Because the ultimate aim -- the only aim, really -- of the militarists' policy toward Iran is regime change. They don't care about "national security" or the "threat" from Iran's non-existent nuclear arsenal; they know that there is no threat whatsoever that Iran will attack Israel -- or even more ludicrously, the United States -- even if Tehran did have nukes. They don't care about the suffering of the Iranian people under a draconian, repressive and corrupt regime. They are not worried about Iran's "sponsorship of terrorism," for, as we've seen, the militarists thrive on -- when they are not actively fomenting -- the fear and anguish caused by terrorism. This fear is the grease that drives the ever-expanding war machine and 'justifies' its own ever-increasing draconian powers and corruption.

No, in the end, the sole aim of the militarist policy is to overthrow Iran's current political system and replace it with a regime that will bow to the hegemony of the United States and its regional deputy, Israel. There is no essential difference in aim or method between today's policy and that of 1953. (Except that the regional deputy in those days was Britain, not Israel.) What they want is compliance, access to resources and another strategic stronghold in the heart of the oil lands -- precisely what they wanted, and got, with the installation of the Shah and his corruption-ridden police state more than a half-century ago.

They play the long game, our militarists. For example, they agitated openly -- and  plotted covertly -- for the invasion of Iraq for almost 10 years before they finally got their way. They have worked for 30 years now to restore a client regime in Iran, and today, with the relentless bipartisan demonizing of the Iranians -- and the "mushroom cloud" fearmongering over a non-existent nuclear weapons program -- they are as close as they have ever been to their goal.

By guest blogger Marti Hiken The words we hear in so many movies and television shows when someone is arrested, “Read him his Miranda rights,” no longer have meaning. These rights are dead because the courts have “interpreted” them out of existence. Throughout our country, if you don’t say the right words during police interrogations, your rights to remain silent and to a lawyer don’t kick in. This leads to unfettered police powerwhen any arrestee tries to protect herself in a powerless situation when confronted by the police. And in a courtroom, all your statements are admissible against you. This is about the only phrase left to ensure that you retain your rights:  “I want to remain silent. I want a lawyer.” Again, another way: “I don’t want to speak to you anymore without my lawyer being present.” It is important not to answer further questions after asserting these rights; instead, merely repeat the statement. The reason for the Miranda warnings in the first place was that the torture and cruelty inflicted on prisoners in this country decades ago and especially in the South, brought a public outcry. It resulted in the Miranda v. Arizona, (384 U.S. 436) decision in 1966. In that decision, the Court attempted to strike the appropriate balance between law enforcement interests in obtaining a confession and a suspect’s Fifth Amendmentright not to incriminate himself.  “….[T]he decision mandated that the suspect be informed prior to any custodial interrogation that he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney and that no interrogation can occur until the suspect waives these rights. Moreover, the suspect can assert these rights any point during the interrogation and, if he does, questioning must immediately cease.”  (Strauss, Marcy, “The Sounds of Silence: Reconsidering the Invocation of the Right to Remain Silent Under Miranda,” “William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,” March 2009. In her article Strauss lists the status of the courts’ interpretations of Miranda warnings state-by-state.) Custodial police interrogations can go on for hours on end and the Miranda Court “recognized that they were so inherently coercive as to create a presumption that a resulting confession was involuntary unless the suspect was explicitly told prior to questioning that he need not answer questions and that he had the right to consult with an attorney for advice.” (Ainsworth, Janet, “’You have the right to remain silent…’ but only if you ask for it just so: the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law.” The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, Vol. 15.1, 2008, p. 3) The problem is that “ambiguous” statements aren’t enough, and in actuality, everything you say will be interpreted by the courts to be ambiguous other than the sentences:  “I want to remain silent. I want a lawyer.” Invoking the Miranda rights means clear, unequivocal and unambiguous declarations in the interrogation room. Of course, in jail there is a power disadvantage in that the tempo, timing, and level of brutality are set by the police. So, no hedged or indirect language invokes the rights. - No theoretical comments about the availability of counsel, such as “Could I get a lawyer?” or “May I call a lawyer?” - No language that softens the demand for a lawyer: “It seems like I need a lawyer.” - No logistic questions: “Could you get me my wallet and bring my lawyer’s business card to me?” - No imploring ambiguous language: “I don’t want to talk about it.” or “I won’t talk anymore.” - No being and remaining silent (you must be definite and utter words) - No combining demands:

It is a tough sell for any president who lives inside what Obama refers to as "the bubble," but tougher still for Obama. His first year in office was defined in part by a paradox. He is a rare president who comes from the middle class, yet people still perceive him as disconnected from it.

As he arrived in Nashua, nearly two-thirds of Americans believed that his economic policies had hurt the country or made no difference at all; almost half thought he did not understand their problems.

Those shortcomings were evident last month when Obama invited the previous two presidents to join him at the White House for a news conference about the U.S. relief effort in Haiti. George W. Bush was simple and frank: "Just send us your cash," he said. ... In the two weeks since, Obama appears to have learned from his predecessors' trademark strengths.

Prescott, Ariz: Today the Post ran an article titled "Despite his roots, Obama struggles to show he's connected to middle class." The Post's own polling shows that 57% of people think the president "understands people like you". ... Why do we get articles like this that are refuted by your own research? Scott Wilson: Are those 57 percent self-identified as "middle class?" A lot of Americans think he understands Wall Street better than he understands them.

We must resurrect market discipline as a complement to prudential supervision. Otherwise, the spectre of government support threatens to confuse price signals and create a class of institutions that operate under different rules of the game.

First, stakeholders need better, more timely information about financial institutions.

Second, reforms must encourage robust competition. Smaller, dynamic companies, properly supervised, should be able to take market share. This is the way to level the playing field, far better than bullying or co-opting the largest, most interconnected institutions. But this won’t happen if policy divides those that are too big to fail from those that are not. It won’t happen if select incumbents have permanent funding advantages. And it won’t happen if policy preferences deter would-be competitors from taking on the big guys.

Third, it is up to financial institutions to demonstrate that they can fail without a need for extraordinary government support. Simplifying corporate forms and structures so companies can quickly be unwound, particularly across borders, would be a welcome development. In a global economy, big is not bad. But greater dispersion of assets and liabilities demands unprecedented international co-operation. Policy co-ordination with other major countries is needed.

I’ve been a trustee of broker-dealers, little cases, and the effect of their bankruptcies on the market was significant. Here you want to take one of the largest financial companies, one of the biggest issuers of commercial paper, and put it in bankruptcy in a situation where this has never happened before. What you are going to do now is take liquidity from the markets. The markets will collapse. This will be Armageddon.

1. Mortgages must be seasoned 12 months before they can be securitized 2. The originator must retain at least a 5% interest in the credit risk of the assets sold 3. The interest of all parties to a transaction must clearly be disclosed, along with their fees 4. Re-securitizations (meaning CDOs) are not permitted (note a disconnect here; the e-mailed and verbal reports suggested they were banned entirely; the language at the FDIC website seems to indicate that they are allowed in limited circumstances, but any use of synthetic assets, meaning credit default swaps, in a asset-backed CDO is verboten) 5. Compensation to servicers will include incentives for loss mitigation

The FDIC included various proposals to insure transparency for investors, including a requirement that all deals be arms length, to third party investors (no affiliates or insiders). They would exclude derivatives (excluding interest rate swaps) and would not permit re-securitizations. Provisions would mandate clear documentation, segregation of assets and documents, separate documents that specified the related parties role (ie a seller/servicer would have separate documentation for its roles for each function), clear descriptions of the capital structure with disclosure of all fees paid to any third parties to the transaction (including rating agencies), and ongoing disclosure about performance, modifications and advances. Additional requirements with respect to mortgages would include a prohibition against advancing for delinquent principal and interest for more than 90 days and the affirmation that all laws related to the origination of the loans had been complied with. From the FDIC perspective, all of these requirements seem reasonable – the FDIC has incurred substantial costs from failed banks (they estimated that they would see more failed banks this year than they did in 2009!) and lack of transparency, skin in the game, appropriate diligence and so forth were a big part of the reason for these failures.

After the panel, the view from people in the industry i spoke to is that the government seems to be trying to do two conflicting things – 1. encourage banks to lend again and 2. make the process of securitization so onerous that there is no motivation to lend. everyone i spoke was frustrated and confused about the intentions of the government. Why? the proposed reforms actually address a host of issues that any rational investor or taxpayer would be concerned about. However, the result of these proposals would, potentially, make securitization so costly, that bank lenders would be better off keeping all assets on their balance sheet and funding them with deposits. Interesting, right? The FDIC also noted that they would be issuing their own securities soon as part of their resolution of failed banks. While no time frame was indicated for such issuance, when the FDIC pursues this path, they can demonstrate how securitization should look under the new rules and set the standards for the process. Or perhaps they will learn that it is too expensive and they will modify their own rules to facilitate the process.

"The prestigious Cardinal John J. O'Connor Pro-Life Award is being given in response to the former president's eight years of pro-life legislation. Legatus cites his administration's opposition to embryonic stem cell research, an executive order barring federal funds from being used for abortion related projects abroad, the appointment of two pro-life Supreme Court Justices and a rule protecting federally funded health employees from taking part in abortion or practices that conflict with their faith as policies that Bush helped enact during his presidency," the Catholic News Agency reported. According to the Legatus magazine website, "In one of his of his last acts as president, Bush declared Jan. 18, 2009, as "National Sanctity of Human Life Day," stating that the "the most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent."

The Jewish leaders’ intervention produced an open letter to Clarke’s Jewish constituents in which she expressed her regret for supporting the congressional letters. “Unfortunately, these letters are uneven in their application of pressure and do not sufficiently present a balanced approach/path to peace,” Clarke wrote, adding that the letters have “a provocative and reactionary impact.”… Clarke’s retraction of her support for the Gaza letters echoes similar pressure put on lawmakers in the run-up to J Street’s first national conference, in October 2009. Then, too, some members of Congress from strongly Jewish districts came under constituent pressure to withdraw from a list of sponsors for the event.

A center-right group, "Im Tirtzu," issued a report last week charging that the Goldstone report relies on documentation from 16 local rights organizations that were vocal critics of Israeli conduct during the war. The report singled out a common financial thread, the multimillion-dollar New Israel Fund, which raises money among American Jews and foundations for progressive causes. That sparked a drive in the Israeli parliament to approve an investigation to determine whether the work of those nonprofits undermines Israel’s legitimacy. The investigation could lead to the outlawing of some groups.

At least one of the signatories to the letter, U.S. Representative Yvette Clarke (D-NY), has apparently withdrawn her signature, change her political attitude when the issue hit a little closer to home. A long-standing representative of the Brooklyn community of Crown Heights, Clarke recently joined a photo-op snapped with Brooklyn Jewish community leaders who had gathered donations for the earthquake-stricken people of Haiti.  “We all see the swift and expert work of Israeli doctors and rescue teams on the ground almost immediately following the 7.0 earthquake,” she told reporters covering the event at the time. “The Jewish response to the pain of others is legendary — and today’s gathering is a continuation of the special heart the Jewish community always shows in times of crisis.”

The outspoken Harvard Law School professor has told the Forward that he didn’t intend to call the lead author of the controversial Goldstone Report a moser, a Jew who informs on other Jews, in a recent interview on Israel Army Radio. Indeed, Dershowitz, who graduated from a Jewish elementary school and high school, says that he does not even know the meaning of the word — a term from Jewish religious law that the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin cited to describe why the Israeli leader deserved to die. Instead, Dershowitz claims that he thought he was telling his interviewer that the South African jurist was “absolutely” a “monster.”… “I wrote to the broadcaster, retracting my word ‘traitor,’” Dershowitz told the Forward. “But if you’re asking me deep in my heart and soul do I believe that the word fairly characterizes him, in light of the way he’s used his Jewishness, both as a shield and a sword? You know, if the shoe fits.” …In the Israeli Army Radio segment, “Ma Boer” host Razi Barkai asked Dershowitz regarding Goldstone, “Do you hint, professor, that he is a moser, someone who betrays his own people?” “Absolutely,” Dershowitz responded. The term moser entered the Israeli political discourse in 1995 in the wake of Rabin’s assassination by radical settler supporter Yigal Amir, when Amir cited some rabbis’ designation of Rabin as a moser as part of his justification for carrying out the murder.

Israel’s democracy and those who defend its commitment to basic civil rights are under attack – and we need to fight back right now. Growing crackdowns by Israeli authorities in Jerusalem against peaceful political activists. [1] Leading Israeli feminists threatened with charges for the "crime" of holding a prayer service at the Western Wall. [2] Swiftboat style ads, funded by extremist groups based in the States and reminiscent of propaganda from the darkest days of Jewish history, attacking pro-civil rights, pro-human rights, pro-democracy activists in Israeli papers. [3] Alan Dershowitz inciting against a political opponent, calling him "evil" and a "traitor" to the Jewish people on Israeli Army Radio. [4] Those of us who believe that Israel should be a symbol of Jewish and democratic values in action must fight back right now. The very character and quality of Israel’s democracy and civil society is under threat. Click here to sign our open letter in support of Israel’s democracy and civil society. Our plan is to collect 10,000 signatures on this open letter, then publicly and personally deliver them to the organizations and individuals who need to hear our pro-democracy, pro-civil rights, pro-Israel message. We’ll push our story hard with the media – and use these deliveries to generate coverage. Our first delivery stop will be the pro-civil rights protesters in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah. Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s Executive Director, will go to show them that American Jews who love and care about Israel’s vibrant democracy stand with them as they exercise their basic democratic rights and protest Palestinian home evictions in East Jerusalem. Then, we’ll take your signatures to the extremist organization – Im Tirtzu – running that despicable ad against the New Israel Fund, demanding they end their attacks on the preeminent defenders of Israel’s civil society. We’ll also make sure everyone knows where Im Tirtzu gets its money — $100,000 from Christians United For Israel, whose founder, John Hagee, once said that Hitler was sent by God to force Jews to move to Israel, and the New York City-based settlement-funding charity called Central Fund for Israel that holds their accounts. [5] [It's always easy to bash Christian Zionists, though big American Jews are all over this deal... --Weiss] The same fund supports trips to the United States for extremist settler activist Nadia Matar, who even called for the assassination of Mahmoud Abbas in a New York City synagogue during one of her trips. [6] We will also make sure your open letter ends up in the hands of Alan Dershowitz, so that he sees that 10,000 Americans who support Israel also reject over-the-top personal demonization, even about political opponents, to achieve narrow political gains. We won’t stop there – not for a moment – because we all know that there are many more challenges to Israel’s democracy, the lack of a two-state solution being at the top of the list. Click here to sign our open letter in support of Israel’s democracy. Thanks so much for all you do. We’ll be in touch soon about next steps for this critical campaign. – Isaac Isaac Luria J Street Campaigns Director February 2, 2010 P.S. View the despicable ad attacking the New Israel Fund here. [1] "Court frees Sheikh Jarrah protesters, says arrest was illegal," by Nir Hasson. Haaretz, January 17, 2010. [2] "Women of the Wall Leader Interrogated by Police," by Jane Eisner. The Forward, January 6, 2010. [3] "Rightists Target New Israel Fund Over Grantees’ Goldstone Testimony," by J.J. Goldberg. The Forward, January 31, 2010. [4] "Dershowitz: Goldstone is a traitor to the Jewish people," by Haaretz Service. Haaretz, January 31, 2010. [5] "Hagee and CUFI fund anti-NIF campaign organizer," by Didi Remez. Coteret, February 1, 2010. [6] ‘Rabbi Rejects Assassination Call at N.Y. Shul," by JTA Wire Service. The Baltimore Jewish Times, March 26, 2009. [Weiss: Interestingly, I broke this story, but Luria credits JTA. And I know why. Mondo is radioactive in the Jewish community, or is perceived by organizational leadership that way. So Luria can't credit me. Hey it comes with the territory.]

He [the unnamed source for the piece, a highranking Israeli officer] added that the majority of casualties were caused in his brigade area by aerial firing, including from unmanned drones. "Most of the guys taken down were taken down by order of headquarters. The number of enemy killed by HQ-operated remote … compared to enemy killed by soldiers on the ground had absolutely inverted," he said.

Until now, the testimony has been kept out of the public domain. The senior commander told a journalist compiling a lengthy report for Yedhiot Ahronot, Israel’s biggest daily newspaper, about the rules of engagement in the three-week military offensive in Gaza. But although the article was completed and ready for publication five months ago, it has still not appeared. Yedhiot has not commented on why its article has not been published.

In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and American power.

The first is the projected deficit in the coming year, nearly 11 percent of the country’s entire economic output. That is not unprecedented: During the Civil War, World War I and World War II, the United States ran soaring deficits, but usually with the expectation that they would come back down once peace was restored and war spending abated.

But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. ...

For Mr. Obama and his successors, the effect of those projections is clear: Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors. Beyond that lies the possibility that the United States could begin to suffer the same disease that has afflicted Japan over the past decade. As debt grew more rapidly than income, that country’s influence around the world eroded.

Because the ultimate aim -- the only aim, really -- of the militarists' policy toward Iran is regime change. They don't care about "national security" or the "threat" from Iran's non-existent nuclear arsenal; they know that there is no threat whatsoever that Iran will attack Israel -- or even more ludicrously, the United States -- even if Tehran did have nukes. They don't care about the suffering of the Iranian people under a draconian, repressive and corrupt regime. They are not worried about Iran's "sponsorship of terrorism," for, as we've seen, the militarists thrive on -- when they are not actively fomenting -- the fear and anguish caused by terrorism. This fear is the grease that drives the ever-expanding war machine and 'justifies' its own ever-increasing draconian powers and corruption.

No, in the end, the sole aim of the militarist policy is to overthrow Iran's current political system and replace it with a regime that will bow to the hegemony of the United States and its regional deputy, Israel. There is no essential difference in aim or method between today's policy and that of 1953. (Except that the regional deputy in those days was Britain, not Israel.) What they want is compliance, access to resources and another strategic stronghold in the heart of the oil lands -- precisely what they wanted, and got, with the installation of the Shah and his corruption-ridden police state more than a half-century ago.

They play the long game, our militarists. For example, they agitated openly -- and  plotted covertly -- for the invasion of Iraq for almost 10 years before they finally got their way. They have worked for 30 years now to restore a client regime in Iran, and today, with the relentless bipartisan demonizing of the Iranians -- and the "mushroom cloud" fearmongering over a non-existent nuclear weapons program -- they are as close as they have ever been to their goal.

‘San Patricio' (the Spanish name for St. Patrick) tells the nearly forgotten story of the brave San Patricio battalion - a downtrodden group of Irish immigrant conscripts who deserted the U.S. Army in 1846 to fight on the Mexican side against the invading Yankees in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).

Although the members of the San Patricio Battalion were reviled as traitors and deserters in the U.S., Chieftains' founder and frontman Paddy Moloney says, "the men of the San Patricio Battalion are remembered by generations of Mexicans to this day as heroes who fought bravely against an unjust and thinly veiled war of aggression." ‘San Patricio' brings their story to life through heart-stirring ballads and effervescent dance songs from both countries, including traditional "sones" that the San Patricios might have heard while in Mexico, and Irish airs and reels that evoke the homeland they left behind. ....

‘San Patricio' showcases a brilliant roster of Irish, Mexican and American guest artists including Linda Ronstadt, actor Liam Neeson, Los Tigres del Norte, legendary 92-year-old Mexican ranchero singer Chavela Vargas, Van Dyke Parks, and Lila Downs, among many others. It will be released March 9 on Fantasy Records/Concord Music Group.

I thought Blair would have prepared a closing statement that would express, if not regret or apology, at least sorrow for the young British men and women in uniform who had lost their lives. There was, surely, a way for a communicator as gifted as Blair to do that without giving ground on the justness, as he still sees it, of the war. And yet, even when Sir John Chilcot asked him one last time if he had anything to add, Blair did not pay tribute to the dead – British or Iraqi. He simply said "no".

On the other side of the argument there were fewer interruptions than there might have been, fewer silly stunts, and actually fewer demonstrators than one might have expected. Though passions are still strong, it may be that a lot of the poison and pain is ebbing. In that sense, today was probably cathartic.

The spectacle of official indulgence of a man many here and abroad regard as responsible for a devastating war crime has been sickening. John Chilcot said at one point that the lessons of occupation had been "expensive, but very necessary". Millions of Iraqis who have actually paid that price take a very different view.