have “personhood” rights. It goes well beyond that.
read more(show less)
Pete Perry of the Beltway Beast Blogspot wrote:
Today Judge Lynn Liebovitz sentenced noted anti-war activist Eve Tetaz to 25 days in D.C. Jail (beginning today), another 50 days suspended, 1 year probation with a stay away order from all of Capitol Hill. More details and Eve's contact information forthcoming. Below is Eve's sentencing statement she issued today in court. Washington Post Reporter Keith Alexander will be publishing a feature story on eve within a couple days.
Sentencing Statement, January 25, 2010:
Your honor, I do not question the process by which a jury of my peers found me guilty of unlawful conduct. I assume responsibility for the personal costs of my actions, which I firmly believe promote justice ad peace in the world in which we all live.
My efforts to give voic... (continue)
Pete Perry of the Beltway Beast Blogspot wrote:
Today Judge Lynn Liebovitz sentenced noted anti-war activist Eve Tetaz to 25 days in D.C. Jail (beginning today), another 50 days suspended, 1 year probation with a stay away order from all of Capitol Hill. More details and Eve's contact information forthcoming. Below is Eve's sentencing statement she issued today in court. Washington Post Reporter Keith Alexander will be publishing a feature story on eve within a couple days.
Sentencing Statement, January 25, 2010:
Your honor, I do not question the process by which a jury of my peers found me guilty of unlawful conduct. I assume responsibility for the personal costs of my actions, which I firmly believe promote justice ad peace in the world in which we all live.
My efforts to give voice to the values which I believe are at the core of our country's leadership in world are nonviolent. I believe that nonviolent protest against government policies is, has been and will continue, to be the only authentic form of individual political action. Such action on the part of individuals does change the course of human history.
History speaks of the power of nonviolent protest that has changed the face of our social landscape in ways we now take for granted -- the civil rights movement being only the most recent example in the history of our country. Martin Luther King was right when he paraphrased the words of Theodore Parker spoken more than 150 years ago -- the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
This truth is not readily apparent -- indeed does not exist -- without the actions of individuals who are responsive to the needs of the oppressed, and recognize the trends of history.
I will continue to participate in the movement of our civilization that is committed to building structures of social justice that are rooted in peace among the nations and the citizens of the world. The 19th Century poet, Emma Wilcox said that to sin by silence is to make cowards of us all. This is the cause that is my life. This is why I am present in court today representing the victims of America's wrong doings, people such as Adel Fattough Ali Al Gazzari, an Egyptian, wounded in Afghanistan while serving with the Red Crescent Society, sold for bounty to the Americans, and detained at Guantanamo Bay since December 2002. This is why I cannot remain silent.
read more(show less)
The aftermath of Israel’s ‘Dahiya doctrine’ in Beirut, 2006.
As Israel prepares its response to the Goldstone Report, several articles indicate that its primary objective is to discredit the contention that it carried out, in the words of Ethan Bronner, "an official plan to terrorize the Palestinian population." Today Haaretz reports that Israel’s response to the UN will seek to "reject most of the fundamental claims of the Goldstone report: it intentionally waged a punitive campaign against a civilian population, including the destruction of infrastructure."
This promises to be one of the most contentious debates over the report in the coming months, and as part of our effort to post portions of the Goldstone Report there are several relevant portions we want to share. The excerpt be... (continue)
The aftermath of Israel’s ‘Dahiya doctrine’ in Beirut, 2006.
As Israel prepares its response to the Goldstone Report, several articles indicate that its primary objective is to discredit the contention that it carried out, in the words of Ethan Bronner, "an official plan to terrorize the Palestinian population." Today Haaretz reports that Israel’s response to the UN will seek to "reject most of the fundamental claims of the Goldstone report: it intentionally waged a punitive campaign against a civilian population, including the destruction of infrastructure."
This promises to be one of the most contentious debates over the report in the coming months, and as part of our effort to post portions of the Goldstone Report there are several relevant portions we want to share. The excerpt below outlines Israel’s possible strategy and intention for the Gaza attack based on prior history and statements from Israeli military and political leaders. Because Israel refused to participate with the inquiry there was no way to interview them directly about this.
The following passage is found of pages 250-258 of the report. I have removed the footnotes from the text, but you can find them in the original.
Objectives and Strategy of Israel’s Military Operations in Gaza
This chapter addresses the objectives and the strategy underlying the Israeli military operations in Gaza.
A. Planning
The question of whether incidents involving the Israeli armed forces that occurred between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 are likely to be the result of error, the activities of rogue elements or a deliberate policy or planning depends on a number of factors, including the degree and level of planning involved, the degree of discretion field commanders have in operations, the technical sophistication and specification of weaponry, and the degree of control commanders have over their subordinates.
The Government of Israel has refused to cooperate with the Mission. The Mission has therefore been unable to interview high-level members of the Israeli armed forces. It has, nevertheless, reviewed a significant amount of commentary and conducted a number of interviews on planning and discipline, including with persons who have been connected with the planning of Israeli military operations in the recent past. The Mission has also analysed the views expressed by Israeli officials in official statements, official activities and articles, and considered comments by former senior soldiers and politicians.
1. The context
Before considering the issue of planning there is an important issue that has to be borne in mind about the context of Israeli operations in Gaza. The land mass of Gaza covers 360 square kilometres of land. Israel had a physical presence on the ground for almost 40 years with a significant military force until 2005. Israel’s extensive and intimate knowledge of the realities of Gaza present a considerable advantage in terms of planning military operations. The Mission has seen grid maps in possession of the Israeli armed forces, for example, that show the identification by number of blocks of houses throughout Gaza City.
In addition to such detailed background knowledge, it is also clear that the Israeli armed forces were able to access the telephone networks to contact a significant number of users in the course of their operations.
Since the departure of its ground forces from Gaza in 2005, Israel has maintained almost total control over land access and total control over air and sea access. This has also included the ability to maintain a monitoring capacity in Gaza, by a variety of surveillance and electronic means, including UAVs. In short, Israel’s intelligence gathering capacity in Gaza since its ground forces withdrew has remained extremely effective.
2. Legal input and training of soldiers on legal standards
The Israeli Government has set out the legal training and supervision relevant to the planning, execution and investigation of military operations. The Mission also met Col. (Ret.) Daniel Reisner, who was the head of the International Legal Department of the Military Advocate General’s Office of the Israeli Defense Forces from 1995 until 2004. In an interview with the Mission he explained how the principles and contents of international humanitarian law were instilled into officers. He explained the four-tiered training system, reflecting elements similar to those presented by the Government, which seeks to ensure knowledge of the relevant legal obligations for compliance in the field. Firstly, during training all soldiers and officers receive basic courses on relevant legal matters. The more senior the ranks, the more training is required “so that it becomes ingrained”. Secondly, before a significant or new operation, legal advice will be given. Col. Reisner indicated that he understood from talking with colleagues still in active service that detailed consultations had taken place with legal advisers in the planning of the December-January military operations. He was not in a position to say what that advice had been. Thirdly, there would be real-time legal support to commanders and decision makers at headquarters, command and division levels (but not at regiment levels or below). The fourth stage is that of investigation and prosecution wherever necessary.
The same framework explained by Col. Reisner appears to be repeated in similar detail in a presentation of the Office of the Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The means at the disposal of the Israeli armed forces
The Israeli armed forces are, in technological terms, among the most advanced in the world. Not only do they possess the most advanced hardware in many respects, they are also a market leader in the production of some of the most advanced pieces of technology available, including UAVs. They have a very significant capacity for precision strikes by a variety of methods, including aerial and ground launches. Moreover, some new targeting systems may have been employed in Gaza.
Taking into account all of the foregoing factors, the Mission, therefore, concludes that Israel had the means necessary to plan the December-January military operations in detail. Given both the means at Israel’s disposal and the apparent degree of training, including training in international humanitarian law, and legal advice received, the Mission considers it highly unlikely that actions were taken, at least in the aerial phase of the operations, that had not been the subject of planning and deliberation. In relation to the land-air phase, ground commanders would have had some discretion to decide on the specific tactics used to attack or respond to attacks. The same degree of planning and premeditation would therefore not be present. However, the Mission deduces from a review of many elements, including some soldiers’ statements at seminars in Tel Aviv and to Breaking the Silence, that what occurred on the ground reflected guidance that had been provided to soldiers in training and briefing exercises.
The Mission notes that it has found only one example where the Israeli authorities have acknowledged that an error had occurred. This was in relation to the deaths of 22 members of the al-Daya family in Zeytoun. The Government of Israel explained that its armed forces had intended to strike the house next door, but that errors were made in the planning of the operation. The Mission expresses elsewhere its concerns about this explanation (see chap. XI). However, since it appears to be the only incident that has elicited an admission of error by the Israeli authorities, the Mission takes the view that the Government of Israel does not consider the other strikes brought to its attention to be the result of similar or other errors.
In relation to air strikes, the Mission notes the statement issued in Hebrew posted on the website of the Israeli armed forces on 23 March 2009:
Official data gathered by the Air Force concluded that 99 per cent of the firing that was carried out hit targets accurately. It also concluded that over 80 per cent of the bombs and missiles used by the Air Force are defined as accurate and their use reduces innocent casualties significantly…
The Mission understands this to mean that in over 80 per cent of its attacks the Air Force deployed weapons considered to be accurate by definition – what are known colloquially as precision weapons as a result of guidance technology. In the other 20 per cent of attacks, therefore, it apparently used unguided bombs. According to the Israeli armed forces, the fact that these 20 per cent were unguided did not diminish their accuracy in hitting their targets, but may have caused greater damage than those caused by precision or “accurate” weapons.
These represent extremely important findings by the Israeli Air Force. It means that what was struck was meant to be struck. It should also be borne in mind that the beginning of the ground phase of the operation on 3 January did not mean the end of the use of the Israeli Air Force. The statement indicates:
During the days prior to the operation "Cast Lead", every brigade was provided with an escorting UAV squadron that would participate in action with it during the operation. Teams from the squadrons arrived at the armour and infantry corps, personally met the soldiers they were about to join and assisted in planning the infantry manoeuvres. The UAV squadrons had representatives in the command headquarters and officers in locations of actual combat who assisted in communication between the UAVs – operated by only two people, who are in Israeli territory – and the forces on the ground. The assistance of UAVs sometimes reached a ratio of one UAV to a regiment and, during extreme cases, even one UAV to a team.
Taking into account the ability to plan, the means to execute plans with the most developed technology available, the indication that almost no errors occurred and the determination by investigating authorities thus far that no violations occurred, the Mission finds that the incident and patterns of events that are considered in this report have resulted from deliberate planning and policy decisions throughout the chain of command, down to the standard operating procedures and instructions given to the troops on the ground.
B. The development of strategic objectives in Israeli military thinking
Israel’s operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory have had certain consistent features. In particular, the destruction of buildings, including houses, has been a recurrent tactical theme. The specific means Israel has adopted to meet its military objectives in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Lebanon have repeatedly been censured by the United Nations Security Council, especially its attacks on houses. The military operations from 27 December to 18 January did not occur in a vacuum, either in terms of proximate causes in relation to the Hamas/Israeli dynamics or in relation to the development of Israeli military thinking about how best to describe the nature of its military objectives.
A review of the available information reveals that, while many of the tactics remain the same, the reframing of the strategic goals has resulted in a qualitative shift from relatively focused operations to massive and deliberate destruction.
A comparison of the Dahiya neighborhood before and after Israel attacks in 2006. (Photos: Gorillas Guides)
In its operations in southern Lebanon in 2006, there emerged from Israeli military thinking a concept known as the Dahiya doctrine, as a result of the approach taken to the Beirut neighbourhood of that name. Major General Gadi Eisenkot, the Israeli Northern Command chief, expressed the premise of the doctrine:
What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on. […] We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases. […] This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.
After the war in southern Lebanon in 2006, a number of senior former military figures appeared to develop the thinking that underlay the strategy set out by Gen. Eiskenot. In particular Major General (Ret.) Giora Eiland has argued that, in the event of another war with Hizbullah, the target must not be the defeat of Hizbullah but “the elimination of the Lebanese military, the destruction of the national infrastructure and intense suffering among the population… Serious damage to the Republic of Lebanon, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people are consequences that can influence Hizbollah’s behaviour more than anything else”.
These thoughts, published in October 2008 were preceded by one month by the reflections of Col. (Ret.) Gabriel Siboni:
With an outbreak of hostilities, the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy’s actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes. The strike must be carried out as quickly as possible, and must prioritize damaging assets over seeking out each and every launcher. Punishment must be aimed at decision makers and the power elite… In Lebanon, attacks should both aim at Hizbollah’s military capabilities and should target economic interests and the centres of civilian power that support the organization. Moreover, the closer the relationship between Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government, the more the elements of the Lebanese State infrastructure should be targeted. Such a response will create a lasting memory among …Lebanese decision makers, thereby increasing Israeli deterrence and reducing the likelihood of hostilities against Israel for an extended period. At the same time, it will force Syria, Hizbollah, and Lebanon to commit to lengthy and resource-intensive reconstruction programmes…
This approach is applicable to the Gaza Strip as well. There, the IDF will be required to strike hard at Hamas and to refrain from the cat and mouse games of searching for Qassam rocket launchers. The IDF should not be expected to stop the rocket and missile fire against the Israeli home front through attacks on the launchers themselves, but by means of imposing a ceasefire on the enemy.
General Eisenkot used the language quoted above while he was in active service in a senior command position and clarified that this was not a theoretical idea but an approved plan.
Major General Eiland, though retired, was a man of considerable seniority. Colonel Siboni, while less senior than the other two, was nonetheless an experienced officer writing on his field of expertise in a publication regarded as serious.
The Mission does not have to consider whether Israeli military officials were directly influenced by these writings. It is able to conclude from a review of the facts on the ground that it witnessed for itself that what is prescribed as the best strategy appears to have been precisely what was put into practice.
C. Official Israeli statements on the objectives of the military operations in Gaza
The Mission is aware of the official statements on the goals of the military operations:
The Operation was limited to what the IDF believed necessary to accomplish its objectives: to stop the bombardment of Israeli civilians by destroying and damaging the mortar and rocket launching apparatus and its supporting infrastructure, and to improve the safety and security of Southern Israel and its residents by reducing the ability of Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza to carry out future attacks.
The Israeli Government states that this expression of its objectives is no broader than those expressed by NATO in 1998 during its campaign in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The Mission makes no comment on the legality or otherwise of NATO actions there.
D. The strategy to achieve the objectives
The issue that is of special concern to the Mission is the conceptualization of the “supporting infrastructure”. The notion is indicated quite clearly in General Eisenkot’s statements in 2006 and reinforced by the reflections cited by non-serving but well-informed military thinkers.
On 6 January 2009, during the military operations in Gaza, Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai stated: "It [should be] possible to destroy Gaza, so they will understand not to mess with us”. He added that “it is a great opportunity to demolish thousands of houses of all the terrorists, so they will think twice before they launch rockets”. "I hope the operation will come to an end with great achievements and with the complete destruction of terrorism and Hamas. In my opinion, they should be razed to the ground, so thousands of houses, tunnels and industries will be demolished”. He added that “residents of the South are strengthening us, so the operation will continue until a total destruction of Hamas [is achieved]”.
On 2 February 2009, after the end of the military operations, Eli Yishai went on: “Even if the rockets fall in an open air or to the sea, we should hit their infrastructure, and destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired.”
On 13 January 2009, Israel’s Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, was quoted as saying:
We have proven to Hamas that we have changed the equation. Israel is not a country upon which you fire missiles and it does not respond. It is a country that when you fire on its citizens it responds by going wild – and this is a good thing.
It is in the context of comments such as these that the massive destruction of businesses, agricultural land, chicken farms and residential houses has to be understood. In particular, the Mission notes the large-scale destruction that occurred in the days leading up to the end of the operations. During the withdrawal phase it appears that possibly thousands of homes were destroyed. The Mission has referred elsewhere in this report to the “day after” doctrine, as explained in the testimonies of Israeli soldiers, which can fit in with the general approach of massively disproportionate destruction without much difficulty.
The concept of what constituted the supporting infrastructure has to be understood not only in the context of the military operations of December and January, but in the tightening of the restrictions of access to goods and people into and out of Gaza, especially since Hamas took power. The Mission does not accept that these restrictions can be characterized as primarily an attempt to limit the flow of materials to armed groups. The expected impact, and the Mission believes primary purpose, was to bring about a situation in which the civilian population would find life so intolerable that they would leave (if that were possible) or turn Hamas out of office, as well as to collectively punish the civilian population.
The Israeli Government has stated:
While Hamas operates ministries and is in charge of a variety of administrative and traditionally governmental functions in the Gaza Strip, it still remains a terrorist organization. Many of the ostensibly civilian elements of its regime are in reality active components of its terrorist and military efforts. Indeed, Hamas does not separate its civilian and military activities in the manner in which a legitimate government might. Instead, Hamas uses apparatuses under its control, including quasi-governmental institutions, to promote its terrorist activity.
The framing of the military objectives Israel sought to strike is thus very wide indeed. There is, in particular, a lack of clarity about the concept of promoting “terrorist activity”: since Israel claims there is no real division between civilian and military activities and it considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization, it would appear that anyone who supports Hamas in any way may be considered as promoting its terrorist activity. Hamas was the clear winner of the latest elections in Gaza. It is not far-fetched for the Mission to consider that Israel regards very large sections of the Gazan civilian population as part of the “supporting infrastructure”.
The indiscriminate and disproportionate impact of the restrictions on the movement of goods and people indicates that, from as early as some point in 2007, Israel had already determined its view about what constitutes attacking the supporting infrastructure, and it appears to encompass effectively the population of Gaza.
A statement of objectives that explicitly admits the intentional targeting of civilian objects as part of the Israeli strategy is attributed to the Deputy Chief of Staff, Maj. Gen. Dan Harel.
While the Israeli military operations in Gaza were under way, Maj. Gen. Harel was reported as saying, in a meeting with local authorities in southern Israel:
This operation is different from previous ones. We have set a high goal which we are aiming for. We are hitting not only terrorists and launchers, but also the whole Hamas government and all its wings. […] We are hitting government buildings, production factories, security wings and more. We are demanding governmental responsibility from Hamas and are not making distinctions between the various wings. After this operation there will not be one Hamas building left standing in Gaza, and we plan to change the rules of the game.
E. Conclusions
The Israeli military conception of what was necessary in a future war with Hamas seems to have been developed from at least the time of the 2006 conflict in southern Lebanon. It finds its origin in a military doctrine that views disproportionate destruction and creating maximum disruption in the lives of many people as a legitimate means to achieve military and political goals.
Through its overly broad framing of the “supporting infrastructure”, the Israeli armed forces have sought to construct a scope for their activities that, in the Mission’s view, was designed to have inevitably dire consequences for the non-combatants in Gaza.
Statements by political and military leaders prior to and during the military operations in Gaza leave little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy.
To the extent to which statements such as that of Mr. Yishai on 2 February 2009 indicate that the destruction of civilian objects, homes in that case, would be justified as a response to rocket attacks (“destroy 100 homes for every rocket fired”), the Mission is of the view that reprisals against civilians in armed hostilities are contrary to international humanitarian law. Even if such actions could be considered a lawful reprisal, they do not meet the stringent conditions imposed, in particular they are disproportionate, and violate fundamental human rights and obligations of a humanitarian character. One party’s targeting of civilians or civilian areas can never justify the opposing party’s targeting of civilians and civilian objects, such as homes, public and religious buildings, or schools.
Destroyed school and mosque in Rafah, Gaza, 12 January 2009. Photo taken from UNRWA refugee shelter. (Photo: Pieter Stockmans)
Related posts:Goldstone: ‘If Gaza isn’t collective punishment, what is?’Goldstone went to Gaza’s Ground Zero: the police massacreB’Tselem questions whether Gaza destruction was ’systematic’ without military justification
(show less)
In 1993, Israel launched Operation Accountability, a military campaign against southern Lebanon. The stated aim of Operation Accountability was to spread panic among the civilian population to cause them to flee north to Beirut and pressure the Lebanese Government to rein in Hezbollah, which had been firing rockets into Northern Israel.
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin declared: "We will not permit a situation where there is no calm and security in Israel, while there is calm and security in southern Lebanon. Our goal is to make this clear. We expect the Lebanese Government, and those backing it, to control the rockets fired by Hezbollah. . . If there will be no quiet and safety for the northern settlements, there will be no quiet and safety for south Lebanon residents north of the security... (continue)
In 1993, Israel launched Operation Accountability, a military campaign against southern Lebanon. The stated aim of Operation Accountability was to spread panic among the civilian population to cause them to flee north to Beirut and pressure the Lebanese Government to rein in Hezbollah, which had been firing rockets into Northern Israel.
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin declared: "We will not permit a situation where there is no calm and security in Israel, while there is calm and security in southern Lebanon. Our goal is to make this clear. We expect the Lebanese Government, and those backing it, to control the rockets fired by Hezbollah. . . If there will be no quiet and safety for the northern settlements, there will be no quiet and safety for south Lebanon residents north of the security zone." The "security zone" was Lebanese territory that had been occupied by Israel’s military for more than a decade. The Operation was a resounding "success." Israel’s shelling killed over a hundred civilians, and hundreds of thousands of others fled northward in panic.
In January, 2010, following the unsuccessful attempt of a Nigerian man to blow up a US-bound airliner on Christmas day, Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility and declared: "It is unfair you enjoy a safe life while our brothers in Gaza suffer greatly . . . . Our attacks will continue as long as you support Israel. . . . America will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality in Palestine."
To repeat, Rabin in 1993:
"We will not permit a situation where there is no calm and security in Israel, while there is calm and security in southern Lebanon. . . If there will be no quiet and safety for the northern settlements, there will be no quiet and safety for south Lebanon residents north of the security zone."
Bin Laden in 2010:
"It is unfair you enjoy a safe life while our brothers in Gaza suffer greatly . . . America will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality in Palestine."
In response to bin Laden’s explanation for the Christmas incident, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Andy David stated: "Terrorists always look for absurd excuses for their despicable deeds."
This immediately raises the following questions. First, does bin Laden realize that if he is apprehended, he is likely to be extradited to Israel and face serious and irrefutable charges of plagiarism?
Second, can we expect to see in the near future the following article in the Israeli press:
"When asked about the striking similarity of the Rabin and bin Laden quotes, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Andy David said: ‘Of course the anti-Semites will come out of the woodwork to claim some sort of moral equivalence, but need I remind you that Rabin achieved his objectives, while bin Laden’s hare-brained scheme was foiled by a few unarmed airline passengers. And did I mention the disparity between Jewish and Arab Nobel laureates? And they want us to live with these people as equals?’"
Related posts:Palin:Obama=Netanyahu:Rabin (Sure Hope Not)Why do they hate us? (bin Laden says: Read Walt, Mearsheimer, and Carter)Emanuel Often Took ‘Peace Now’ Position and Praised Rabin as ‘Visionary’
(show less)
The other night Charlie Rose gathered a group of foreign-policy heads to debate Iran, all of whom had lately participated in a crisis-simulation exercise to try and determine likely outcomes of the set-to. One participant was the former under-secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who played Obama in the exercise. Another was Ehud Eiran, a research fellow at Harvard, who was "the observer on the Israeli team in the simulation." Eiran is a reserve major in the Israeli army and a former top adviser to Ehud Barak– who directed the Gaza slaughter.
An excerpt of Eiran’s comments is below. The good news is that Eiran felt that Israeli aggressive ideas are being ignored. But consider the mindset. We see how deeply twisted the Israeli mind has become due to militarism and we see that the Dahiya pos... (continue)
The other night Charlie Rose gathered a group of foreign-policy heads to debate Iran, all of whom had lately participated in a crisis-simulation exercise to try and determine likely outcomes of the set-to. One participant was the former under-secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who played Obama in the exercise. Another was Ehud Eiran, a research fellow at Harvard, who was "the observer on the Israeli team in the simulation." Eiran is a reserve major in the Israeli army and a former top adviser to Ehud Barak– who directed the Gaza slaughter.
An excerpt of Eiran’s comments is below. The good news is that Eiran felt that Israeli aggressive ideas are being ignored. But consider the mindset. We see how deeply twisted the Israeli mind has become due to militarism and we see that the Dahiya post above is not just a coincidence.
EIRAN: [I]n the game, Israel’s main effort was to lobby the United States and make sure that the negotiations are not a pretense to ongoing Iranian progress. So Israel — Israel tried to set specific benchmarks of what will be negotiated. But it felt that the Americans were not very attentive to its requests. As for the broader issue, Israel had a hard time outsourcing its defenses or allowing the U.S. veto on its right to defend itself. And this was the main point of contention between the Americans and the Israelis in the game…
BURNS: I’m not aware of any military solution to this problem that would fix the problem. And in fact, I think you would have to assume that the Iranians would hit back through Hezbollah, through Hamas, through Palestinian Islamic jihad. We risk a wider war. I frankly think this longer, careful containment strategy is the right thing for the United States.
CHARLIE ROSE: Does Israel think that, Ehud?
EHUD EIRAN: First of all, let me say that a potential aggressive Israeli posture can be part of the strategy in the sense that Israel plays the aggressive dog that has to be contained. So even just signaling the potential of an attack can be part of this broader strategy, which we offered this in the simulation. It wasn’t advanced.
Alas, neither Burns nor Gary Sick nor Graham Allison nor Rose himself stepped in after this to say, Like you did in Lebanon? Like you did in Gaza? Gee, that really worked. They seem to have put Eiran on ignore.
Related posts:As the truth about the Gaza war continues to be revealed, Israel’s standing in the world will continue to plummetUnder increasing pressure, Israel tries to deny and justify Gaza war crimesWhat power does U.S. have to stop ‘third war’ in Middle East?
(show less)
One of my goals today is to undermine the recent NYT piece, written by a reporter whose son is in the Israeli military, that characterizes Judge Goldstone as thoroughly-unreliable in his criticisms of the Israeli military, just now when Goldstone’s report is going to go to the UN secretary-general. As I pointed out earlier today, reporter Ethan Bronner quotes an Israeli general saying that Goldstone’s report is completely out of line with several other reports on the Gaza war– when in fact the Arab League report the general cites goes much further than Goldstone.
Another report that general cites as being somehow sane and reasonable as opposed to deluded Goldstone is the Human Rights Watch report. Norman Finkelstein writes, "Here’s an illuminating comparison, HRW explicitly states Isra... (continue)
One of my goals today is to undermine the recent NYT piece, written by a reporter whose son is in the Israeli military, that characterizes Judge Goldstone as thoroughly-unreliable in his criticisms of the Israeli military, just now when Goldstone’s report is going to go to the UN secretary-general. As I pointed out earlier today, reporter Ethan Bronner quotes an Israeli general saying that Goldstone’s report is completely out of line with several other reports on the Gaza war– when in fact the Arab League report the general cites goes much further than Goldstone.
Another report that general cites as being somehow sane and reasonable as opposed to deluded Goldstone is the Human Rights Watch report. Norman Finkelstein writes, "Here’s an illuminating comparison, HRW explicitly states Israel’s use of white phosphorus was a ‘war crime,’ whereas Goldstone never explicitly states that Israel’s use of white phosphorus was a war crime."
Finkelstein passed along the following paragraph from his forthcoming book, "This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion," which comes out in a month or so from OR Books.
An HRW study homed in on Israel’s “unlawful” use of white phosphorus in Gaza. Although it is used primarily to obscure military operations on the ground—white phosphorus ignites and burns on contact with oxygen generating a dense white smoke—it can also be used as an incendiary weapon: when making contact with skin white phosphorus causes “horrific burns,” sometimes to the bone, as it reaches temperatures of 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit (816 degrees Celsius). HRW concluded that Israel “repeatedly exploded white phosphorus munitions in the air over populated areas, killing and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse and a hospital,” and that such use of white phosphorus “indicates the commission of war crimes.” It further found that insofar as Israel wanted an obscurant for its forces, it could have used smoke shells (manufactured by an Israeli company); that Israel’s persistent use of white phosphorus where no Israeli forces were present on the ground indicated it was being used as an incendiary weapon; that in its targeting of the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza City, which warehoused vast quantities of humanitarian food and medical supplies, the IDF “kept firing white phosphorus despite repeated warnings from U.N. personnel about the danger to civilians”; that Israel targeted the U.N.’s Beit Lahiya school despite the fact that “the U.N. had provided the IDF with the GPS coordinates of the school prior to military operations”; and that Al-Quds hospital, also a target, was “clearly marked and there does not appear to have been fighting in that immediate area.” It deserves special emphasis that the U.S. manufactured “all of the white phosphorus shells” recovered by HRW in Gaza.
HRW quotations are trom Human Rights Watch, Rain of Fire: Israel’s unlawful use of white phosphorus in Gaza (New York: March 2009), pp. 1-6, 39, 60. See also Al-Mezan, Bearing the Brunt, pp. 42-45.
Related posts:White phosphorus, ‘terror weapon’Israel now excuses war crime as a ‘malfunction’Farah abu Halima, victim of white phosphorus attack, is on her way to California
(show less)
Jessica Montell of B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, sent the following note re the Goldstone Report:
In response to your recent post - "War on Goldstone now deploys human-rights orgs and, you guessed it, the Holocaust." I was also struck, indeed horrified by the government’s decision to link its reponse to the Goldstone report with Holocaust Day. But I write now to respond to your remarks about the quote of our Research Director in the New York Times.
We all know the extent of the destruction in Gaza: homes, mosques, schools, as well as infrastructure like chicken coops, flour mill, sewage treatment. B’Tselem has documented this – as well as the now most urgent problem that the siege still prevents rebuilding all that was destroyed. The more complicated issue is whether... (continue)
Jessica Montell of B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, sent the following note re the Goldstone Report:
In response to your recent post - "War on Goldstone now deploys human-rights orgs and, you guessed it, the Holocaust." I was also struck, indeed horrified by the government’s decision to link its reponse to the Goldstone report with Holocaust Day. But I write now to respond to your remarks about the quote of our Research Director in the New York Times.
We all know the extent of the destruction in Gaza: homes, mosques, schools, as well as infrastructure like chicken coops, flour mill, sewage treatment. B’Tselem has documented this – as well as the now most urgent problem that the siege still prevents rebuilding all that was destroyed. The more complicated issue is whether this destruction was systematic – i.e. willful, premeditated destruction of civilian targets with no military justification. Building this case depends not only on the extent of the damage and suffering, but on the motivations and objectives of the Israeli military. This is one of the issues that must be examined by an independent inquiry – and one with the power to cross-examine Israeli military officials and make them provide evidence to back up their claims, which Goldstone was obviously not able to do.
The quote of Ms. Stein was the result of a two-hour conversation with the journalist, most of it focused on the inadequacy of Israel’s investigations to date. While Ms. Stein was quoted accurately, this is a very small part of our views on the Goldstone report and Cast Lead, and not what we would chose to emphasize at this point.
As I believe you know, B’Tselem has voiced extremely harsh criticism of Israel’s conduct – including grave suspicion of war crimes. It must not be the case that the only yardstick to measure Israeli behavior is whether or not there was a willful, targeted attack on Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure. This dramatically lowers the bar and basically plays into the government’s hand, whereas we demand respect for the full spectrum of IHL [international humanitarian law] and human rights obligations.
B’Tselem has invested tremendous resources over the past year to research and publicize the extent of the civilian harm caused during Israel’s military operation in Gaza last winter and to hold Israel accountable. B’Tselem also provided extensive assistance to the UN fact-finding mission headed by Justice Goldstone – escorting them to meet victims in Gaza, providing all of our documentation and correspondence, and meeting the mission in Jordan. Much can be said about the very lengthy, detailed report submitted by the mission, and about the UN process it set in motion. The most important message to promote now – and one on which B’Tselem agrees whole-heartedly with the Goldstone report – is that Israel must conduct a thorough, independent inquiry into all the allegations that have been made.
Sincerely,
Jessica Montell
Executive Director
Related posts:In first mention of destruction of Gaza’s flour mill, NYT’s Bronner serves up Israeli claimsEvidence of malicious destruction is everywhere in Gaza– from olive trees to roads to a bullet fired sideways through a closet, piercing every article of clothingUN fact finding mission finds that Israeli actions in Gaza amounted to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity
(show less)
The following letter is being circulated in advance of Shimon Peres’s visit to Germany to commemorate international Holocaust Remembrance Day.
January 2010
Shimon Peres Does Not Speak for Us !
We are writing this letter as Israeli citizens. Some of us are 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation Holocaust survivors, and we are all activists who are pursuing peace and justice for everyone in our troubled region. We wish to express our concern regarding Germany’s Middle East policy, which is harmful and immoral. Our appeal also regards the upcoming visit of Israeli president Shimon Peres to Germany this week.
While it is certainly justified to condemn and act against attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, it is morally unacceptable that German decision-makers consistently ignore, or even defend, Isra... (continue)
The following letter is being circulated in advance of Shimon Peres’s visit to Germany to commemorate international Holocaust Remembrance Day.
January 2010
Shimon Peres Does Not Speak for Us !
We are writing this letter as Israeli citizens. Some of us are 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation Holocaust survivors, and we are all activists who are pursuing peace and justice for everyone in our troubled region. We wish to express our concern regarding Germany’s Middle East policy, which is harmful and immoral. Our appeal also regards the upcoming visit of Israeli president Shimon Peres to Germany this week.
While it is certainly justified to condemn and act against attacks on innocent Israeli civilians, it is morally unacceptable that German decision-makers consistently ignore, or even defend, Israeli attacks on innocent civilians, which inflict a much higher number of casualties, mostly in Lebanon and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Furthermore, we are concerned about a climate of fear in German politics, when moderate and well-founded criticism of severe Israeli violations of human rights is treated with McCarthyite methods, such as the attacks against Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul and Herman Dierkes.
When President Shimon Peres lands in Berlin, an honest person should not lavish him with automatic praise, but ask, politely yet firmly, why he has been a member or a senior propagandist for Israeli governments which have used cluster munitions , flechette artillery shells and white phosphorus bombs in densely populated civilian areas in Gaza and Lebanon, have built more settlements in the OPT and have imposed separate legal systems for Israeli settlers in the OPT and their Palestinian neighbors. One can also ask him why he authorized the kidnapping and ill-treatment of an Israeli citizen in Rome (Mr. Mordechai Vanunu, September 1986), a clear violation of international law, and why it should be acceptable for one state in the Middle East to acquire nuclear weapons, a situation which necessarily brings about a dangerous arms race in this volatile region. One can ask him why he authorized, as Prime Minister in April 1996, the mass bombing of villages in Southern Lebanon, explicitly aimed at creating a wave of refugees flooding Beirut. We suspect that Mr. Peres has not learned that it is illegal to inflict lethal collective punishment on a civilian population.
Germany should obviously draw a lesson from the Holocaust, and other genocidal policies carried out by Germans. The true lesson is that everyone should stand up for universal principles of human rights. Therefore, Germany is morally obliged not only towards Jews living in Israel, but also towards Palestinian and Lebanese civilians. President Shimon Peres, who has been responsible for numerous severe human rights violations, should not be regarded as the representative of world Jewry. In fact, he does not even speak for all Israeli Jews. We call on the German government to stop ignoring or justifying severe human rights violations committed by Shimon Peres and the State of Israel, including those documented by the Goldstone Report, and to stop providing the weapons which facilitate these violations.
Signatories:
Gali Agnon
Udi Aloni
Galit Altshuler
Adam Yishay Amorai
Zohar Atai
Ofra Ben-Artzi
Ronnie Barkan
Ilil Bartana
Eitan Buchvall
Adi Dagan
Maayan Dak
Yossi David
Shiri Eisner
Michael Engel
Eva Ferrero
Tamar Freed
Prof. Rachel Giora
Maya Golan
Elana Golden
Vardit Goldner
AdAr Grayevsky
Yoav Haas
Dr. Roni Hammermann
Iris Hefets
Shir Hever
Seffy Hurwitz
Chaya Hurwitz
Iaroslav Youssim
Peretz Kidron (Holocaust refugee)
Assaf Kintzer
Felicia Langer (Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel) 1990, Erich-Mühsam-
Prize 2005)
Moshe Langer
Noam Lekach
Yonatan Mendel
Zohar Milchgrub
Susanne Moses
Regev Nathansohn
Ofer Neiman
Dr. David Nir
Dr. Eyal Nir
Orly Noy
Hava Oz
Prof. Nurit Peled-Elhanan (Sakharov Prize for Human Rights 2001)
Moshe Perlstein
Fanny Michaela Reisin
Attorney Emily Schaeffer
Itamar Shapira
Roy Siny
Nirit Sommerfeld
Gideon Spiro (survivor of Pogromnacht 1938)
Shir Sternberg
Aliyah Strauss
Sahar Vardi
Einat Weizman-Diamond
Elian Weizman
Maya Wind
Tom Yuval
Yahav Zohar
David Zonsheine
Moshe Langer
Related posts:Can a Human Being Pull for Germany in the World Cup? Sure.Israeli election update: Livni and Netanyahu support Israeli loyalty oath to woo LiebermanIsraeli army ups the violence against activists in the West Bank
(show less)
Some day, a Haitian writer (maybe Edwidge Danticat?), should do a novel based on the rise and fall of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the brave priest-turned-president who raised the hopes of Haiti’s poor majority, only to later turn toward authoritarianism, corruption, and violence. Haiti is still poor partly because Aristide failed, and it does no one any good to pretend otherwise.
Aristide took office in 1991 with the greatest hopes in modern Haitian history. Only 9 months later, the military, supported by the Haitian elite, overthrew him, and launched yet another terroristic dictatorship that ended with the U.S. invasion in September 1994. Aristide was only allowed to finish the last year and a half of his elected term.
After his ally, Rene Preval, served from 1996-2000, Aristide was electe... (continue)
Some day, a Haitian writer (maybe Edwidge Danticat?), should do a novel based on the rise and fall of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the brave priest-turned-president who raised the hopes of Haiti’s poor majority, only to later turn toward authoritarianism, corruption, and violence. Haiti is still poor partly because Aristide failed, and it does no one any good to pretend otherwise.
Aristide took office in 1991 with the greatest hopes in modern Haitian history. Only 9 months later, the military, supported by the Haitian elite, overthrew him, and launched yet another terroristic dictatorship that ended with the U.S. invasion in September 1994. Aristide was only allowed to finish the last year and a half of his elected term.
After his ally, Rene Preval, served from 1996-2000, Aristide was elected again, although with diminishing support, once more toppled in February 2004, and forced into exile.
My friends in Haiti, all of them once Aristide enthusiasts, agree that over time he went bad. They say he armed some of his supporters in Port-au-Prince slums, who functioned as lawless street gangs who extorted from shopkeepers and terrorized entire neighborhoods. Human rights groups, like the National Coalition for Haitian Rights, accused his second government of “illegal and arbitrary arrests, summary executions, disappearances and police brutality.”
Some Haitians even believe he was responsible for the murder of political opponents, like the courageous radio journalist Jean Dominique, killed in 2000, (who is the subject of an affecting Jonathan Demme documentary, The Agronomist). The charitable view among the Haitians I know is that Aristide lost control of his supporters and looked the other way; the more sinister view is that he actually ordered these crimes.
It is absolutely true that Aristide faced tremendous obstacles. The small selfish elite showed it would do anything to stop him, starting with the first coup in 1991. The international financial institutions imposed their unfair version of globalization, whatever the social costs, which included the destruction of Haiti’s domestic rice industry. The George Bush II administration turned over its Haiti policy to its most hateful right-wingers, who almost certainly aided the armed “rebels” – some of them actually human-rights criminals – who overthrew Aristide in 2004.
But Aristide’s one-time supporters, who besides my friends include people like Nancy Roc, a brave journalist, and Chavannes Jean-Baptiste, a leader of the rural poor from the central plateau, insist the obstacles do not justify the violence, authoritarianism, and corruption that came to scar his rule.
The most extreme apologists for Aristide try to deny his human rights violations, despite overwhelming evidence. Others, more reasonable, point to the ferocious opposition, and wonder whether any president could have succeeded. They could well be right, but Aristide should have still governed democratically, and explained to a once sympathetic outside world why Haiti continued to stagnate.
The tragedy is that the Haitian elite had by the time of the earthquake regained all their lost power. Richard Morse, the colorful Haitian-American bandleader who also owns the legendary Oloffson Hotel, has been tweeting from the stricken capital, keeping the world informed. The other day he posted, “Haiti’s elite families are probably lobbying in Washington as I write this; gotta get that gravy train untracked..”
Haiti still needs a genuine revolution. But Aristide’s failure makes it harder.
Related posts:Why Haiti is Poor: The Elite (III)Why Haiti is Poor (II)Why Haiti Is Poor (I)
(show less)
At 4 yesterday I went hiking in the rain and ran into a couple I know and invited them by our house for drinks at 6. My wife was grateful for the distraction from the winter blues; she got out peanuts and hummus and potato chips left over from the football marathon Sunday, and I got a fire going. These friends are somewhat eggheady and we talked about the left’s inability to match Rush Limbaugh’s earnestness, whether misanthropy is the correct position to take re humanity, whether the Pyramids were built by slaves or willing laborers, and if you get to choose whether you become a nutter or if that’s hardwired. I enjoyed all these topics and threw myself into them.
When they left my wife had an expression I’ve come to recognize, of resignation/salvage operation. I said, How was I? OK, ... (continue)
At 4 yesterday I went hiking in the rain and ran into a couple I know and invited them by our house for drinks at 6. My wife was grateful for the distraction from the winter blues; she got out peanuts and hummus and potato chips left over from the football marathon Sunday, and I got a fire going. These friends are somewhat eggheady and we talked about the left’s inability to match Rush Limbaugh’s earnestness, whether misanthropy is the correct position to take re humanity, whether the Pyramids were built by slaves or willing laborers, and if you get to choose whether you become a nutter or if that’s hardwired. I enjoyed all these topics and threw myself into them.
When they left my wife had an expression I’ve come to recognize, of resignation/salvage operation. I said, How was I? OK, she allowed. I wasn’t too hectory? Once or twice you raised your voice, she said. Then she said, "Have you ever just agreed with someone to be nice? Has that ever occurred to you? That as the host, you should try and make a person feel welcome here and that you could just agree with what they’re saying, some idea they’ve had, instead of trying to argue with them; that it makes things go smoother?" I had to think about it. Then she said that the way she was bred, the goal of a party was to make your guests feel good, to have them leave feeling that they’d had a good time. "That’s just the way I was raised."
I saw the wisdom in her comments and she and I agreed on a social signal. The next time she thinks I’m being competitive with a guest, she’s going to hold her forefinger to the left side of her nose. That way I’ll know.
Related posts:My wife and I argue about ChomskyI vow to be less dependent on my wifeMy Editor and My Wife Criticize “The Da Vinci Code”
(show less)
Israeli political scientist/leader Meron Benvenisti says that a binational entity is the inevitable solution in Israel/Palestine because the landgrab has created such a structure in fact. He points out that binationalism has long been a current in the ideological contention over Palestine and the political resolutions. Who knew? This is instructive reading:
Until the mid 1940s, the Zionist officially defined its ultimate national objectives exclusively by the general formula of the transformation of Palestine (Eretz Israel) into an independent entity with an overwhelming Jewish majority. The ultimate objective of all national movements, the creation of a sovereign state, was implied in Zionist self-identification as a national liberation movement. However, the debate on the merits of e... (continue)
Israeli political scientist/leader Meron Benvenisti says that a binational entity is the inevitable solution in Israel/Palestine because the landgrab has created such a structure in fact. He points out that binationalism has long been a current in the ideological contention over Palestine and the political resolutions. Who knew? This is instructive reading:
Until the mid 1940s, the Zionist officially defined its ultimate national objectives exclusively by the general formula of the transformation of Palestine (Eretz Israel) into an independent entity with an overwhelming Jewish majority. The ultimate objective of all national movements, the creation of a sovereign state, was implied in Zionist self-identification as a national liberation movement. However, the debate on the merits of emphasizing that ultimate objective continued throughout the history of the Zionist movement. The official leadership concentrated on formulating intermediate political objectives and those changed according to political conditions. These objectives (in chronological order) were: a national home, unrestricted immigration and the creation of a Jewish majority, “organic Zionism” (i.e., settlement and an independent Jewish economic sector); power-sharing (”Parity”) with the Arabs (irrespective of size of population); a bi-national state; a federation of Jewish and Arab cantons; partition. Only in the early 1940s the Zionists openly and officially raised the demand for a sovereign Jewish state. The territorial objectives of the Zionist movement were also ambiguous. The agreement to the partition of Palestine (1936, 1947) was accepted by many as merely a phase in the realization of the Zionist aspirations, but also (by some) as a fundamental compromise with the Palestinian national movement.
During the Mandate period the bi-national idea was acceptable to the Zionist establishment, including Haim Weizman and David Ben-Gurion. However, one must remember that the Jews were a minority and the demand for a Jewish state was impudent; power sharing, and even parity, sounded better. Also, a federation of cantons could have evened out the huge Arab demographic lead. The choice between bi-nationalism and partition was made twice: in 1936 the Peel Commission rejected the Cantonization Plan of the Jewish Agency and chose partition; in 1947 the UN General Assembly voted for partition and rejected the minority plan for a federal state.
Only a marginal group of Jewish intellectuals considered the bi-national state as the only way to avoid endless bloody conflict. They sought to emulate the Swiss model, accentuated the principle of parity but did not elaborate the details. Indeed, there was no need for such elaboration since both the Palestinians and the Zionists rejected the bi-national idea, and most Jews considered it treason. Hashomer Hatzsair movement adopted some elements of the bi-national model, but the establishment of the State in 1948 called off the initiative. The opinion that the realization of Zionism can only be achieved by a sovereign Jewish state triumphed, and those who dare to challenge this precept are considered traitors.
After the 1967 war the Israeli political Right played with the concept of bi-nationalism, in the shape that suited its ideology (the Autonomy Plan). Likud ideology rejected the ”transitory” nature of Israeli occupation but its belief in “Greater Israel” clashed with the demographic reality, and liberal circles in Likud (led by Menachem Begin) struggled with the famous dilemma: a Jewish or democratic state? Begin’s answer was based on the (failed) system known to him in Eastern Europe after WW1—non- territorial, cultural and communal autonomy for ethnic minorities under the League of Nations minority treaties. Begin’s Autonomy Plan had been modified in the Camp David (1978) accords and territorial components were added. The Oslo model used many components (with major changes) of Begin’s Autonomy Plan, and the Oslo accords can be viewed as bi-national arrangements, because the territorial and legal powers of the Palestinian Authority are intentionally vague; the external envelope of the international boundaries, the economic system, even the registration of population, remained under Israeli control. Moreover, the complex agreements of Oslo necessitated close cooperation with Israel which, considering the huge power disparity between the PA and Israel, meant that the PA was merely a glorified municipal or provincial authority. So, in the absence of any political process, a de-facto bi-national structure, was willy-nilly, entrenched.
Description, not prescription
It is no longer arguable; the question is not if a binational entity be established but rather what kind of entity will it be.
Related posts:Refuge… Homeland… State… Facts on the GroundIsraeli government and settlers ‘working together to create new facts on the ground’‘Truncated’ Palestinian sovereignty at last! (And then what?)
(show less)
Let’s go back to the blueprint for the official nullification of the Goldstone Report: Ethan Bronner’s story in the New York Times on Saturday that said that Goldstone is an unreliable narrator and no one in Israel believes that the country targeted civilians in the Gaza onslaught. Bronner’s money quote came from an Israeli general:
Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, the Israeli military advocate general, said in an interview that those assertions [Israel waged “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population," per Goldstone] went beyond anything of which others had accused Israel.
“I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League,” he said at his desk in the military’s Tel Aviv headquarters. “... (continue)
Let’s go back to the blueprint for the official nullification of the Goldstone Report: Ethan Bronner’s story in the New York Times on Saturday that said that Goldstone is an unreliable narrator and no one in Israel believes that the country targeted civilians in the Gaza onslaught. Bronner’s money quote came from an Israeli general:
Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, the Israeli military advocate general, said in an interview that those assertions [Israel waged “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population," per Goldstone] went beyond anything of which others had accused Israel.
“I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League,” he said at his desk in the military’s Tel Aviv headquarters. “We ourselves set up investigations into 140 complaints. It is when you read these other reports and complaints that you realize how truly vicious the Goldstone report is. He made it look like we set out to go after the economic infrastructure and civilians, that it was intentional. It’s a vicious lie.”
Mandelbit’s statement is simply false. Whether Bronner knew it to be false is a different question; but it is false. Here is John Dugard, the South African professor of international law who prepared the Arab League report, writing to me [emphasis mine]:
It is unfair to say that the Goldstone report went further than that of the Arab league. We were in substantial agreement on all the incidents considered. However, as Goldstone considered more cases/incidents it is certrainly a more comprehensive report and in that sense more damning. The Arab League went further than the Goldstone report in important respects. For instance we considered, but largely rejected, the suggestion that Israel had committed genocide.
Genocide? Yes. The Arab League actually found that Israeli soldiers might be prosecuted for genocide. I know this from Norman Finkelstein, who’s read all the reports. (I haven’t.) Below is an excerpt from Finkelstein’s forthcoming book: "This Time We Went Too Far: Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion," which comes out in a month or so from OR Books. Here is Finkelstein’s comparison of Goldstone and the Arab League reports [again, emphasis mine]:
The Goldstone Report found that in seeking to “punish, humiliate and terrorize” the Gazan civilian population Israel committed numerous violations of customary and conventional international law. It also ticked off a lengthy list of war crimes that Israel committed such as “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment,” “willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health,” “extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly,” and “use of human shields.” It further found that Israeli actions that “deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of sustenance, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their access to courts of law and effective remedies…might justify a competent court finding that crimes against humanity have been committed.
The fact finding committee chaired by Goldstone’s distinguished South African colleague John Dugard went somewhat further. It concluded that during Israel’s “heinous and inhuman” attack it was culpable for war crimes such as “indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians,” “killing, wounding and terrorizing civilians,” “wanton destruction of property,” and the bombing and shelling of hospitals and ambulances and obstructing the evacuation of the wounded. It further found that Israel was guilty of crimes against humanity including the intentional and “reckless” killing of civilians, “mass killings—‘extermination’—in certain cases,” and “persecution.”
It did not however hold Israel culpable for the crime of genocide: “the main reason for the operation was not to destroy a group, as required for the crime of genocide, but to engage in a vicious exercise of collective punishment designed either to compel the population to reject Hamas as the governing authority of Gaza or to subdue the population into a state of submission.” Still, it found that “individual soldiers may well have had such an intent and might therefore be prosecuted for this crime.”
Report of the Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza: No safe place. Presented to the League of Arab States (30 April 2009).
Related posts:In first mention of destruction of Gaza’s flour mill, NYT’s Bronner serves up Israeli claimsLet Goldstone testify in Congress before you rush to judgmentAnticipating Israeli response, Dershowitz blames atrocities in Goldstone Report on ‘rogue soldiers’
(show less)
Scott Horton draws tellingly on Auden and Homer in this follow-up to his remarkable piece, "The Guantanamo 'Suicides'," the story of three captives – all of them innocent men, cleared for later release – who were almost certainly murdered in a secret site in the American concentration camp in 2006, apparently for protesting prison conditions. (We examined Horton's story here.)
The men were evidently killed during "strenuous interrogation" -- i.e., they had rags stuffed down their throat while being beaten. When they died, a ludicrous story of a mutual suicide pact -- under impossible physical conditions -- was concocted by American authorities, complete with outright lies about the men being "hardcore" terrorists who killed themselves as an act of "asymmetrical warfare." The cover-up o... (continue)
Scott Horton draws tellingly on Auden and Homer in this follow-up to his remarkable piece, "The Guantanamo 'Suicides'," the story of three captives – all of them innocent men, cleared for later release – who were almost certainly murdered in a secret site in the American concentration camp in 2006, apparently for protesting prison conditions. (We examined Horton's story here.)
The men were evidently killed during "strenuous interrogation" -- i.e., they had rags stuffed down their throat while being beaten. When they died, a ludicrous story of a mutual suicide pact -- under impossible physical conditions -- was concocted by American authorities, complete with outright lies about the men being "hardcore" terrorists who killed themselves as an act of "asymmetrical warfare." The cover-up of these killings goes up to the highest levels of the U.S. government – and it continues most forcefully to this day under the Obama Administration. It is a sickening -- but most instructive -- story.
In his latest piece, Horton notes:
The three men who died in Guantánamo on the night of June 9, 2006 certainly had failings and foibles as all men do; no one will portray them as angels. To its credit, the Bush Administration even seems to have determined to set two of them free; the third had only to await resolution of diplomatic problems between the United States and his homeland. These men were not warriors engaged in some vicious military campaign against the United States, nor was there a scintilla of evidence linking them to any crime. “They were small/ And could not hope for help and no help came,” Auden writes. And what was the reaction of the world to their plight? Auden describes it perfectly, and indeed it was only to be expected: “A crowd of ordinary decent folk/ Watched from without and neither moved nor spoke.” The only difference here is the sentries, who at great risk to themselves and their families have stepped forward to place on the record exactly what they saw. They know it defies the official story; they know they may suffer retribution for it; and they know that what they saw is not conclusive in any event. It is only a fragment of the truth, which needs to be put forward and made a part of the historical record. It was offered out of respect for the dignity of the dead and out of conviction that the truth should not be suppressed, no matter how unpleasant. In the corridors of power, however, a river surges past, indifferent to all these questions, viewing them as an insignificant distraction from the troubles of a war.
Auden’s poem is a work of beauty and power. It has prophetic vision, but that vision is a nightmare. It is born from the horrors of World War II. The barbed wire of concentration camps and death camps brings the Homeric epoch up to date. Auden is not portraying the tragedies of the last war as such. He is warning of a world to come in which totalitarian societies dominate and the worth and dignity of the individual human being are lost. He warns those who stand by, decent though they may seemingly be, and say nothing–perhaps because political calculus or the chimera of national glory have blinded them to the greater moral imperatives against homicide, torture and the dissemination of lies in the cause of war.
You should read the whole piece -- and keep it constantly in mind when wading through all the earnest, endless disquisitions about the weighty affairs and political fortunes of our great and good, all of them written as if these people, our leaders, our bipartisan elites, are somehow normal, as if they are not brutally depraved and indifferent to the point of moral insanity. (show less)
Barack Obama has come out swinging following his party's rout in Massachusetts, vowing to "fight Wall Street" with a "populist" proposal whose main thrust seems to be the reinstatement of some of the common-sense regulations imposed almost 80 years ago to separate banks and investment firms. (I say "seems to be," because one can only guess what, if anything, Obama really intends to do about the matter. For despite the usual elevated rhetoric, he is, as usual, "leaving crucial details to be hashed out by Congress," as the NY Times reports. And we know how populist those paladins can be when they get down to hashing out crucial details.)
Of course, those old regulations were repealed by the bipartisan free-market extremists of the Clinton Era -- many of whom are now once more in charge ... (continue)
Barack Obama has come out swinging following his party's rout in Massachusetts, vowing to "fight Wall Street" with a "populist" proposal whose main thrust seems to be the reinstatement of some of the common-sense regulations imposed almost 80 years ago to separate banks and investment firms. (I say "seems to be," because one can only guess what, if anything, Obama really intends to do about the matter. For despite the usual elevated rhetoric, he is, as usual, "leaving crucial details to be hashed out by Congress," as the NY Times reports. And we know how populist those paladins can be when they get down to hashing out crucial details.)
Of course, those old regulations were repealed by the bipartisan free-market extremists of the Clinton Era -- many of whom are now once more in charge of national economic policy, such as Obama's main economic adviser, Larry Summers. And the fact that Obama is just now vaguely proposing such a move, a year after taking office -- and after engineering the transfer to trillions of dollars in cash, credit guarantees, bailouts and other forms of baksheesh to Wall Street -- cannot but evoke three little words that nonetheless speak volumes: horse, barn, door.
And even in the highly hypothetical likelihood that Obama was actually serious about "reining in the banks" -- that is, serious enough to actually have his staff draw up the crucial details themselves before handing the "fight" over to the banks' own bagmen in Congress -- it would be a moot point anyway, given the Supreme Court's promulgation of its Corporate Enabling Act this week. Although their ruling to remove the few existing -- and pathetic -- restraints on Big Money's domination of the electoral process is indeed bad news, one must also admire the Court's frankness in allowing this domination to step forth and stand out boldly, nakedly, no longer having to hide itself in dirty dodges and furtive tricks. (For more on the ramifications of the ruling, see this piece from Christopher Ketcham at Counterpunch.)
But even as the highways and byways and blogways of the Potomac power grid are all engrossed in the usual partisan navel-gazing, the hard, dirty work of empire goes on.* This week there was yet another killing of civilians in Afghanistan by the ever-surging NATO-led forces, including two boys, aged 11 and 15. As Reuters reports:
Over 100 people took to the streets of a small bazaar in Qarabagh district in Ghazni province, southwest of Kabul, to demonstrate, locals told Reuters by telephone.
Villagers who brought the bodies of four people to the hospital in the provincial capital of Ghazni city said three of the victims belonged to one family. Two were boys 11 and 15, villagers said.
Naturally, the American-led occupation forces said that no civilians were killed in what they called a raid "designed to capture a 'high-level Taliban commander known to direct attacks'. Unfortunately for the spinmeisters, an actual journalist, Nir Rosen, has been on the case. He provided this report to Professor As'ad AbuKhalil:
Nir Rosen sent me this from Kabul (I cite with his permission): "I met today with the parliament member from qara bagh district. He's not anti-occupation and even wants more operations but he confirmed that all the dead were innocent and were not fighters and two were quite young".
"All the dead were innocent." And two of them were children.
This is the reality when we should keep in mind as we wade through the endlessly chewed cud of petty partisan in-fighting among the court factions of our militarist empire. Every day, every night, someone's blood is being offered up on the imperial altars. That's what empire is. That's what empire does.
***
See Rome
While you were dreaming
While you wrapped your mind in silks
Bronze Steel Stone
Did their work
While you breathed the fumes
Of the oracle's fissure
Deranged the senses
Settled in soft beds
Rome
Sent agents into the streets
Hard men pinched men
Bronze Steel Stone
To eliminate execute
Discredit and destroy
See Rome
While you stood in the forum
Declaimed high words
Filled temples with fragrant smoke
Scrawled millions of learned disquisitions
Rome marched
Somewhere, in your name
Fired the village
In your name
Put steel to the belly
While you were wrapped in silks
While you grubbed
While you drank degraded waters
Drank dark, brilliant wine
While you sang, while you dreamed
For years, the all-consuming international struggle against the scourge of terrorism has been hampered at times by the fact that no one has been able to provide us with a rock-solid, comprehensive definition of the term. What, exactly, is "terrorism?" Great minds have grappled with this question in learned journals, academic symposia, think-tank fora, government entmoots, and across the commanding heights of the media. The matter is of some moment, as any person or organization to whom this ill-defined label is applied automatically becomes a target for "the path of action," to borrow the stirring phraseology of former U.S. president George W. Bush.
Indeed, some cynics have advanced the notion that the definition of terrorism has been left vague deliberately, in order to retain the deg... (continue)
For years, the all-consuming international struggle against the scourge of terrorism has been hampered at times by the fact that no one has been able to provide us with a rock-solid, comprehensive definition of the term. What, exactly, is "terrorism?" Great minds have grappled with this question in learned journals, academic symposia, think-tank fora, government entmoots, and across the commanding heights of the media. The matter is of some moment, as any person or organization to whom this ill-defined label is applied automatically becomes a target for "the path of action," to borrow the stirring phraseology of former U.S. president George W. Bush.
Indeed, some cynics have advanced the notion that the definition of terrorism has been left vague deliberately, in order to retain the degree of elasticity necessary for the term's application where and when as needed to advance one's particular political or ideological agenda. Of course, those who lack the phrenological bump of cynicism would ascribe this confusion to the artless, inherent difficulties of semantic expression all too common to our human kind. In any case, there has been, as the saying goes, much throwing about of brains on the subject, and to little effect.
But now this intractable problem has been resolved at last. And as you might expect, the man who cut this Gordian knot is one of the towering and tireless intellects of our age: Bill Clinton. To my shame, I have only recently become acquainted with his breakthrough, which was published in the December 2009 issue of Foreign Policy magazine. The chagrin I feel at my ignorance is mitigated somewhat by the fact that Mr. Clinton's brilliant formulation seems to have been largely ignored. This is no doubt because it was embedded in the vast sea of verbal gems and dazzling aperçus that the former president poured forth in his charmingly voluble fashion.
(For instance, who could fail to be dazzled by this Clintonian insight: "Tom Friedman is our most gifted journalist at actually looking at what is happening in the world and figuring out its relevance to tomorrow and figuring out a clever way to say it that sticks in your mind -- like "real men raise the gas tax." You know what I mean?" For more on this gifted journalist and his remarkable turns of phrase, see here. Mr. Clinton also lauded "big thinkers on the question of identity" like "Samuel Huntingdon, who wrote the famous book, The Clash of Civilizations." Huntingdon's book has indeed been influential, perhaps decisive, in shaping the worldview of our leading statesmen and opinion-shapers – despite the petty quibbling from second-raters, like Nobelist Amartya Sen (author of Identity and Violence), who claim that Huntingdon's magisterial wisdom is in reality somewhat lacking in intellectual heft and moral substance; some go so far as to claim his work is actually shallow, reductive, highly toxic racist tripe. But of course Mr. Clinton and our great and good know better.)
Thus primed with these sprays and sprigs of genius from the emeritus statesman, it is no surprise when we stumble onto his definitive definition of terrorism, tossed off almost casually in the midst of a disquisition on just how long the clash of civilizations known as the War on Terror might last. Cutting to the chase, as is ever his wont, Clinton nails the truth about terrorism:
Terror mean[s] killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority and go beyond national borders.
Like a bolt of sunlight breaking through a lowering cloud, Clinton's formulation floods one's brain with sudden illumination. "Killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority" – that's terrorism. Killing and robbery and coercion by people who do have state authority is, obviously, something else altogether: humanitarian intervention, perhaps, or liberation, or preservation of national security, or maintaining great-power credibility, or restoring hope, or a pre-dawn vertical insertion.
In any case, and every case, if this border-transcending activity is done by people who have state authority, then it is legitimate, it is good, it is necessary, it is noble. And even if, sometimes, on rare occasions, mistakes are made during the killing, robbing and coercing done by people who have state authority, these mistakes are only ever the result of good intentions gone awry.
So there you have it: what terrorism is depends on who does it. Naturally, there are nuances and complexities that Mr. Clinton did not go into here; it was an interview, after all, not a scholarly monograph. Obviously, the legitimacy of killing, robbing and coercing by people who have state authority is entirely dependent on the state from which that authority derives. Only those states which by their cheerful acceptance of America's benevolent guidance and abiding friendship have proven themselves worthy can legitimately exercise their authority to kill, rob and coerce. All others must forbear – or else be branded "rogue states," purveyors of "state terror," which in turn makes them eligible for "the path of action."
We are all deeply indebted to former President Clinton for bringing his legendary acumen to bear on this perplexing problem. Not for the first time do we lament the passage of the 22nd Amendment, which has prevented this acolyte of Huntingdon and Friedman from continuing to guide the ship of state. We can, however, rejoice that his own acolytes, associates, aides and advisors – and even his marriage partner! – now gird the current administration with their wise counsel. (show less)
Democrats and progressives are crying doom over the party's defeat in Massachusetts. The loss, we're told, is a blow to Barack Obama's political agenda, and so it is. They say it's a shame that yet another rightwing zealot who advocates torture is now in the Senate, and so it is. But it is precisely that agenda that led to the loss, and the shame. It is that agenda which has resurrected a rightwing party that was dead in the water, and empowered its most extreme elements.
And what is Barack Obama's agenda? What is his political program? It breaks down into three main elements: unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts, and unworkable, unwanted health care "reform" that forces people to further enrich some of the most despised conglomerates in the land. It is, in every way, a recipe for... (continue)
Democrats and progressives are crying doom over the party's defeat in Massachusetts. The loss, we're told, is a blow to Barack Obama's political agenda, and so it is. They say it's a shame that yet another rightwing zealot who advocates torture is now in the Senate, and so it is. But it is precisely that agenda that led to the loss, and the shame. It is that agenda which has resurrected a rightwing party that was dead in the water, and empowered its most extreme elements.
And what is Barack Obama's agenda? What is his political program? It breaks down into three main elements: unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts, and unworkable, unwanted health care "reform" that forces people to further enrich some of the most despised conglomerates in the land. It is, in every way, a recipe for moral, economic and political disaster. It is a gigantic anchor tied around the neck of the Democratic Party, and it will drag the whole lumbering wreck back to the bottom in short order.
It also provides a fertile breeding ground for the willful, belligerent ignorance of the Right to thrive. With such an egregiously stupid and destructive agenda at work in the White House, opponents need only say that they are against it, and they are guaranteed a wide following. Who would not be against unwinnable war, unconscionable bailouts and unworkable boondoggles serving rapacious elites? The actual positions held by these opponents – the actual policies they will pursue once in power – are given little scrutiny in such circumstances. The opponent represents change from a hated status quo – and that's enough. Later, when their odious positions come to light, it is too late.
Where have we seen this dynamic at work before? Oh yes, it was way back in November 2008. Barack Obama represented change from the hated status quo, from the agenda of the ruling Republican party. And what was that agenda? Why, unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts and the assiduous service of rapacious elites. The actual positions held by Obama – the actual policies that he would pursue once in power – were given little scrutiny. Except by a precious few – such as Arthur Silber, who long ago warned that Obama's election would be ruinous for genuine progressive change, that he would merely put a new gloss on the old corruption while disarming dissent from 'progressives,' who would feel bound to support the president against his rightwing enemies – even if it meant "holding their noses" and supporting bad policies like the health care reform bill or the Afghan surge.
Now it is obvious to all that Obama's core agenda is the same as Bush's: maintaining the elitist, militarist, corporatist system in all its essential elements. The "War on Terror" goes on, expanding into new lands. Torture and murder are still countenanced and concealed, in concentration camps and secret sites that are still in operation. All of Bush's most egregious assertions of authoritarian power are embraced and defended in court. Wall Street is rewarded, not regulated for its vast crimes. The legislative architect and champion of one of the most regressive, punitive, draconian acts of class war in our time – the Bankruptcy Bill, that atom bomb dropped on working people, the sick, the old and the young – has been plucked from deserved obscurity and made Vice President of the United States. A grotesquely expensive, unjust and dysfunctional health care system is not only left intact by "reform," it is given millions of new, captive customers, and more public money to guarantee its profits.
Once again, the question arises: Is this a winning agenda?
It is not just Obama's agenda, of course. It is the agenda of the Democratic Party: war, empire, and corporate profit über alles. Is this really worth defending, even with a held nose? Yet progressives and liberals will continue to insist that, bad as it is, we've got to keep supporting the Democratic Party – because there is no alternative, because otherwise, Tea Party torture mavens like Scott Brown or Sarah Palin will get elected.
But as we've already noted above, it is the Democratic agenda itself that is opening the door for extremist opponents, who then exploit the genuine dissatisfaction and genuine suffering caused by that agenda. The fact that these opponents also support the same core agenda means that the nation will keep ping-ponging back and forth, with an electorate hungry for change desperately chasing anyone who promises it – only to rush back in the other direction when the 'change agent' proves to be just another stooge of the status quo.
This destructive, corrosive dynamic – this ever-worsening death spiral – is what progressives are actually supporting and enabling when they "hold their noses" to support Democrats. The Republicans and Democrats are now simply two factions of the same party – the party of war and greed. To support one faction, no matter what, with held noses or open arms, in such a locked system only perpetuates and exacerbates its worst elements.
Oh, but there's no choice, we are told, with earnest handwringing, by our leading progressives. Third parties are not viable in our system, we are informed by our savvy progressive realists; there can be no effective political movement outside the two main parties. Indeed, no less than Digby herself has declared that the only alternative to working with this closed system (which means, in practice, supporting the Democratic Party) is violent revolution: "Pick up your muskets, kids, or STFU."
And so this is what we've come to. This is the "progressive" answer to any genuine, non-violent rejection of the Democratic faction's agenda of war and greed: "Shut the fuck up." My, wouldn't Martin Luther King Jr. be delighted with that? Wouldn't Thomas Jefferson revel in such delicious eloquence, such deep thought?
Look, I know it's not easy. I was born and raised a Yellow Dawg Democrat myself, and remained one for most of my life. I know what it's like to be hardwired for supporting Democrats, come hell or high water, giving them every benefit of the doubt, turning a blind eye here, making a furious rationalization there. These tribal loyalties are very difficult to lay down; it really can feel like turning your back on your family. And of course the belligerent, bellicose, willfully ignorant Republicans are loathsome and dangerous.
But there comes a time when you must face the truth – or be lost to truth forever. There comes a time to recognize that the Democratic Party and Republican Party are part of the same corrupted entity. There comes a time to recognize that the Democratic Party's agenda is not only ruinous in itself, unworthy of the support of anyone who cares about justice, peace, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – it is also empowering those very same loathsome and dangerous Republicans. There comes a time for even the most partisan tribalist (and I have been one) to accept the hard judgment of reality: that the Democratic Party is part of the problem, not the solution.
To say that there is no alternative to supporting this locked-in, closed-off, two-faction system of war and greed is an act of craven surrender to that system. To dismiss all hope for forging genuine alternatives to this system -- whether these be other political parties or more general movements aiming not for political power but for broader changes in social consciousness -- is a counsel of despair. It condemns us, and the world, to yet another generation of violence, chaos and corruption, another long, long journey away from the light. It is, as noted above, a recipe for disaster in every way.
But if you want more Scott Browns in power, then by all means, keep pushing that Democratic agenda. You'll soon have Scott Browns and Sarah Palins running out of your ears. (show less)
With international turf battles and diplomatic spats slowing the distribution of food, water, medicine and security in Haiti, the stricken people are now fleeing to the countryside. This may actually help the situation in one sense, as it might be easier to get aid to more people in unruined areas; however, it will also put a great strain on regions which are themselves mired in poverty and deprivation, and lacking in infrastructure.
Meanwhile, in Port-au-Prince, as aid begins to trickle in, anguished medical professionals are lamenting the multitude of unnecessary deaths that the bureaucratic bottlenecks have caused. As the Guardian reports:
Médecins sans Frontières says confusion over who is running the relief effort – the US which controls the main airport, or the UN which says ... (continue)
With international turf battles and diplomatic spats slowing the distribution of food, water, medicine and security in Haiti, the stricken people are now fleeing to the countryside. This may actually help the situation in one sense, as it might be easier to get aid to more people in unruined areas; however, it will also put a great strain on regions which are themselves mired in poverty and deprivation, and lacking in infrastructure.
Meanwhile, in Port-au-Prince, as aid begins to trickle in, anguished medical professionals are lamenting the multitude of unnecessary deaths that the bureaucratic bottlenecks have caused. As the Guardian reports:
Médecins sans Frontières says confusion over who is running the relief effort – the US which controls the main airport, or the UN which says it is overseeing distribution – may have led to hundreds of avoidable deaths because it has not been able to get essential supplies in to the country. "The co-ordination ... is not existing or not functioning at this stage," said Benoit Leduc, MSF's operations manager in Port-au-Prince. "I don't really know who is in charge. Between the two systems (the US and the UN) I don't think there is smooth liaison [over] who decides what."
...There has been criticism from some aid agencies of the Americans for giving priority to military flights at the airport while planes carrying relief supplies are unable to land. MSF has had five planes turned back from the airport in recent days, three carrying essential medical supplies and two with expert surgical personnel.
"We lost 48 hours because of these access problems," said Leduc. "Of course it is a small airport, but this is clearly a matter of defining priorities."
Asked how many avoidable deaths had been caused by the delays, he said that hundreds of critical lifesaving operations had been delayed by two days.
"We are talking about septicaemia. The morgues in the hospitals are full," he said.
... John O'Shea, the head of the Irish medical charity, Goal, [said], "there is only one thing stopping a massive and prodigious aid effort being rolled out and that is leadership and co-ordination. You have neither in Haiti at the moment."
The American government response has largely been a militarized one. But the celebrated American war machine -- whose annual budgets could lift millions out of poverty, deprivation and lack of infrastructure every year -- seems too musclebound to respond with the precision and flexibility that the situation requires. No doubt most of the individuals involved in the effort are working tirelessly; but a system designed for war, for death, destruction and domination, will never be a fit instrument for humanitarian relief.
The chief face of the United States in Haiti right now are highly-armed veterans of imperial wars, trained for conquest and occupation -- and many of them strained by multiple tours. And while many Haitians will greet the sight of any organized force coming to help them, America's long and ugly history with Haiti is not forgotten either, as Ed Pilkington notes:
The Haitian in whose house in Port-au-Prince we are staying – a prominent businessman and generally very pro-America – keeps a cherished machete on his wall. It was used, he explained to me one night, by his grandfather to attack US soldiers during the 1915-1934 American occupation of his country.
Writing on Monday, Pilkington also detailed the fatal slowness of the musclebound relief effort:
Day seven of the catastrophe, yet wherever we go we are still surrounded by crowds of people living on the streets pleading with us for water. A few miles away at the airport huge quantities of supplies are stacked high in the sun. Under a deal finalised between the heads of relevant parties on Sunday night, US troops will be responsible for securing the incoming supplies at the airport, and then moving them to four central distribution hubs. One of those hubs is at the national football stadium in downtown Port-au-Prince and another at a golf course near the US embassy.
That will free up troops from the UN peacekeeping force in Haiti, so the official line goes, to take charge of the next stage of the process – getting the aid out of the central hubs and to the neighbourhoods. For that purpose the UN has pinpointed 14 distribution locations where it, together with aid groups, will hand out the goods.
The plan sounds neat, thoroughly thought-out, fool-proof. There is only one problem: it is several days late.
A vast, permanent, completely mobile, well-trained, civilian rescue and restoration corps could easily be maintained by the United States, at the merest fraction of what it now pays out for its regular "war supplements" -- never mind the obscenely bloated 'regular' Pentagon budget. (And yes, such a corps would have a security component, made up of officers who have been trained to deal with suffering people in extremity -- not those trained to inflict suffering and extremity on people.)
This seems like a somewhat better use of public money than, say, waging endless wars to "project dominance" to the four corners of the earth, or bailing out a kleptoplutocracy that has wrecked the global economy and ruined the lives of millions around the world -- or even enriching pharmaceutical and med-biz conglomerates beyond the dreams of avarice just to claim you have passed health care "reform" without actually reforming an insanely expensive and unjust system. But like Dennis Kuchinich's idea of a "Department of Peace," any notion of a full-scale rescue corps would be hooted off the national stage by the super-savvy serious "realists" who rule our discourse, and our lives.
So we will go on as we are now. When natural disasters strike -- and they will be striking more often, and with deadlier effect, on our crowded, corroded planet in the years to come -- we will simply follow the same old pattern: launching ad hoc, inept attempts to retool a few bits and pieces of the lumbering War Machine for temporary humanitarian service. And once again, hundreds, if not thousands, of stricken people will die needless deaths.
NOTE: As noted here the other day, two good venues for giving aid to Haiti are Partners in Health and the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund, both of whom have been working in Haiti for many years. (show less)
Dissident Voice
a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice
Israeli Terrorism 26 Jan 2010Ismail Zayid The horrendous massacre of thousands of innocent victims, on Sept. 11 Sept. in New York and Washington, brought a great deal of attention to the subject of terrorism, Osama bin Laden, and al-Qaida.
There has also been some insinuation, by the media and politicians, towards Arabs and Muslims, with reference to the Middle East and the [...]
Err-America 26 Jan 2010Walter Brasch Air America, the liberal radio network, went down in flames, Jan. 21, when it filed for bankruptcy. It wasn’t because of air-to-air combat with conservative talk shows and bloggers. It wasn’t because of the Recession, although reduced advertising revenue, a reality of all media, also affected Air America. It wasn’t even demographics, even though older, [...]
Making It Real: State of the Union 2010 26 Jan 2010Jack Random Members of congress and distinguished guests, as I stand before you to deliver the annual state of the union address, I am keenly aware that decorum and tradition mandate a message of optimism and hope.
I will do my best.
As a proud people accustomed to confronting challenges and overcoming whatever barriers are [...]
Funding Public Health Care with a Publicly Owned Bank 26 Jan 2010Ellen Hodgson Brown The story goes that Churchill offered a woman 5 million pounds to sleep with him. She hedged and said they would have to discuss terms. Then he offered her 5 pounds. “Sir!” she said. “What sort of woman do you think I am?” “Madam,” he replied, “We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over [...]
Supremes Murder the First Amendment: Whaddaya Gonna Do? 26 Jan 2010Gary Corseri They did it in broad daylight. “Money … speech—what’s the diff?” they cackled, sucking a corporate tit. Then they wrung Liberty’s neck—cracked it like a chicken’s.
That same day the bank foreclosed on my home. I offered a speech to the broad-brim hatted sheriff. “Money … speech—what’s the diff?” I asked. [...]
Iraq snapshot 26 Jan 2010Common Ills Tuesday, January 26, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad again slammed with a bombing, the Iraq Inquiry hears that Blair and Cabinet were informed the Iraq War was illegal barring a second UN resolution, and more. Committee Member Usha Prashar: Can I just then confirm, what were your views of the legal position on the use of force against Iraq before the Security Council Resolution
The war was illegal, Iraq Inquiry told 26 Jan 2010Common Ills Friday, one-time prime minister and forever poodle Tony Blair will appear before the Iraq Inquiry in London. A major protest is expected to take place outside as War Criminal Tony testifies. From Stop The War Coalition's "Protest on Tony Blair's Judgement Day: 29 January from 8am:" New Stop the War pamphlet Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, BroadSanctuary, Westminster, London SW1P 3EE On
Baghdad slammed with another bombing 26 Jan 2010Common Ills Jenny Booth (Times of London) reports a Baghdad suicide car bombing has targeted the police forensic service. Booth notes many dead and "Around 80 people were injured in today's attack. Hospitals in the Iraqi capital reported receiving a surge of wounded people and dead bodies." Yousif Bassil (CNN) counts 18 dead in addition to the eighty wounded. Al Jazeera explains the forensic services were
Tony Blair prepares as do the demonstrators 25 Jan 2010Common Ills This Friday, January 29th, the former prime minister and all time poodle Tony Blair will appear before the Iraq Inquiry in London. A major protest is expected to take place outside as War Criminal Tony testifies. From Stop The War Coalition's "Protest on Tony Blair's Judgement Day: 29 January from 8am:" New Stop the War pamphlet Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, BroadSanctuary, Westminster,
One Special Inspector General report buried, one noted 25 Jan 2010Common Ills Today the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has released the [PDF format warning] report entitled "Department of State Grant Management: Limited Oversight of Costs and Impact of International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute Democracy Grants." (Note, page one of the report carries the date January 26, 2010.) What's the 37 page report dealing
The State of the Corporate Union 26 Jan 2010by Laura Flanders
The State of the Union will be a little different this year. Thanks to
a last-minute switch the annual address will be presented by Lloyd
Blankfein, CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs, known henceforth as CEO
of America.
While a final text is not yet released, insiders suggest that CEO
Blankfein will declare the state of the union excellent, and announce
significant bonuses for five of nine Supreme Court Justices.
read more
Obama Wrong to Prioritize Deficit Reduction 26 Jan 2010by Matthew RothschildI'm worried that President Obama is going to focus too much on the
deficit in his State of the Union speech this week and in his actions
throughout this year.
I'm worried because such a focus will make it less likely that he'll
be able, or even inclined to, pass the kind of massive jobs bill we
need to bring down unemployment.read more
Blocking Bernanke is Smart Economics, Smart Politics for Dems 26 Jan 2010by John Nichols
If the Democratic Party wants to lose - or, to be more precise, wants to lose badly in 2010 and 2012, it need only maintain its current loyalty to the most powerful interests on Wall Street.
The United States already has a party of Wall Street. It does not need two.
read more
Bagram: The Annotated Prisoner List (A Cooperative Project) 26 Jan 2010by Andy WorthingtonOn Friday January 15, 2010, the Pentagon responded to a FOIA request submitted by the ACLU last April, and released (PDF)
the first ever list of 645 prisoners held, as of September 22, 2009, in
the US prison at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan (the Bagram Theater
Internment Facility), which has been in operation for eight years.read more
Don't Be Stupid with the Economy 26 Jan 2010by Dean BakerThe US Senate's decision on approving Ben Bernanke
for a second term as chair of the Federal Reserve Board is coming down
to the wire and the Wall Street crew is once again pulling out all the
stops. To get the 60 votes they need for Senate approval they are
reaching into the treasure chest of tall tales they used to push
through the troubled asset relief programme (Tarp).read more
10 Ways to Stop Corporate Dominance of Politics 26 Jan 2010by Fran KortenThe recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate
spending in politics just may be the straw that breaks the plutocracy's
back.read more
The Sanctity of Military Spending 26 Jan 2010by Glenn GreenwaldAdministration officials announced last night
that the President, in tomorrow's State of the Union address, will
propose a multi-year freeze on certain domestic discretionary spending
programs. This is an "initiative intended to signal his seriousness
about cutting the budget deficit," officials told The New York Times. read more
Obama's Credibility Gap 26 Jan 2010by Bob HerbertAmericans are still looking for the answer, and if they don't get it soon - or if they don't like the answer - the president's current political problems will look like a walk in the park.read more
Forget the Deficit; People Need Jobs 26 Jan 2010by Jesse JacksonThe state of America's union is stark. The economic collapse triggered by the bursting of the housing bubble continues to take its toll.We know the statistics. Nearly one in five American workers is unemployed or underemployed. That means wages are losing ground. One in three homes with a mortgage is under water. Millions of Americans are headed to losing their homes.That will leave families adrift, children displaced.read more
Robbing Grandma to Reward Wall Street 25 Jan 2010by Martha BurkWhen I grew up in Texas, the dance we all learned was the Texas
two-step. But times have changed. The next big dance these days could
be called the Social Security double shuffle. A good number of senators
are waltzing to the music of the "let's cut Social Security" crowd by
trying to sell a solution to the deficit designed to hack apart the
government-guaranteed retirement plan we've had since the 1930s.
read more
Who Should Run the Fed? 25 Jan 2010by Greg KaufmannIf you weren't convinced before that Ben Bernanke should be replaced
as Chairman of the Federal Reserve you might be now. Wall Street's
Humble Servant--Secretary Timothy Geithner--has
warned that if Bernanke is replaced, "I think the markets would view
that as a very troubling thing to the economy as a whole."read more
Wall Street Bonuses Can Create One Million Green Jobs 25 Jan 2010by Les LeopoldPresident Obama may be joining the populist crusade against Wall
Street. In the span of one week he opened up a three front war: a tax
on big banks, full support for a new Consumer Financial Protection
Agency, and the embrace of Paul Volcker's plan to break up the big
banks.
It's about time. Or has the time already passed?
Yes, there is enormous popular anger against Wall Street and the
bailouts. However, the deepest anger is rooted in the enormous fears
and hardships caused by the lack of jobs. read more
Can the Human Race Outgrow War? 25 Jan 2010by James CarrollWe scoured the woods for the perfect Y-shaped stick - each of its
finger-branches similarly stout, the main shaft able to fit snuggly
into a closed fist. Attach to the Y-ends a set of rubber bands braided
around a leather patch and you had a sling shot.
Then we discovered the lethal virtue of black rubber strips cut from
discarded inner tubes. Our projectile supply escalated from pebbles to
marbles to ball bearings. A squad of three or four, we were best
friends, roaming the woods for rabbits - and, in our minds, for Chi-com
soldiers our uncles were fighting in Korea.read more
Afghanistan: This War Won't Work 25 Jan 2010by Phyllis BennisThe recent Taliban attacks on Kabul provide another wake-up call
about why this war in Afghanistan simply isn't going to work. It won't
bring security to Afghans. It won't turn Afghanistan into a democracy.
And it won't make us safer. In fact, the war killed more people in Afghanistan last year
than the year before-40 percent more civilians, according to the United
Nations. And the body count this year is already shaping up to be
higher than last year. That goes for U.S. troops too.
read more
The Drone Surge: Today, Tomorrow, and 2047 25 Jan 2010by Nick TurseOne moment there was the hum of a motor in the sky
above. The next, on a recent morning in Afghanistan's Helmand
province, a missile blasted a
home, killing 13 people. Days later, the same increasingly familiar
mechanical whine preceded a two-missile salvo that slammed into a
compound in Degan village in the tribal North Waziristan district of Pakistan, killing read more
Haiti is Bleeding… So too is Afghanistan, Iraq and the Arizona Desert 25 Jan 2010by Roberto RodriguezThe images from Haiti compel us to look at the mirror and ask
ourselves, if we have a heart and a face? What we see compels us to
ask if we are the human beings that we profess to be. The answer moves
us to act.
read more
Here as in Haiti? What to do When Relief Doesn't Reach Those in Need 25 Jan 2010by Danny SchechterStung by the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts and the abandonment of his health care initiative by members of Congress, and fearful of a political backlash President Obama may himself not be "too big to fail." He has now "pivoted," to use a favorite phase from the pundits, and shifted his focus to trying to fix a still deteriorating economy. He has gone from coddling the banks to turning on them with strong rhetoric that has financial stocks reeling, and progressives cheering.read more
The Seamy Side of Coal-Fired Power 25 Jan 2010by Susan GalleymoreSouth Africa has one of the heaviest
carbon footprints in the world...and the World Bank is offering a US
$5 billion loan - the biggest ever to any African entity - that
ensures its footprint becomes even heavier. The World Bank, however,
says the loan assists South Africa's electricity parastatal Eskom to
"achieve financial stability, increase generation capacity and
efficiency, and adopt a low carbon trajectory."
read more
Scott Horton draws tellingly on Auden and Homer in this follow-up to his remarkable piece, "The Guantanamo 'Suicides'," the story of three captives – all of them innocent men, cleared for later release – who were almost certainly murdered in a secret site in the American concentration camp in 2006, apparently for protesting prison conditions. (We examined Horton's story here.)
The men were evidently killed during "strenuous interrogation" -- i.e., they had rags stuffed down their throat while being beaten. When they died, a ludicrous story of a mutual suicide pact -- under impossible physical conditions -- was concocted by American authorities, complete with outright lies about the men being "hardcore" terrorists who killed themselves as an act of "asymmetrical warfare." The cover-up o... (continue)
Scott Horton draws tellingly on Auden and Homer in this follow-up to his remarkable piece, "The Guantanamo 'Suicides'," the story of three captives – all of them innocent men, cleared for later release – who were almost certainly murdered in a secret site in the American concentration camp in 2006, apparently for protesting prison conditions. (We examined Horton's story here.)
The men were evidently killed during "strenuous interrogation" -- i.e., they had rags stuffed down their throat while being beaten. When they died, a ludicrous story of a mutual suicide pact -- under impossible physical conditions -- was concocted by American authorities, complete with outright lies about the men being "hardcore" terrorists who killed themselves as an act of "asymmetrical warfare." The cover-up of these killings goes up to the highest levels of the U.S. government – and it continues most forcefully to this day under the Obama Administration. It is a sickening -- but most instructive -- story.
In his latest piece, Horton notes:
The three men who died in Guantánamo on the night of June 9, 2006 certainly had failings and foibles as all men do; no one will portray them as angels. To its credit, the Bush Administration even seems to have determined to set two of them free; the third had only to await resolution of diplomatic problems between the United States and his homeland. These men were not warriors engaged in some vicious military campaign against the United States, nor was there a scintilla of evidence linking them to any crime. “They were small/ And could not hope for help and no help came,” Auden writes. And what was the reaction of the world to their plight? Auden describes it perfectly, and indeed it was only to be expected: “A crowd of ordinary decent folk/ Watched from without and neither moved nor spoke.” The only difference here is the sentries, who at great risk to themselves and their families have stepped forward to place on the record exactly what they saw. They know it defies the official story; they know they may suffer retribution for it; and they know that what they saw is not conclusive in any event. It is only a fragment of the truth, which needs to be put forward and made a part of the historical record. It was offered out of respect for the dignity of the dead and out of conviction that the truth should not be suppressed, no matter how unpleasant. In the corridors of power, however, a river surges past, indifferent to all these questions, viewing them as an insignificant distraction from the troubles of a war.
Auden’s poem is a work of beauty and power. It has prophetic vision, but that vision is a nightmare. It is born from the horrors of World War II. The barbed wire of concentration camps and death camps brings the Homeric epoch up to date. Auden is not portraying the tragedies of the last war as such. He is warning of a world to come in which totalitarian societies dominate and the worth and dignity of the individual human being are lost. He warns those who stand by, decent though they may seemingly be, and say nothing–perhaps because political calculus or the chimera of national glory have blinded them to the greater moral imperatives against homicide, torture and the dissemination of lies in the cause of war.
You should read the whole piece -- and keep it constantly in mind when wading through all the earnest, endless disquisitions about the weighty affairs and political fortunes of our great and good, all of them written as if these people, our leaders, our bipartisan elites, are somehow normal, as if they are not brutally depraved and indifferent to the point of moral insanity. (show less)
Barack Obama has come out swinging following his party's rout in Massachusetts, vowing to "fight Wall Street" with a "populist" proposal whose main thrust seems to be the reinstatement of some of the common-sense regulations imposed almost 80 years ago to separate banks and investment firms. (I say "seems to be," because one can only guess what, if anything, Obama really intends to do about the matter. For despite the usual elevated rhetoric, he is, as usual, "leaving crucial details to be hashed out by Congress," as the NY Times reports. And we know how populist those paladins can be when they get down to hashing out crucial details.)
Of course, those old regulations were repealed by the bipartisan free-market extremists of the Clinton Era -- many of whom are now once more in charge ... (continue)
Barack Obama has come out swinging following his party's rout in Massachusetts, vowing to "fight Wall Street" with a "populist" proposal whose main thrust seems to be the reinstatement of some of the common-sense regulations imposed almost 80 years ago to separate banks and investment firms. (I say "seems to be," because one can only guess what, if anything, Obama really intends to do about the matter. For despite the usual elevated rhetoric, he is, as usual, "leaving crucial details to be hashed out by Congress," as the NY Times reports. And we know how populist those paladins can be when they get down to hashing out crucial details.)
Of course, those old regulations were repealed by the bipartisan free-market extremists of the Clinton Era -- many of whom are now once more in charge of national economic policy, such as Obama's main economic adviser, Larry Summers. And the fact that Obama is just now vaguely proposing such a move, a year after taking office -- and after engineering the transfer to trillions of dollars in cash, credit guarantees, bailouts and other forms of baksheesh to Wall Street -- cannot but evoke three little words that nonetheless speak volumes: horse, barn, door.
And even in the highly hypothetical likelihood that Obama was actually serious about "reining in the banks" -- that is, serious enough to actually have his staff draw up the crucial details themselves before handing the "fight" over to the banks' own bagmen in Congress -- it would be a moot point anyway, given the Supreme Court's promulgation of its Corporate Enabling Act this week. Although their ruling to remove the few existing -- and pathetic -- restraints on Big Money's domination of the electoral process is indeed bad news, one must also admire the Court's frankness in allowing this domination to step forth and stand out boldly, nakedly, no longer having to hide itself in dirty dodges and furtive tricks. (For more on the ramifications of the ruling, see this piece from Christopher Ketcham at Counterpunch.)
But even as the highways and byways and blogways of the Potomac power grid are all engrossed in the usual partisan navel-gazing, the hard, dirty work of empire goes on.* This week there was yet another killing of civilians in Afghanistan by the ever-surging NATO-led forces, including two boys, aged 11 and 15. As Reuters reports:
Over 100 people took to the streets of a small bazaar in Qarabagh district in Ghazni province, southwest of Kabul, to demonstrate, locals told Reuters by telephone.
Villagers who brought the bodies of four people to the hospital in the provincial capital of Ghazni city said three of the victims belonged to one family. Two were boys 11 and 15, villagers said.
Naturally, the American-led occupation forces said that no civilians were killed in what they called a raid "designed to capture a 'high-level Taliban commander known to direct attacks'. Unfortunately for the spinmeisters, an actual journalist, Nir Rosen, has been on the case. He provided this report to Professor As'ad AbuKhalil:
Nir Rosen sent me this from Kabul (I cite with his permission): "I met today with the parliament member from qara bagh district. He's not anti-occupation and even wants more operations but he confirmed that all the dead were innocent and were not fighters and two were quite young".
"All the dead were innocent." And two of them were children.
This is the reality when we should keep in mind as we wade through the endlessly chewed cud of petty partisan in-fighting among the court factions of our militarist empire. Every day, every night, someone's blood is being offered up on the imperial altars. That's what empire is. That's what empire does.
***
See Rome
While you were dreaming
While you wrapped your mind in silks
Bronze Steel Stone
Did their work
While you breathed the fumes
Of the oracle's fissure
Deranged the senses
Settled in soft beds
Rome
Sent agents into the streets
Hard men pinched men
Bronze Steel Stone
To eliminate execute
Discredit and destroy
See Rome
While you stood in the forum
Declaimed high words
Filled temples with fragrant smoke
Scrawled millions of learned disquisitions
Rome marched
Somewhere, in your name
Fired the village
In your name
Put steel to the belly
While you were wrapped in silks
While you grubbed
While you drank degraded waters
Drank dark, brilliant wine
While you sang, while you dreamed
For years, the all-consuming international struggle against the scourge of terrorism has been hampered at times by the fact that no one has been able to provide us with a rock-solid, comprehensive definition of the term. What, exactly, is "terrorism?" Great minds have grappled with this question in learned journals, academic symposia, think-tank fora, government entmoots, and across the commanding heights of the media. The matter is of some moment, as any person or organization to whom this ill-defined label is applied automatically becomes a target for "the path of action," to borrow the stirring phraseology of former U.S. president George W. Bush.
Indeed, some cynics have advanced the notion that the definition of terrorism has been left vague deliberately, in order to retain the deg... (continue)
For years, the all-consuming international struggle against the scourge of terrorism has been hampered at times by the fact that no one has been able to provide us with a rock-solid, comprehensive definition of the term. What, exactly, is "terrorism?" Great minds have grappled with this question in learned journals, academic symposia, think-tank fora, government entmoots, and across the commanding heights of the media. The matter is of some moment, as any person or organization to whom this ill-defined label is applied automatically becomes a target for "the path of action," to borrow the stirring phraseology of former U.S. president George W. Bush.
Indeed, some cynics have advanced the notion that the definition of terrorism has been left vague deliberately, in order to retain the degree of elasticity necessary for the term's application where and when as needed to advance one's particular political or ideological agenda. Of course, those who lack the phrenological bump of cynicism would ascribe this confusion to the artless, inherent difficulties of semantic expression all too common to our human kind. In any case, there has been, as the saying goes, much throwing about of brains on the subject, and to little effect.
But now this intractable problem has been resolved at last. And as you might expect, the man who cut this Gordian knot is one of the towering and tireless intellects of our age: Bill Clinton. To my shame, I have only recently become acquainted with his breakthrough, which was published in the December 2009 issue of Foreign Policy magazine. The chagrin I feel at my ignorance is mitigated somewhat by the fact that Mr. Clinton's brilliant formulation seems to have been largely ignored. This is no doubt because it was embedded in the vast sea of verbal gems and dazzling aperçus that the former president poured forth in his charmingly voluble fashion.
(For instance, who could fail to be dazzled by this Clintonian insight: "Tom Friedman is our most gifted journalist at actually looking at what is happening in the world and figuring out its relevance to tomorrow and figuring out a clever way to say it that sticks in your mind -- like "real men raise the gas tax." You know what I mean?" For more on this gifted journalist and his remarkable turns of phrase, see here. Mr. Clinton also lauded "big thinkers on the question of identity" like "Samuel Huntingdon, who wrote the famous book, The Clash of Civilizations." Huntingdon's book has indeed been influential, perhaps decisive, in shaping the worldview of our leading statesmen and opinion-shapers – despite the petty quibbling from second-raters, like Nobelist Amartya Sen (author of Identity and Violence), who claim that Huntingdon's magisterial wisdom is in reality somewhat lacking in intellectual heft and moral substance; some go so far as to claim his work is actually shallow, reductive, highly toxic racist tripe. But of course Mr. Clinton and our great and good know better.)
Thus primed with these sprays and sprigs of genius from the emeritus statesman, it is no surprise when we stumble onto his definitive definition of terrorism, tossed off almost casually in the midst of a disquisition on just how long the clash of civilizations known as the War on Terror might last. Cutting to the chase, as is ever his wont, Clinton nails the truth about terrorism:
Terror mean[s] killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority and go beyond national borders.
Like a bolt of sunlight breaking through a lowering cloud, Clinton's formulation floods one's brain with sudden illumination. "Killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority" – that's terrorism. Killing and robbery and coercion by people who do have state authority is, obviously, something else altogether: humanitarian intervention, perhaps, or liberation, or preservation of national security, or maintaining great-power credibility, or restoring hope, or a pre-dawn vertical insertion.
In any case, and every case, if this border-transcending activity is done by people who have state authority, then it is legitimate, it is good, it is necessary, it is noble. And even if, sometimes, on rare occasions, mistakes are made during the killing, robbing and coercing done by people who have state authority, these mistakes are only ever the result of good intentions gone awry.
So there you have it: what terrorism is depends on who does it. Naturally, there are nuances and complexities that Mr. Clinton did not go into here; it was an interview, after all, not a scholarly monograph. Obviously, the legitimacy of killing, robbing and coercing by people who have state authority is entirely dependent on the state from which that authority derives. Only those states which by their cheerful acceptance of America's benevolent guidance and abiding friendship have proven themselves worthy can legitimately exercise their authority to kill, rob and coerce. All others must forbear – or else be branded "rogue states," purveyors of "state terror," which in turn makes them eligible for "the path of action."
We are all deeply indebted to former President Clinton for bringing his legendary acumen to bear on this perplexing problem. Not for the first time do we lament the passage of the 22nd Amendment, which has prevented this acolyte of Huntingdon and Friedman from continuing to guide the ship of state. We can, however, rejoice that his own acolytes, associates, aides and advisors – and even his marriage partner! – now gird the current administration with their wise counsel. (show less)
Democrats and progressives are crying doom over the party's defeat in Massachusetts. The loss, we're told, is a blow to Barack Obama's political agenda, and so it is. They say it's a shame that yet another rightwing zealot who advocates torture is now in the Senate, and so it is. But it is precisely that agenda that led to the loss, and the shame. It is that agenda which has resurrected a rightwing party that was dead in the water, and empowered its most extreme elements.
And what is Barack Obama's agenda? What is his political program? It breaks down into three main elements: unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts, and unworkable, unwanted health care "reform" that forces people to further enrich some of the most despised conglomerates in the land. It is, in every way, a recipe for... (continue)
Democrats and progressives are crying doom over the party's defeat in Massachusetts. The loss, we're told, is a blow to Barack Obama's political agenda, and so it is. They say it's a shame that yet another rightwing zealot who advocates torture is now in the Senate, and so it is. But it is precisely that agenda that led to the loss, and the shame. It is that agenda which has resurrected a rightwing party that was dead in the water, and empowered its most extreme elements.
And what is Barack Obama's agenda? What is his political program? It breaks down into three main elements: unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts, and unworkable, unwanted health care "reform" that forces people to further enrich some of the most despised conglomerates in the land. It is, in every way, a recipe for moral, economic and political disaster. It is a gigantic anchor tied around the neck of the Democratic Party, and it will drag the whole lumbering wreck back to the bottom in short order.
It also provides a fertile breeding ground for the willful, belligerent ignorance of the Right to thrive. With such an egregiously stupid and destructive agenda at work in the White House, opponents need only say that they are against it, and they are guaranteed a wide following. Who would not be against unwinnable war, unconscionable bailouts and unworkable boondoggles serving rapacious elites? The actual positions held by these opponents – the actual policies they will pursue once in power – are given little scrutiny in such circumstances. The opponent represents change from a hated status quo – and that's enough. Later, when their odious positions come to light, it is too late.
Where have we seen this dynamic at work before? Oh yes, it was way back in November 2008. Barack Obama represented change from the hated status quo, from the agenda of the ruling Republican party. And what was that agenda? Why, unwinnable wars, unconscionable bailouts and the assiduous service of rapacious elites. The actual positions held by Obama – the actual policies that he would pursue once in power – were given little scrutiny. Except by a precious few – such as Arthur Silber, who long ago warned that Obama's election would be ruinous for genuine progressive change, that he would merely put a new gloss on the old corruption while disarming dissent from 'progressives,' who would feel bound to support the president against his rightwing enemies – even if it meant "holding their noses" and supporting bad policies like the health care reform bill or the Afghan surge.
Now it is obvious to all that Obama's core agenda is the same as Bush's: maintaining the elitist, militarist, corporatist system in all its essential elements. The "War on Terror" goes on, expanding into new lands. Torture and murder are still countenanced and concealed, in concentration camps and secret sites that are still in operation. All of Bush's most egregious assertions of authoritarian power are embraced and defended in court. Wall Street is rewarded, not regulated for its vast crimes. The legislative architect and champion of one of the most regressive, punitive, draconian acts of class war in our time – the Bankruptcy Bill, that atom bomb dropped on working people, the sick, the old and the young – has been plucked from deserved obscurity and made Vice President of the United States. A grotesquely expensive, unjust and dysfunctional health care system is not only left intact by "reform," it is given millions of new, captive customers, and more public money to guarantee its profits.
Once again, the question arises: Is this a winning agenda?
It is not just Obama's agenda, of course. It is the agenda of the Democratic Party: war, empire, and corporate profit über alles. Is this really worth defending, even with a held nose? Yet progressives and liberals will continue to insist that, bad as it is, we've got to keep supporting the Democratic Party – because there is no alternative, because otherwise, Tea Party torture mavens like Scott Brown or Sarah Palin will get elected.
But as we've already noted above, it is the Democratic agenda itself that is opening the door for extremist opponents, who then exploit the genuine dissatisfaction and genuine suffering caused by that agenda. The fact that these opponents also support the same core agenda means that the nation will keep ping-ponging back and forth, with an electorate hungry for change desperately chasing anyone who promises it – only to rush back in the other direction when the 'change agent' proves to be just another stooge of the status quo.
This destructive, corrosive dynamic – this ever-worsening death spiral – is what progressives are actually supporting and enabling when they "hold their noses" to support Democrats. The Republicans and Democrats are now simply two factions of the same party – the party of war and greed. To support one faction, no matter what, with held noses or open arms, in such a locked system only perpetuates and exacerbates its worst elements.
Oh, but there's no choice, we are told, with earnest handwringing, by our leading progressives. Third parties are not viable in our system, we are informed by our savvy progressive realists; there can be no effective political movement outside the two main parties. Indeed, no less than Digby herself has declared that the only alternative to working with this closed system (which means, in practice, supporting the Democratic Party) is violent revolution: "Pick up your muskets, kids, or STFU."
And so this is what we've come to. This is the "progressive" answer to any genuine, non-violent rejection of the Democratic faction's agenda of war and greed: "Shut the fuck up." My, wouldn't Martin Luther King Jr. be delighted with that? Wouldn't Thomas Jefferson revel in such delicious eloquence, such deep thought?
Look, I know it's not easy. I was born and raised a Yellow Dawg Democrat myself, and remained one for most of my life. I know what it's like to be hardwired for supporting Democrats, come hell or high water, giving them every benefit of the doubt, turning a blind eye here, making a furious rationalization there. These tribal loyalties are very difficult to lay down; it really can feel like turning your back on your family. And of course the belligerent, bellicose, willfully ignorant Republicans are loathsome and dangerous.
But there comes a time when you must face the truth – or be lost to truth forever. There comes a time to recognize that the Democratic Party and Republican Party are part of the same corrupted entity. There comes a time to recognize that the Democratic Party's agenda is not only ruinous in itself, unworthy of the support of anyone who cares about justice, peace, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – it is also empowering those very same loathsome and dangerous Republicans. There comes a time for even the most partisan tribalist (and I have been one) to accept the hard judgment of reality: that the Democratic Party is part of the problem, not the solution.
To say that there is no alternative to supporting this locked-in, closed-off, two-faction system of war and greed is an act of craven surrender to that system. To dismiss all hope for forging genuine alternatives to this system -- whether these be other political parties or more general movements aiming not for political power but for broader changes in social consciousness -- is a counsel of despair. It condemns us, and the world, to yet another generation of violence, chaos and corruption, another long, long journey away from the light. It is, as noted above, a recipe for disaster in every way.
But if you want more Scott Browns in power, then by all means, keep pushing that Democratic agenda. You'll soon have Scott Browns and Sarah Palins running out of your ears. (show less)
With international turf battles and diplomatic spats slowing the distribution of food, water, medicine and security in Haiti, the stricken people are now fleeing to the countryside. This may actually help the situation in one sense, as it might be easier to get aid to more people in unruined areas; however, it will also put a great strain on regions which are themselves mired in poverty and deprivation, and lacking in infrastructure.
Meanwhile, in Port-au-Prince, as aid begins to trickle in, anguished medical professionals are lamenting the multitude of unnecessary deaths that the bureaucratic bottlenecks have caused. As the Guardian reports:
Médecins sans Frontières says confusion over who is running the relief effort – the US which controls the main airport, or the UN which says ... (continue)
With international turf battles and diplomatic spats slowing the distribution of food, water, medicine and security in Haiti, the stricken people are now fleeing to the countryside. This may actually help the situation in one sense, as it might be easier to get aid to more people in unruined areas; however, it will also put a great strain on regions which are themselves mired in poverty and deprivation, and lacking in infrastructure.
Meanwhile, in Port-au-Prince, as aid begins to trickle in, anguished medical professionals are lamenting the multitude of unnecessary deaths that the bureaucratic bottlenecks have caused. As the Guardian reports:
Médecins sans Frontières says confusion over who is running the relief effort – the US which controls the main airport, or the UN which says it is overseeing distribution – may have led to hundreds of avoidable deaths because it has not been able to get essential supplies in to the country. "The co-ordination ... is not existing or not functioning at this stage," said Benoit Leduc, MSF's operations manager in Port-au-Prince. "I don't really know who is in charge. Between the two systems (the US and the UN) I don't think there is smooth liaison [over] who decides what."
...There has been criticism from some aid agencies of the Americans for giving priority to military flights at the airport while planes carrying relief supplies are unable to land. MSF has had five planes turned back from the airport in recent days, three carrying essential medical supplies and two with expert surgical personnel.
"We lost 48 hours because of these access problems," said Leduc. "Of course it is a small airport, but this is clearly a matter of defining priorities."
Asked how many avoidable deaths had been caused by the delays, he said that hundreds of critical lifesaving operations had been delayed by two days.
"We are talking about septicaemia. The morgues in the hospitals are full," he said.
... John O'Shea, the head of the Irish medical charity, Goal, [said], "there is only one thing stopping a massive and prodigious aid effort being rolled out and that is leadership and co-ordination. You have neither in Haiti at the moment."
The American government response has largely been a militarized one. But the celebrated American war machine -- whose annual budgets could lift millions out of poverty, deprivation and lack of infrastructure every year -- seems too musclebound to respond with the precision and flexibility that the situation requires. No doubt most of the individuals involved in the effort are working tirelessly; but a system designed for war, for death, destruction and domination, will never be a fit instrument for humanitarian relief.
The chief face of the United States in Haiti right now are highly-armed veterans of imperial wars, trained for conquest and occupation -- and many of them strained by multiple tours. And while many Haitians will greet the sight of any organized force coming to help them, America's long and ugly history with Haiti is not forgotten either, as Ed Pilkington notes:
The Haitian in whose house in Port-au-Prince we are staying – a prominent businessman and generally very pro-America – keeps a cherished machete on his wall. It was used, he explained to me one night, by his grandfather to attack US soldiers during the 1915-1934 American occupation of his country.
Writing on Monday, Pilkington also detailed the fatal slowness of the musclebound relief effort:
Day seven of the catastrophe, yet wherever we go we are still surrounded by crowds of people living on the streets pleading with us for water. A few miles away at the airport huge quantities of supplies are stacked high in the sun. Under a deal finalised between the heads of relevant parties on Sunday night, US troops will be responsible for securing the incoming supplies at the airport, and then moving them to four central distribution hubs. One of those hubs is at the national football stadium in downtown Port-au-Prince and another at a golf course near the US embassy.
That will free up troops from the UN peacekeeping force in Haiti, so the official line goes, to take charge of the next stage of the process – getting the aid out of the central hubs and to the neighbourhoods. For that purpose the UN has pinpointed 14 distribution locations where it, together with aid groups, will hand out the goods.
The plan sounds neat, thoroughly thought-out, fool-proof. There is only one problem: it is several days late.
A vast, permanent, completely mobile, well-trained, civilian rescue and restoration corps could easily be maintained by the United States, at the merest fraction of what it now pays out for its regular "war supplements" -- never mind the obscenely bloated 'regular' Pentagon budget. (And yes, such a corps would have a security component, made up of officers who have been trained to deal with suffering people in extremity -- not those trained to inflict suffering and extremity on people.)
This seems like a somewhat better use of public money than, say, waging endless wars to "project dominance" to the four corners of the earth, or bailing out a kleptoplutocracy that has wrecked the global economy and ruined the lives of millions around the world -- or even enriching pharmaceutical and med-biz conglomerates beyond the dreams of avarice just to claim you have passed health care "reform" without actually reforming an insanely expensive and unjust system. But like Dennis Kuchinich's idea of a "Department of Peace," any notion of a full-scale rescue corps would be hooted off the national stage by the super-savvy serious "realists" who rule our discourse, and our lives.
So we will go on as we are now. When natural disasters strike -- and they will be striking more often, and with deadlier effect, on our crowded, corroded planet in the years to come -- we will simply follow the same old pattern: launching ad hoc, inept attempts to retool a few bits and pieces of the lumbering War Machine for temporary humanitarian service. And once again, hundreds, if not thousands, of stricken people will die needless deaths.
NOTE: As noted here the other day, two good venues for giving aid to Haiti are Partners in Health and the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund, both of whom have been working in Haiti for many years. (show less)
If you really want to know the truth about the sickening wretches who run our country, if you want to know exactly what they will commit, what they will command, what they will countenance and conceal, all the way to the very top of the blood-greased pole of the Oval Office, then read every word of this astounding piece by Scott Horton in the new edition of Harper's: "The Guantanomo 'Suicides.'"
This is a full-length article which the magazine is making available for free on its website. In it, Horton unfolds the story of three men, almost certainly innocent, who were almost certainly murdered by American "interrogators" at a secret site in the American concentration camp in Guantanomo Bay, Cuba, on the night of June 9, 2006 -- an atrocity that set off a long, complex chain of deceit t... (continue)
If you really want to know the truth about the sickening wretches who run our country, if you want to know exactly what they will commit, what they will command, what they will countenance and conceal, all the way to the very top of the blood-greased pole of the Oval Office, then read every word of this astounding piece by Scott Horton in the new edition of Harper's: "The Guantanomo 'Suicides.'"
This is a full-length article which the magazine is making available for free on its website. In it, Horton unfolds the story of three men, almost certainly innocent, who were almost certainly murdered by American "interrogators" at a secret site in the American concentration camp in Guantanomo Bay, Cuba, on the night of June 9, 2006 -- an atrocity that set off a long, complex chain of deceit that continues to this day.
These killings were not only declared "suicides" by Washington; it was even claimed that the deaths were deliberate acts of "asymmetrical warfare" carried out by hardened terrorists -- "fanatics like the Nazis, Hitlerites, or the Ku Klux Klan, the people they tried at Nuremberg," as a Pentagon mouthpiece told the press. Yet as Horton notes, all three men had been put on "a list of prisoners to be sent home." One of them was only a few weeks away from his formal release. There was no credible evidence of terrorist connections against any of the men, two of whom had been sold into captivity by bounty hunters.
Yet these prisoners did have one black mark against them. They had been taking part in hunger strikes to protest conditions in the concentration camp. They were troublemakers, loudmouths. They wouldn't break. They had lawyers.
And so, according to a mass of credible evidence -- from heavily redacted official reports pieced together by the students and faculty at the law school of Seton Hall University, and from the courageous testimony of soldiers who had been on duty that night -- these three men, Salah Ahmed Al-Salami, Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi and Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani, were taken to a "black site" at Gitmo known as "Camp No." All regular military personnel were forbidden to enter the site, or even acknowledge its existence -- although some soldiers later testified to hearing screams from behind Camp No's concertina wire. Eyewitnesses say that three prisoners were taken, one by one, in a white van to Camp No on the night of June 9; and later, just before the alarm went up about the "suicides," the van returned and unloaded a mysterious cargo.
As Horton notes, the official accounts of the "suicides" are risible:
According to the NCIS, each prisoner had fashioned a noose from torn sheets and T-shirts and tied it to the top of his cell’s eight-foot-high steel-mesh wall. Each prisoner was able somehow to bind his own hands, and, in at least one case, his own feet, then stuff more rags deep down into his own throat. We are then asked to believe that each prisoner, even as he was choking on those rags, climbed up on his washbasin, slipped his head through the noose, tightened it, and leapt from the washbasin to hang until he asphyxiated.
[Yes, that's the same NCIS that has its noble adventures in the pursuit of truth and justice celebrated each week in a top-rated TV show.]
What really happened to the men? One clue comes from yet another hunger striker, Shaker Aamer, who was "interrogated" that same night, but managed to survive:
He described the events in detail to his lawyer, Zachary Katznelson, who was permitted to speak to him several weeks later. Katznelson recorded every detail of Aamer’s account and filed an affidavit with the federal district court in Washington, setting it out:
On June 9th, 2006, [Aamer] was beaten for two and a half hours straight. Seven naval military police participated in his beating. Mr. Aamer stated he had refused to provide a retina scan and fingerprints. He reported to me that he was strapped to a chair, fully restrained at the head, arms and legs. The MPs inflicted so much pain, Mr. Aamer said he thought he was going to die. The MPs pressed on pressure points all over his body: his temples, just under his jawline, in the hollow beneath his ears. They choked him. They bent his nose repeatedly so hard to the side he thought it would break. They pinched his thighs and feet constantly. They gouged his eyes. They held his eyes open and shined a mag-lite in them for minutes on end, generating intense heat. They bent his fingers until he screamed. When he screamed, they cut off his airway, then put a mask on him so he could not cry out.
The treatment Aamer describes is noteworthy because it produces excruciating pain without leaving lasting marks. Still, the fact that Aamer had his airway cut off and a mask put over his face “so he could not cry out” is alarming. This is the same technique that appears to have been used on the three deceased prisoners.
Aamer, who wife is British, continues to be held in the concentration camp, despite the UK government's request for his release, and despite the fact that there is "no suggestion that the Americans intend to charge him before a military commission, or in a federal criminal court, [or] indeed, [that] they have [any] meaningful evidence linking him to any crime." The only dangerous thing about Aamer is what he knows, and what he can tell.
Horton examines the official cover-up of these deaths in great detail. The deliberate and systematic deceptions began in the first hours after the killings -- and are still going on, carried forward with great guile by the Obama Administration. All along the way, evidence was destroyed, records were falsified, eyewitnesses were ignored -- or threatened. When the whistleblowers took the case to the new Administration in early 2009, hoping for a fairer hearing from the progressive young president, they were fobbed off with earnest promises of a thorough investigation by a team which included a close crony and former law partner of new Attorney General Eric Holder. But after months of inaction, the probe was suddenly closed, with government officials refusing to explain the decision.
Perhaps the most gruesome act in this bipartisan cover-up was the mutilation of the dead men's bodies. All three of them had their neck organs removed by military pathologists in the earliest stages of the investigation. As Horton notes:
An odd admission, given that these are the very body parts—the larynx, the hyoid bone, and the thyroid cartilage—that would have been essential to determining whether death occurred from hanging, from strangulation, or from choking. These parts remained missing when the men’s families finally received their bodies.
This mutilation -- "the removal of the structure that would have been the natural focus of the autopsy" -- prevented the families from carrying out proper forensic examinations of their own. Their request for the return of their children's body parts went unanswered.
All they are left with -- all we are left with -- are mutilated corpses and lies.
There is much more in Horton's piece, and again, I urge you to read it in full. Hold it in your mind the next time some sanctimonious official begins extolling the exceptional virtues of our shining city on the hill. And remember -- always remember -- that this militarist system of lawless violence and brutal domination is what our greasy pole-climbers, of whatever political stripe, want to have; it is what they want to wield. It is precisely this kind of power -- of life and death, of sway and command -- that they yearn for, fight for, cheat for and lie for in the bizarre and hollow rituals that our empire stages every four years. (show less)
One can almost feel the disappointment amongst Western media mavens that earthquake-stricken Haitians have not, in fact, degenerated into packs of feral animals tearing each other to pieces. Day after day, every single possible isolated incident of panic, anger, "looting" (as the removal of provisions from ruined stores by starving people is called) and vigilantism has been highlighted -- and often headlined -- by the most "respectable" news sources. [As you can imagine, Britain's truly vile -- but eminently "respectable" and politically pampered -- Daily Mail is a leader in this odious field, with stories about "slum warlords" leading gangs of violent "pillagers."]
And yet the prophesied riots never seem to materialize. Outlets such as the New York Times are moved to remark, with seem... (continue)
One can almost feel the disappointment amongst Western media mavens that earthquake-stricken Haitians have not, in fact, degenerated into packs of feral animals tearing each other to pieces. Day after day, every single possible isolated incident of panic, anger, "looting" (as the removal of provisions from ruined stores by starving people is called) and vigilantism has been highlighted -- and often headlined -- by the most "respectable" news sources. [As you can imagine, Britain's truly vile -- but eminently "respectable" and politically pampered -- Daily Mail is a leader in this odious field, with stories about "slum warlords" leading gangs of violent "pillagers."]
And yet the prophesied riots never seem to materialize. Outlets such as the New York Times are moved to remark, with seeming wonder, "Amid Desperation, Mood Stays Calm," as the paper noted in one sub-headline on its website on Monday. Astonishingly, the Haitians are acting almost like real human beings in any vast disaster: trying to stay alive, trying to care for loved ones, trying to help strangers, trying to get through the worst and reach a place where they can begin to rebuild their lives and communities. The media have sought strenuously to revive the bogus narrative that they foisted on the destruction of New Orleans: "Black Folk Gone Wild!" But thus far, they have been palpably disappointed.
Of course, there is anger among the stricken populace. Anger at the slowness of relief efforts, and anger at the utter collapse of the "government" which was installed by the American-backed coup in 2004. The "president" of this regime has been conspicuous by his absence in the crisis, neither speaking to the people by radio nor appearing among them. This may change now that sufficient American troops have arrived to bolster his confidence, but it has been a striking example of the vast disconnection between the implanted government and the people. The anger now submerged by the need for immediate relief and recovery may emerge with strong force later -- especially if the American-led restoration efforts simply return the nation to the strangulation of the pre-quake status quo.
Barack Obama's cynicism in placing George W. Bush, of all people, as a figurehead of America's "abiding commitment" to Haiti is jaw-dropping. Not only did Bush preside over one of the most colossally inept and destructive responses to a natural disaster in modern times -- while also inflicting the unnatural disaster of mass murder in Iraq -- it was his administration that engineered the latest coup in Haiti, saddling it with an unpopular, powerless government that simply collapsed in the earthquake. Choosing Bush to spearhead relief for Haiti is like hiring Ted Bundy as a grief counselor for murder victims.
Bush's co-figurehead, Bill Clinton, is hardly a better choice, of course. As we noted here earlier this week, it was Clinton who imposed a brutal economic and political stranglehold on Haiti as his "condition" for restoring the democratically elected government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1996 -- after Aristide had been ousted earlier in a coup engineered by the first President George Bush.
Both of these ex-presidents bear great responsibility for creating the conditions of dire poverty, ill health, corruption and political instability that have made the effects of this natural disaster so much worse. Yet these are the men whom Obama has made the public face of America's humanitarian mission.
In the short run, I suppose it doesn't matter. Obama was bound to pick some hidebound Establishment figure anyway, so why not these two? Maybe Bush and Clinton can squeeze a few extra relief dollars out of the bloated plutocrats they run with -- and Clinton can also work the celebs who still like to bask in the afterglow of his former imperial power. If the prominence they have gained by immoral means can provide immediate relief to those whom they have so grievously afflicted, then so be it.
But in the long run, their selection as the symbols of America's altruistic concern for Haiti's wellbeing certainly does not augur well for any genuine reconfiguration of Haiti's crippling political and economic arrangements. On the contrary; it signals pretty clearly that the imperial gaming of Haiti will go on.(show less)
King for a Day 18 Jan 2010chris@chris-floyd.com (Chris Floyd) To mark the day set aside to honor that cuddly, kindly American hero of yesteryear, we offer this paraphrase from Woody Allen:
"If Martin Luther King Jr. came back and saw the things being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up."
Arthur Silber has surfaced again after a long silence due to chronic -- and worsening -- illness. As you can see from this post, his health remains precarious, and he is need of assistance -- not only for the bare modicum of health care that he might be able to eke out with a few extra dollars, but also just to survive on a daily basis: buying food, paying rent, etc.
Silber has no insurance, and no other means of support other than what he is given for the writing on his blog. And readers here know that his writing and insights are incomparable, and that Silber gives us a deep and bracing viewpoint that we sorely need. [Just check out the list of "Major Essays" on his site -- or take a random stroll through his archives -- and you will see what I mean.]
Arthur Silber has surfaced again after a long silence due to chronic -- and worsening -- illness. As you can see from this post, his health remains precarious, and he is need of assistance -- not only for the bare modicum of health care that he might be able to eke out with a few extra dollars, but also just to survive on a daily basis: buying food, paying rent, etc.
Silber has no insurance, and no other means of support other than what he is given for the writing on his blog. And readers here know that his writing and insights are incomparable, and that Silber gives us a deep and bracing viewpoint that we sorely need. [Just check out the list of "Major Essays" on his site -- or take a random stroll through his archives -- and you will see what I mean.]
So if you have anything to give, please consider throwing a bit of it Silber's way, as soon as you can. (show less)
Via Mark Crispin Miller, the Center for Constitutional Rights points to some venues for getting help to the people of Haiti: Partners in Health and the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund. You can find several more in this listing from the New York Times.
I.
The relentlessly maintained, deliberately inflicted political and economic ruin of Haiti has a direct bearing on the amount of death and devastation that the country is suffering today after the earthquake. It will also greatly cripple any recovery from this natural disaster. As detailed below, Washington's rapacious economic policies have destroyed all attempts to build a sustainable economy in Haiti, driving people off the land and from small communities into packed, dangerous, unhealthy shantytowns, to try to e... (continue)
(UPDATED BELOW)
Via Mark Crispin Miller, the Center for Constitutional Rights points to some venues for getting help to the people of Haiti: Partners in Health and the Haiti Emergency Relief Fund. You can find several more in this listing from the New York Times.
I.
The relentlessly maintained, deliberately inflicted political and economic ruin of Haiti has a direct bearing on the amount of death and devastation that the country is suffering today after the earthquake. It will also greatly cripple any recovery from this natural disaster. As detailed below, Washington's rapacious economic policies have destroyed all attempts to build a sustainable economy in Haiti, driving people off the land and from small communities into packed, dangerous, unhealthy shantytowns, to try to eke out a meager existence in the sweatshops owned by Western elites and their local cronies. All attempts at changing a manifestly unjust society have been ruthlessly suppressed by the direct or collateral hand of Western elites.
The result? Millions of people -- weakened by hunger, deprivation, malnutrition, disease -- living jammed together in precarious, substandard housing. A lack of the physical, financial and civic infrastructure needed to support a decent life in ordinary times -- and to provide proper assistance, and a strong framework for rebuilding, when disaster strikes. Even a far lesser earthquake than the one that struck this week would have caused an unconscionable amount of unnecessary suffering in a nation that has been as ruthlessly and deliberately throttled as Haiti.
With Hurricane Katrina, we saw how callously and unjustly America's elites reacted to the destruction of one of their own cities. Politically connected Mississippi millionaires got prompt and copious assistance -- while many New Orleans natives are still refugees, scattered across the country years after the flood. And this in a nation in which the infrastructures -- though rapidly rotting from the corruption of greed and militarism -- are still strong. What hope then for Haiti?
Yes, there will now be a great outpouring of immediate aid, as there always is after any spectacular disaster. And of course, this is laudable, and I encourage anyone who can to contribute what they can to these efforts. But unless there is a sea-change in American policy, unless there finally comes an end to the curse that has been laid on Haiti -- not by God, or by the Devil, but by the hard hearts of elites following blindly in the cruel traditions of their predecessors -- then this flurry of caring and attention will soon give way again, as it has always done, to callous disregard, brutal repression and inhumane exploitation.
The tale of these cruel traditions -- and the "continuity" with them that Obama has already displayed -- does not augur well for such a change. But as that wise man, Edsel Floyd, always says, we live in hope and die in despair. And such a hope for Haiti is worth holding onto, and working toward.
At the same time, hope must not be blind; you have to acknowledge the grim realities in order to know just what you're up against. So let's take a long, hard look.
II.
Scant hours after the earthquake hit, televangelist Pat Robertson was on the air, declaiming to his millions of viewers that the reason Haiti was stricken by this disaster -- and has been suffering grievously for 200 years -- is because the Haitians "swore a pact with the devil" in order to win their freedom from their French colonial overlords the early 1800s.
And while such vomitious expulsions are to be expected from this well-wadded, politically-wired, virulently extremist mullah (once aptly described in these pages as a "dictator-coddler, blood diamond merchant, Jew-hater and milkshake shiller") this time there is a very tiny grain of truth to be found in the splattered mass of Robertson's upchucking. The Haitians have indeed been cursed for 200 years, and the curse does indeed go back to their liberation. But pace Robertson, the source of this curse is not metaphysical. As I noted in a piece written in 2004:
Exactly two hundred years ago, Haitian slaves overthrew their French masters -- the first successful national slave revolt in history. What Spartacus dreamed of doing, the Haitian slaves actually accomplished. It was a tremendous achievement -- and the white West has never forgiven them for it.
In order to win international recognition for their new country, Haiti was forced to pay "reparations" to the slaveowners -- a crushing burden of debt they were still paying off at the end of the 19th century. The United States, which refused to recognize the country for more than 60 years, invaded Haiti in 1915, primarily to open it up to "foreign ownership of local concerns." After 19 years of occupation, the Americans backed a series of bloodthirsty dictatorships to protect these "foreign owners." And still it goes on.
Indeed it does. The 2004 piece detailed Washington's latest long, bipartisan squeeze play on Haiti, which culminated in a coup engineered by the Bush Administration -- the second time in which a U.S. president named George Bush had ousted the democratically-elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide from office. It is tale worth telling again:
Although the [2004] Haiti coup was widely portrayed as an irresistible upsurge of popular discontent, it was of course the result of years of hard work by Bush's dedicated corrupters of democracy, as William Bowles of Information Clearinghouse reports. Bushist bagmen funded the political opposition to President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, smuggled guns to exiled Haitian warlords, and carried out a relentless strangulation of the county, cutting off long-promised financial and structural aid to one of the poorest nations on earth until food prices were soaring, unemployment spiked to 70 percent, and the broken-backed government lost control of society to armed gangs of criminals, fanatics and the merely desperate. Meanwhile, Haiti was forced to pay $2 million a month on debts run up by the murderous (U.S.-backed) dictatorships that had ruled the island since the American military occupation of 1915-1934. ...
The ostensible reason for Bush's deadly squeeze play was Haiti's disputed elections in 2000. That vote, only the nation's third free election in 200 years, was indeed marred by reports of irregularities -- although these were not nearly as egregious as the well-documented hijinks which saw a certain runner-up candidate appointed to the White House that same year. There was no question that Aristide and his party received an overwhelming majority of legitimate votes; however, out of the 7,500 offices up for grabs, election observers did find that seven senate results seemed of dodgy provenance.
So what happened? The seven disputed senators resigned. New elections for the seats were called, but the opposition - two elitist factions financed by Washington's favorite engines of subversion, the Orwellian-monikered "National Endowment for Democracy" and "International Republican Institute" -- refused to take part. The government broke down because the legislature couldn't convene. When Bush came in, he tightened the screws of the international blockade of the island, insisting that $500 million in desperately needed aid could not be released unless the opposition participated in new elections - while he was simultaneously paying the opposition not to participate.
The ultimate aim of this brutal pretzel logic was to grind Haiti's destitute people further into the ground and destroy Aristide's ability to govern. His real crime, of course, was not the Florida-style election follies or the reported "tyranny." ... No, Aristide did something far worse than stuffing ballots or killing people -- he tried to raise the minimum wage, to the princely sum of two dollars a day. This move outraged the American corporations -- and their local lackeys -- who have for generations used Haiti as a pool of dirt-cheap labor and sky-high profits. It was the last straw for the elitist factions, one of which is actually led by an American citizen and former Reagan-Bush appointee, manufacturing tycoon Andy Apaid.
Apaid was the point man for the rapacious Reagan-Bush "market reform" drive in Haiti. Of course, "reform," in the degraded jargon of the privateers, means exposing even the very means of survival and sustenance to the ravages of powerful corporate interests. For example, the Reagan-Bush plan forced Haiti to lift import tariffs on rice, which had long been a locally-grown staple. Then they flooded Haiti with heavily subsidized American rice, destroying the local market and throwing thousands of self-sufficient farmers out of work. With a now-captive market, the American companies jacked up their prices, spreading ruin and hunger throughout Haitian society. The jobless farmers provided new fodder for the factories of Apaid and his cronies. Reagan and Bush chipped in by abolishing taxes for American corporations who set up Haitian sweatshops. The result was a precipitous drop in wages - and life expectancy. Aristide's first election in 1990 threatened these cozy arrangements, so he was duly ejected by a military coup, with Bush I's not-so-tacit connivance.
But as we said, the latest round of punishment for Haiti was a thoroughly bipartisan affair:
Bill Clinton restored Aristide to office in 1994 - but only after forcing him to agree to, yes, "market reforms." In fact, it was Clinton, the privateers' pal, who instigated the post-election aid embargo that Bush II used to such devastating effect. Aristide's chief failing as a leader was his attempt to live up to this bipartisan blackmail. As in every other nation that's come under the IMF whip, Haiti's already-fragile economy collapsed. Bush family retainers like Apaid then shoved the country into total chaos, making it easy prey for the warlords whom Bush operatives - many of them old Iran-Contra hands - supplied with arms through the Dominican Republic, the Boston Globe reports. ...
When Aristide agreed to a deal, brokered by his fellow leaders in the Caribbean, that would have effectively ceded power to the Bush-funded opposition but at least preserved the lineaments of Haitian democracy - Apaid and the boys turned down the offer, with the blessing of their paymasters in Washington, who suddenly claimed they had no influence over their recalcitrant hired hands. ...
Instead, Aristide was told by armed American gunmen that if he didn't resign, he would be left to die at the hands of the rebels. Then he was bundled onto a waiting plane and dumped in the middle of Africa. Within hours, the Bush-backed terrorists were marching openly through Port-au-Prince, executing Aristide's supporters.
Guess they won't be asking for two dollars a day now, eh? Mission accomplished!
III.
Of course, all of that happened in the bad old days, before Barack Obama ushered us into a new, "post-racial" era. Surely this man of vision and compassion, himself a scion of Africa, would at last put an end to Haiti's punishment for rising up against its white masters.
But it was not to be. As noted here last year, in "Cry, the Unforgiven Country":
Obama and his "superstar" secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, are loudly championing the latest egregious, brutal farce that Washington and the West have foisted upon the uppity natives of Haiti.
Senatorial elections held this month by the government imposed on Haiti after the U.S.-backed coup of 2004 ... produced a turnout of less than 10 percent of eligible voters: a result that mocks any notion of a popular, legitimate democracy. But this is not because the Haitians are so lazy and disinterested that they couldn't be bothered to vote. Nor that they are so satisfied with the benevolent, paternal care of their American-appointed masters that they saw no need to let silly electoral contests trouble their bucolic life.
No, the 90 percent refusal rate was in fact a massive protest action, driven chiefly by the fact that the American-backed government would not allow the most popular party -- the party of the government ousted by the 2004 coup -- to run a slate of candidates in the election. By clerkly hook and bureaucratic crook, Haiti's election overseers banned the Fanmi Lavalas slate back in February. At that moment, the April elections became a dead letter, a meaningless farce -- yet another cruel joke played on the people of Haiti.
How did the enlightened progressives of the new American administration respond? John Caruso reports:
CLINTON: The U.S. removed a military dictatorship in 1995, clearing the way for democracy. And after several years of political disputes, common in any country making a transition, Haiti began to see progress. And the national and presidential elections in 2006 really moved Haiti’s democracy forward. What the president and the prime minister are seeking is to maintain a strong commitment to democratic governance which will take another step forward with elections for the senate on Sunday.
To translate from the vulgar Clintonian dialect: 1) "political disputes" refers to the overwhelmingly popular presidency of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, which was "disputed" (and continually undermined) by the U.S. and its fifth column in Haiti; 2) Haiti "began to see progress" thanks to the U.S.-backed coup of Aristide in 2004; and 3) the 2006 elections that "really moved Haiti's democracy forward" excluded both Aristide and FL's preferred candidate in his stead (Father Gerard Jean-Juste, thrown in prison on invented charges by the U.S.-backed government in order to prevent him from running), resulting in the ascension of Rene Preval—who understands clearly who's the boss, and therefore merits a pat on the head from Clinton.
Which brings us to today's senatorial elections, in which the U.S./Haitian "strong commitment to democratic governance...will take another step forward" via the calculated suppression of the majority party's ability to run a slate of candidates...
So the centuries-long U.S. project of democracy prevention in Haiti is still going swimmingly. And anyone who feared that our first black president might be less sympathetic to the need to smash the democratic aspirations of the first free black nation in the hemisphere can rest assured: Obama will never let race — or anything else — stop him from doing the empire's dirty work.
It is certain such dirty work will soon be afoot once more -- and we must fight it, call attention to it, and not let Haiti disappear in the imperial shadow yet again. But at this moment, the most pressing concern is the human suffering in Haiti. So again, do look into the relief efforts noted above, or any others you might prefer.
UPDATE: John Caruso has more background on one of the relief agencies recommended above, plus more historical context for Haiti's suffering, including this devastating piece by Noam Chomsky. (show less)
Most of the content on this page is extracted from RSS sources from
various websites, blogs, and youtube channels. If an author prefers their
content not appear on these pages please email the below address
and the offending material will be immediately removed.
The reader is urged to click through to the
original material appearing on the original websites.
If the reader is thereby introduced to new and useful content
then this humble news aggregator has fulfilled its purpose.
(show less)
(show less)
A heartfelt message from Amazon rainforest communities in Ecuador to the new Chairman and CEO of Chevron: “We don’t want to continue dying of cancer.”
Over the course of three decades in Ecuador, Chevron dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste water and spilled roughly 17 million gallons of crude oil. “Surpassing the [...]
By 2080, anyone with a direct interest in learning how Dr. David Kelly died, will themselves be dead.That's how an Oxford coroner reacted to a recent ruling ordering the details of the former United Nations weapons inspector's death locked away for 70 years, according to a Mail Online report.Kelly's story, however, was gravely important in 2003, just before he was found dead in the woods behind his home in Oxfordshire, U.K. As the BBC revealed in the wake of his passing, he had been the key source behind a story claiming intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was "sexed up."Hours before his death, he reportedly e-mailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller, warning her of "many dark actors playing games," according to the BBC.Lord Hutton, the British judge who led t... (continue)
(show less)
Peace Of The Action
66
ratings
Time:
09:46
More in
News & Politics
For Immediate Release:
This is really out of control … how do you ever recover from that kind of deficit? Hard times are ahead in the U.S., the only question being how long can the government postpone the inevitable. This report at Marketwatch:
World-renowned fake NGO "Freedom Haus" released its annual fake Freedom Report this week. Once again, Bolivia has been downscaled to "partly free," a designation it has held since earlier this decade. Before that it was just plain old "free."
What changed? In the ensuing years, the country elected its first indigenous president, dramatically increased the economic, political and social mobility of its population and oh yes one other small thing...finally ended the practice of actual RACE BASED SLAVERY that had been in place since the colonial period.
On the other hand, Bolivia has tightened regulations on foreign extractive corporations, et voila: less free! See how this works? Way to go, Freedom! You are totally on the march.
Herbert Hoover, 31st President, by Douglas Chandor. Just sayin'. (photo: cliff1066)
Breaking tonight, the President will propose a discretionary, non-security spending freeze for three years starting in FY 2011 as part of his State of the Union address.
(show less)
Conservatives have had it with President Barack Obama -- in the latest Gallup poll, he earned a just 23 percent approval rating from Republican voters. Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, have the president's back, awarding him an 88 percent backing.But liberal support -- at least for the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel -- seems to be waning. And Emanuel seems to be slapping back.According to a report Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal, Emanuel told a liberal strategy group in August that a plan to run advertisements against conservative Democrats who were "balking at Mr. Obama's health-care overhaul" was grossly unwise."F—ing retarded," Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to participants cited by the paper... (continue)
Our first post on the American Turkish Council’s new chairman, Richard Armitage, focused on his early years and his involvement with Southeast Asia’s Golden Triangle. Our second post focused on Armitage’s history in Washington and his involvement with the Iran-Contra Affair. This post will focus on Armitage’s role as the Deputy Secretary of State for the second Bush administration and the 11 September attacks.
In 1999 Richard Armitage joined an “advisory team” put together by Condoleezza Rice for the George W. Bush presidential campaign. Other members of this “advisory team” included Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Zoellick, and Donald Rumsfeld all of whom, along with Armitage, were signatories to the 1998 PNAC letter to President Clinton that advocated regime change in Iraq through the bogus... (continue)
32000 Scientists
Gaza, January 26, 2010 (Pal Telegraph) - Fifteen young female students from the Gaza Strip capped off a trip of a lifetime today at United Nations Headquarters in New York, the final stop on a week-long visit to the United States they received for their achievements in a human rights education programme run by the world body.
The visit to New York, including today's meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, followed stops in Atlanta, where they met with former US President Jimmy Carter at the Carter Center, as well as Washington D.C., for visits to the White House and other national monuments.
The group, which included 15 Palestinian eighth graders and three of their teachers, are the top achievers in the human rights, conflict resolution and tolerance programme taught in Gaza by t... (continue)
¡Matt Lawrence y Hermanos al Rescate, para el fondo del aula!
Traducido por CubaNews – Inglés
Ya se acabaron las vacaciones, y Machetera por fin puede volver a atender su vasto imperio editorial y su desbordado buzón.
Como nuestros fieles lectores conocen, de vez en cuando tomo una de las cartas de la sección de comentarios y la publico por separado si merece una respuesta punto por punto. El remitente de esta carta en particular, un tal Matt Lawrence, que la envía desde una dirección de correo electrónico creada en honor al divertido nombre de su “ficticio” personaje piloto, Trig Combs, comenzó a copiar y pegar su carta no sólo para Machetera sino para otros activistas de solidaridad, y lo está haciendo en nombre de los Cinco Héroes. Copiar y pegar es pura vagancia (si uno va a defende... (continue)
(show less)
We at the ANSWER Coalition extend our heartfelt solidarity to
all of our Haitian sisters and brothers, as well as to all those who have friends and
family there, as Haiti copes with the destruction and grief of the massive 7.0 magnitude
earthquake that struck yesterday.
Journalist and author Naomi
Klein spoke in New York last night and addressed the crisis in Haiti: “We have to be
absolutely clear that this tragedy—which is part natural, part unnatural—must, under no
circumstances, be used to, one, further indebt Haiti and, two, to push through unpopular
corporatist policies in the interest of our corporations. This is not conspiracy theory.
They have done it again and again.” [includes rush transcript]
We discuss the situation in
Haiti following Tuesday’s massive earthquake, as well as the history of Haiti, with two
guests who have spent a lot of time there: Bill Quigley, the legal director at the
Center for Constitutional Rights, and Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for
Justice & Democracy in Haiti. [includes rush transcript]
Focus on Israel: Harvesting Haitian Organs
It's a familiar scene for Eve Tetaz. She sits in the cold, damp holding cell, crammed together with other women. Some, like her, were arrested for protesting. Others are locked up for drugs, assault or prostitution.
The other women in the D.C. jail affectionately call her grandma. Her cellmates, or as she calls them, her "sisters in chains," let her sleep on the bottom bunk so the 78-year-old doesn't have to climb to the top. Instead of letting her stand in line to get her jail-issued bologna or cheese sandwiches, many of the women bring them to her. "These are women I probably even wouldn't see passing on the street," Tetaz said. "They are very gracious to... (continue)
San Diego Brown Baggers Say No More Money for War at Susan Davis' Office | Progressive Democrats of America
As part of the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) Brown Bag Lunch Vigils, a delegation of the Metro San Diego PDA met with staffers in Congresswoman Susan Davis’ office [yesterday] afternoon to let her know that they expect their representative to act in the interest of the working people in her district and not fat-cat corporate lobbyists. In keeping with the theme, "Brown Bag Lunch Vigils" former Democratic Congressional candidate, Jeeni Criscenzo, who led the delegation, brought a basket of brown bag lunches with homemade scones, peanut-butter and jelly sandwiches and organic apples, so people who were taking their lunch break to meet with their representative could have ... (continue)
Eat lunch for peace--become a "brown-bagger" | Progressive Democrats of America
Southern Indiana's new PDA chapter participated in its first event this past Wednesday, when four of us (Darleen Cox, David Cox, Linda Mitchell and Carol Tvaroh) went to Congressman Baron Hill's office in Jeffersonville and met for about an hour with Hill's assistant, Adam Dickey, who told us that he was already aware that we had started a PDA chapter. We explained that we would support Baron Hill, but that would also continue looking for the likeliest candidate to back our progressive agenda in the future.
Hill has privately voiced his support for single-payer healthcare, but we have yet to get him out of the closet on this issue. It looks as though he's planning a run for governor in 2012, but he says ... (continue)
Pete Perry of the Beltway Beast Blogspot wrote:
Today Judge Lynn Liebovitz sentenced noted anti-war activist Eve Tetaz to 25 days in D.C. Jail (beginning today), another 50 days suspended, 1 year probation with a stay away order from all of Capitol Hill. More details and Eve's contact information forthcoming. Below is Eve's sentencing statement she issued today in court. Washington Post Reporter Keith Alexander will be publishing a feature story on eve within a couple days.
Sentencing Statement, January 25, 2010:
Your honor, I do not question the process by which a jury of my peers found me guilty of unlawful conduct. I assume responsibility for the personal costs of my actions, which I firmly believe promote justice ad peace in the world in which we all live.
My efforts to give voic... (continue)
(UPDATED BELOW)
