Military Might Makes Right

Just as history is written by the victors, military actions against civilians usually go unpunished until the military power is brought down. At that time, there exists the potential for accountability for actions at some level.

Those were my thoughts as yet in another military action against civilians, in this case during the escort of the Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena out of Iraq, US forces were found "not culpable".

In a BBC World News article, Italian hostage blasts US report, Ms Sgrena described the US investigators' findings as a "slap in the face".

The incident involves the shooting of the vehicle transporting Ms Sgrena and her escort, Italian agent Nicola Calipari who helped secure her release, as they approached a checkpoint even though Italy had made advance contacts with the US for safe passage. Mr Calipari was shot dead as he threw himself over Ms Sgrena to protect her when the shooting started.

Ms Sgrena disputes the details of the report (Differing accounts).

We'll see how much political clout Italy has to reverse the findings of the US military. Don't plan on expecting any changes to the findings any time soon.

Interesting comment from the Signs of the Times site:

The information that Sgrena and Calipari were not traveling on the main highway to the airport, but on a road reserved for traffic that had been secured by American authorities tends to belie the American version of events. It is not a fact that has been widely reported in the US where many pundits discredit Sgrena's testimony because she is a journalist for a communist newspaper.

It is clear from the start that the US authorities would exonerate the troops. It might lead to the unearthing of unpleasant facts about the shooting, such as that it was planned in advance. Sgrena had been working on an article about the war crimes at Fallujah.

Technorati Categories: Human Rights, Military, War

Verbalizing Truth Against Israel Abuses Makes One an Anti-Semite

Every time I read an article where someone is accused of anti-semitism, my ears perk up.

Why? Because in the majority of the cases I have read, the articles are factual and not complimentary to Israeli politics.

Say anything which condemns Israel and you are a racist, an anti-semite, a holocaust denier. Take your pick.

Do this often enough and people should begin to pick up on the tactic. But, why is it that we don't hear about this in the media? Think deeply about that questsion and it becomes self-evident.

Here's an article from the Jerusalem Post, BBC Reporter's Award Stuns Israel, where it becomes quite evident how it all works.

Israeli officials have expressed dismay that BBC reporter Orla Guerin, who has come under sharp attack for what some perceive as an anti-Israeli bias in her coverage, will receive an MBE [Member of the British Empire] honor from the British government for "outstanding service to broadcasting."

Diaspora Affairs Minister Natan Sharansky, who last year wrote a formal letter of complaint to the BBC over Guerin's coverage, said it is a pity that the absence of anti-Semitism was not a criterion for the award.

If it were, he said, Guerin would not be receiving the honor.

I wonder what tye of reporting led to such a comment from Mr. Sharansky?

Last year, in response to one of Guerin's dispatches about Israel's capture of a mentally challenged 16-year-old would-be suicide bomber, Sharansky wrote the BBC that it employs a "gross double standard to the Jewish state" that smacks of anti-Semitism.

Sharansky protested that Guerin, in her report, portrayed the event as "Israel's cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes." He said this "reveals a deep-seated bias against Israel. Only a total identification with the goals and methods of the Palestinian terror groups would drive a reporter to paint Israel in such an unflattering light instead of placing the focus on the bomber and the organization that recruited him."

The report, he said, "has not only set a new standard for biased journalism, it has also raised concerns that it was tainted by anti-Semitism."

In his letter, Sharansky quoted Guerin as describing to viewers how the IDF "paraded the child in front of the international media," then "produced" the child for reporters, "posed" him a second time for the cameras, and then "rushed him back into a jeep."

Is this true?

I found an interesting analysis of the use of the "anti-semitic" label and the events surrounding the example provide by Mr. Sharansky at this site. Here is an example:

Unsurprisingly, the main thrust of the Israeli government's objection to the award being given to Guerin is that her reporting from Israel has been biased because she is clearly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. Most right-wing Israeli politicians never miss an opportunity to link anti-Semitism to a bias against Israel, yet to do so is clearly a manipulation and a distortion of the truth.

Anti-Semitism is defined as a hatred of Jews simply because they are Jews. Over the past number of years Israeli politicians have been at pains to associate anti-Israel bias with anti-Semitism and/or a bias against the existence of the state of Israel. The truth however, is that most people that are labeled, "anti-Semitic" and "anti-Israel" by Israeli politicans and lobby groups bear no grudge against the existence of Israel as a nation and certainly do not hate Jews simply because they are Jews! Rather, they deplore the policies of the current Israeli government and its army and oppose the victimisation and brutalisation of innocent civilians, regardless of ethnic or religious background or geographic location. In fact, members of the Israeli government would be well advised to avoid insisting on associating anti-Semitism and "anti-Israelism" with each other and with the actions of the Israeli government and army. The entire world can see that the Israeli government and army sanction the murder of innocent Palestinian children. Does Sharon really want the Jewish people and the Jewish state to become synonymous with such wanton acts of murder? On second thoughts...

Objective journalism is allegedly achieved through simply reporting the facts of any given event without undue input or opinion of the reporter. It is not reasonable, however, to expect a reporter in all circumstances to remain completely detached from the events they are witnessing and reporting. In order to really bring home the reality of any given event, the reporter may find it necessary to employ particular language that best conveys the reality on the ground. For example, a reporter might use strong and somewhat emotional language when reporting on a murder scene. A "biased" word like "brutal" might be used instead of the more objective "violent", or the murder might be described as a "slaying" instead of a "killing", yet these words may be much more appropriate and accurate in conveying a real taste of the actual events to the viewer/reader. Equally, when referring to people, it is not unreasonable that a reporter would use strong "biased" language to describe a murderer for example, particularly if his or her crime were marked by a particular callousness.

It follows then that, due to the brutality and viciousness with which the Israeli government and military treat the Palestinian people, emotionally charged reports are not only to be expected but often required if the true horror of the the atrocities that are regularly visited upon the Palestinian people are to be conveyed to viewers and readers. Orla Guerin's reports from Israel and Palestine won her a prestigious honor from the British government for "outstanding service to broadcasting" because she was dedicated to bringing the truth of Palestinian people's plight to public attention.

As we have seen time and time again, the Israeli government is desperate to ensure that the crimes it permits in Palestine remain largely hidden from view. On a number of occasions the IDF has resorted to murdering specific journalists who were attempting to report the truth about Israeli state-sponsored murder of innocent Palestinian civilians. Naturally, the guilty soldiers are never punished. In the case of Orla Guerin and those other journalists that they are unable to silence in this way, the Israeli government is forced to resort to defamation and ridiculous accusations of anti-Semitism.

Every time there is a report that is in any way critical of Israel, Israeli politicians decry the "one-sided" nature of media reporting on Israeli actions in Palestine. The simple fact however is that, given the extreme bias in the US mainstream press TOWARDS Israel (which is a direct product of Israeli influence within the US government), the public is exposed to only a tiny portion of Israeli crimes in Palestine. The Israeli government desires 100% control on the reporting of events in the occupied territories, when they can only manage 90% they accuse the 10% of bias and anti-Semitism.
(more)

I strongly urge the reader to visit the link to read the entire commentary.

Technorati Categories: Anti-Semitism, Human Rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionist

Latest BS: Top Military Brass Cleared on Abu Ghraib

Just when you think things can't get any more blatantly obvious... here's another.

The Army's Inspector General, Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Green, has determined the "allegations are unsubstantiated" and cleared four commanders of allegations of wrongdoing in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse.

What a bunch of BS!

From the BBC article Top Brass Cleared Over Iraq Abuse:

The US Army inspector general's report says only Brig Gen Janis Karpinski, commander at the jail, has been found guilty and reprimanded over the abuse.

She told the BBC last year that had been made a "convenient scapegoat" for abuse ordered by others at the top, including Gen Sanchez.

Click here for more Iraq abuse photos from BBC News

I find it difficult to believe knowledge of the activities and intimidation techniques used at the Abu Ghraib prison stopped at the commander of the jail. In such a hierarchical structure as the military, it is inconcievable Karpinski approved of the activities without approval from her superiors or at least receiving a nod or a wink of approval.

There's no doubt approval came from the top... ALL the way from the top. Now, I'll bet it was handled via indirect references with understood intentions so that, if questioned later, one could say "I never approved the torture of prisoners" when the likely instruction was something like "Do whatever you have to in order to get results."

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is being sued by two civil liberties group for allegedly authorising torture and then failing to stop it.

Will anyone at the top, Rummy or Bush, ever pay? Doubtful.

"What this decision unfortunately continues is a pattern of exoneration and indeed promotion for many of the individuals at the heart of the torture scandal," said Amnesty International spokesman Alistair Hodgett.

"It only serves to underscore the desperate need for an independent investigation that will scrutinize the policy decisions and the individuals who made and implemented them in a manner that will expose the truth," Mr Hodgett told Reuters news agency.

At the beginning of today's entry, I said that things couln't be more obvious. What's so obvious you ask?

The current attitude within both the military and political structure of the US where all actions are justified and their objectives will not be denied. It is obvious there will be no accountability for any actions. Nothing will happen from within the US.

Unfortunately, any effort from the international community will be discounted as meddling in affairs the US can handle on its own. No country, group of countries, or organization seems to be able to hold the US accountable for anything.

Since no action will be taken by the people of the US to put an end to this attitude, it will ultimately lead to only one scenario: other countries will unite to work against the US. First, economically, then, if necessary, militarily.

For some interesting comments and compilation of articles on the prison abuse and accusations of torture, go to this issue at the Signs of the Times site.

Technorati Categories: Human Rights, Military, Prisoner Abuse, War

Cost of War

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved $81 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in a spending bill that would push the total cost of combat and reconstruction past $300 billion.

Congress has passed four similar emergency spending measures for the wars since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This one would put the overall cost of combat and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan - as well as Pentagon operations against terrorists worldwide - past $300 billion.
Liz Sidoti - AP

War is costly, both in dollars and lives. Tax payers ultimately carry the financial burden either directly (by increases in taxes) or indirectly (by loss of services due to government cuts in spending on services). Soldiers and, tragically, innocent civilians (or impersonally referred to as "collateral damage" by the military) pay with their lives.

War is also very profitable, if you are a member of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC). You stand to make boatloads of money from supplying the military with all equipment, supplies, and logistical support necessary to conduct a war. Also, if you are a politician with financial interests, either through shares in the company or contributions to one's political ambitions, you stand to gain from the war as well.

To give you some idea of the costs, focus on the Iraq War. A war for which the reason for going to war (i.e. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction which he could deploy within 45 minutes and use against the US) was never proven as valid.

Here's a brief summary from George Ure's daily update on his UrbanSurvival site (which I recommend as a fresh perspective on economic, political, and environmental issues affecting our world):

With the latest pitch for another $80 billion or so, we notice that total spending for the Iraq war - Bush's War - has climbed past the $300,000,000,000 mark.

Now, to repeat what we have calculated previously: Take $300,000,000,000 and divide it by the population of Iraq. Which is:: 25,374,691 according to the CIA World Fact Book online. As of today, it would have been way cheaper to give everyone in Iraq a check for $11,800 - which pencils out to about $40,000 per household, rather than going to war with the whole country when our problem was with a single leader.

If Saddam was such a bad guy, I figure a sniper team with a single .50 round could take him out from a safe distance - costing us a couple of bucks, but certainly not this. One bullet and $40,000 per family of spending money, yeah, that might have been a lot cheaper...

Naturally, I'm sure folks will say "George is crazy - what about Saddam's rights?" I would hasten to point out that Saddam doesn't seem to be on trial yet, and he has been locked up for how long with no trial? If we're trying to show the world "how democracy is done right" I have to ask about the speedy trial concept, jury of peers, and, as long as we're at it, protection of Constitutional rights which were thrown out wholesale in the Patriot Act frenzy.

So, in the end, the war is not about making economic sense, but rather using it as a fine tool of socioeconomic control, which is fine, as long as you see the game labeled clearly.

War is about "socioeconomic control" imposition upon a group of people. Not just for Afghans and Iraqis, but for Americans.

The difference is in the knowing you are being controlled.

Technorati Categories: Afghanistan, Iraq, Military, Military-Industrial Complex, Politics, War

Investigate Only When Favorable

Well, it seems that Tom DeLay has been buying time. All the denials of ethical improprieties have actually been stall tactics to allow his fellow Republican House Ethics Committee members time to make the necessary changes, rules and such, so Mr DeLay can get off easy.

Yesterday, the Republicans offered to open an investigation of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The Democrats declined.

A little history is in order. Tom DeLay is accused of several instances of inappropriate use of monies and position. Last year, DeLay was admonished three times on a unanimous vote of the Republican-led House Ethics Committee.

Timothy Noah, at Slate's Chatterbox, zeros in on the bribery accusation which resulted in the Ethics Committee deciding DeLay "did not believe he acted improperly under House rules". So, DeLay gets what equates to a slap on the wrist.

Since when does a psychopath believe he is acting improperly? His behavior is always justified.

When the new Congress convened in January, Republicans unilaterally pushed through
three basic changes:

• Allow the dismissal of a complaint if a majority of the panel cannot agree on how to proceed after 45 days


• Allow lawyers to represent multiple participants in any inquiry


• Allow lawmakers a chance to respond if they are to be named in committee reports

Democrats contend the changes were designed to shield DeLay from further scrutiny.

The change requiring dismissal of a case unless a bipartisan majority votes for an investigation within 45 days was especially troubling to Democrats. The Ethics panel has an even distribution of Republican and Democrat, five each. Thus, neither side, by itself, has a majority.

Currently, a tie vote or disagreement on how to proceed would automatically dismiss the case, allowing either party on the evenly divided committee to stop an investigation.

If I were a Democratic member of Congress, I would want to wait until the previous rule is restored before aggreeing to the investigation.

Let's see how the GOP spins this. Perhaps they will make it seem as if they are willing to begin the investigations yet it is the Democrats waffling and the most likely reason given will be the lack of proof, therefore it would only be fair to drop the investigations altogether. Right?

Watch the media...


Technorati Categories: Government, Politics

DeLay is Out-of-Control

Has House Majority Leader Tom DeLay lost his mind? It appears so.

He continues to deny charge of unethical behavior, even though there have been numerous and well-documented events.

He continues to push for removal of Supreme Court justices.

He alleges the "left-wing syndicate", "liberal media", "judicial activism", "journalistic activism" are after him.

He believes he can do no wrong, is always in the right, and others are out to get him.

Such actions are the behavioral symptoms normally associated with a psychopathic individual.

Why is this man still in office? Obviously due to his relationship to the President and fellow Republicans.

CNN: Rove: White House 'strongly' behind DeLay

"We strongly support Tom DeLay. He's a good man, a close ally of this administration," Rove said in a rare television interview.

Washington Post: DeLay Ethics Allegations Now Cause of GOP Concern

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said DeLay "has always had, and continues to have, the strong support" of the party. "His leadership and dedication to maintaining and growing our numbers are a significant reason for our Republican majority," he added.

Republican leaders had thought they had built a fortress against future trouble by changing House rules in January and by changing the House ethics committee's Republican membership in February to include members closer to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and DeLay.

DeLay's legal defense fund received contributions from two of the new ethics committee members, Smith and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). The committee admonished DeLay three times last year. Republican leaders later sought the rule changes that made it more difficult to bring new ethics charges against Republicans.

Not only is DeLay out-of-control, so is the entire political structure.

Technorati Categories: Government, Politics

Small Revolutionaries: Environmental and Political

Earlier this week I received my bimonthly Making Waves issue from the Surfrider Foundation and was awakened to a fact communicated in the Editor's Notes.

First off, Surfrider Foundation is "a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world's waves, oceans and beaches for all people, through conservation, activism, research and education."

Now to the editorial.

The monthly magazine's editor, Joe Mozdzen, astutely compares the world reaction and response to the tragic tsunami disaster late last year in the Indian Ocean to the lack of reaction to a slower, insidious disaster occurring with more far-reaching human mortality implications.

Here are some extracts from the editorial titled "Hidden Tsunamis and Small Revolutionaries":

The South Asian tsunami disaster was particularly compelling because it was such a quick, violent and immediate loss. We could all see it, understand the scope, and the random but concrete loss. And not to sound flippant, but it also lacked something. It lacked a spokesperson, a spin doctor, or a group of attorneys to deny it. The tsunami wasn't able to hire a PR firm to cast doubt that perhaps it wasn't the wave at all who killed those people.

So with all due respect, I submit that there are great losses that happen all the time which go unnoticed because they are gradual, incremental and often happen out of sight, and which are denied by lobbyists, attorneys, and public information officers. Pesticides seep into our groundwater; toxic mines and plants leak poisons downstream; urban run-off pollutes the ocean; our cars warm and pollute the earth; coastal armoring erodes shorelines all over the world; and development destroys irreplaceable habitat. Millions die every year, not from one giant event, but from the slow insidious tainting of everything from our shoreline to human breast milk. Horrible
tragedies that are often invisible because there is no easy sound bite, no dramatic footage of the destruction, nor any simple solution. Instead, there is a host of corporate scientists, apologists and deniers who leave you wondering if maybe, just maybe, you might have it wrong.

Unfortunately, money, power, political agendas, all at work behind the scenes, impact every living person on the planet. Money buys influence. Influence paves the path for opportunities to make more money or implement political agendas. Power is achieved by possessing the money and political influence.

How do we, with less money and even less direct political influence, effect a change in the current, destruction direction mankind is heading with respecct to the environment? By taking some action. Any action, but do act! Contribute to groups active in pursuing polluters and environmental law violaters. Buy smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. Use organic products instead of those with chemicals not naturally absorbed by the environment.

In politics, we also have a serious problem which requires action. The Bush administration is out of control. More than likely the administration will find "proof" to attack Iran. Is the American public going to be so naive as to believe the "proof" after being lied to about the 9-11 attacks? About Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction?

Everything has gone down hill since 9-11. Civil liberties and privacy rights have been compromised for the sake of national security. When the government does not feel like answering a question, they hide behind the "we cannot answer that questions for national security reasons" line.

Since it all started with the 9-11 attacks, let's look at a few articles which shed some light on a group which everyone in media is afraid to talk about for fear of being accused of being a racist or denier.

The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested on 9/11

On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

A Mossad surveillance team made quite a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11.

The men set up cameras by the Hudson River and trained them on the twin towers. (1)

Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming “middle-eastern” men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. (2)

"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness. (3)
[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. (4)

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)
"It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park." (7)

The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were all joking about the attacks.
The employee, who declined to give his name said: "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." These guys were like, "Now America knows what we go through." (19)

A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities (20).

It was later confirmed that the five detained Israelis were in fact Mossad agents (21). They were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released. Some of the movers had been kept in solitary confinement for 40 days.(22)
[S]everal of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home.

Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." (23)

The US government immediately attributed Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks even though he had no previous record of doing anything on this scale. Immediately after the Flight 11 hit WTC 1 CIA Director George Tenet said "You know, this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it." (24)

The compliant mainstream media completely ignored the Israeli connection. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks, the media was filled with stories linking the attacks to bin Laden. TV talking-heads, “experts”, and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of the most outrageous propaganda imaginable.

But bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and he suggested they were orchestrated by Zionists. The BBC published his statement of denial, in it he said:

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.

[...]

The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." (26)

Here's more...

HUNDREDS OF MOSSAD AGENTS CAUGHT RUNNING WILD IN AMERICA!

What happened to the five celebrating Israeli "movers", (Mossad agents), who were arrested and placed in solitary confinement for weeks after they were spotted in a white van suspected of attempting to blow up the George Washington Bridge. We also know about the Israeli owner of Urban Moving Systems - Dominick Suter - then suddenly abandoned his “moving company” and fled for Israel on 9-14. But there were still more Israeli "movers" and other Israelis whose actions raise serious suspicions. Even more suspicious is how they are always quietly released and deported.

In October of 2001, three more Israeli "movers" were stopped in Plymouth, PA because of their suspicious behavior. These "movers" were seen dumping furniture near a restaurant dumpster! When the restaurant manager approached the driver, a "Middle Eastern" man later identified as Moshe Elmakias fled the scene. The manager made note of the truck's sign which read "Moving Systems Incorporated" and called the police. When the police spotted the truck, two other Israelis - Ayelet Reisler and Ron Katar began acting suspiciously. The Plymouth police searched the truck and found a video. The Israelis were taken into custody and the video tape was played at the police station. The video revealed footage of Chicago with zoomed in shots of the Sears Tower. The police quickly alerted the FBI and it was also discovered that the Israelis had falsified travel logs and phony paperwork on them. They were also unable to provide a name and telephone number for the customer that they claimed to have been working for.

In November of 2001, 6 more suspicious Israelis were detained in Florida. They had in their possession box cutters, oil pipeline plans, and nuclear power plant plans. The local police called in the Feds and Immigration officials took over the scene and released the men without calling the FBI. The Jerusalem Post ran this story under the headline "FBI Suspects Israelis of Nuclear Terrorism". The Miami Herald and the Times of London also carried this amazing story and all revealed how furious FBI officials were that these Israeli terror suspects with nuclear power plant plans were set free by INS officials. Of course, the corruption riddled FBI would only have caved into Zionist pressure from the Justice Department’s Criminal Division boss, Michael Chertoff, and also from the ADL’s “partner”, FBI boss Robert Mueller - who would no doubt have found a way to eventually release those Israeli terror suspects anyway.

In May of 2002, yet another moving van was pulled over in Oak Harbor, Washington near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station. Fox News reported that the van was pulled over for speeding shortly after midnight. The passengers told the police they were delivering furniture, but because it was so late at night, the police weren't buying the story. A bomb sniffing dog was brought in and the dog detected the presence of TNT and RDX plastic explosives in the truck (great stuff for demolishing buildings!) Both Fox News and the Ha'aretz newspaper of Israel reported that the two "movers" were Israelis.

In December, 2002, Ariel Sharon made the amazing claim that Al-Qaeda agents were operating inside of Israel. But when Palestinian authorities apprehended the suspects, they turned out to be Palestinian traitors impersonating Al-qaeda agents for the MOSSAD! From the Sydney Morning Herald of Austrailia:

"Palestinian security forces have arrested a group of Palestinians for collaborating with Israel and posing as operatives of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network, a senior official said yesterday. ..The arrests come two days after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon charged al-Qaeda militants were operating in Gaza and in Lebanon.

It was considered a surprise because the Gaza Strip is virtually sealed off by Israeli troops. The hardline Israeli leader also charged other members of the terror group were cooperating with Lebanon's Shi'ite militia Hizbollah"

According to FOX news, throughout late 2000 and 2001, a total of 200 Israeli spies were arrested. It was the largest spy ring to ever be uncovered in the history of the United States. The Washington Post also reported that some of these Israelis were arrested in connection with the 9-11 investigation. US. Carl Cameron of FOX News Channel did a excellent four part, nationally televised, series of investigations into this blockbuster scandal. But FOX pulled the investigative series after Zionist groups complained to FOX executives. FOX even went so far as to remove the written transcripts of the series from its website! In it’s place was posted a chilling, Orwellian message which reads: "This story no longer exists." Fortunately for the sake of history, the FOX transcripts were copied onto to many other websites and all four parts are available for your review.

The FOX series and other mainstream news media sources revealed that many of these Israelis were army veterans with electronics and explosives expertise. Many of them failed lie detector tests. FBI agents told FOX that some of their past investigations were compromised because suspects had been tipped off by Israeli wiretapping specialists. It was discovered that Israeli companies such as Comverse and Amdocs have the capability to tap American telephones (great for blackmailing all those wife-cheating politicians!) FBI agents also told FOX they believed the Israelis had advance knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. (which certainly would explain why no Israelis died in the WTC) Still another US official informed FOX that some of the detained Israelis actually had links to 9-11, but he refused to describe the nature of those links. The FBI official told FOX's Carl Cameron:

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about the evidence that has been gathered. It is classified information."

Then there was that small army of Israeli "art students" who were arrested for trying to sneak into secured US Federal buildings and staking out 36 Department of Defense sites. Ron Hatchett, a Department of Defense analyst, told Channel 11, KHOU news in Houston that he believed that the “art students” were gathering intelligence for future attacks. Here’s an excerpt from the October 1, 2001 KHOU investigative report by Anna Werner:

Could federal buildings in Houston and other cities be under surveillance by foreign groups? That's what some experts are asking after federal law enforcement and security officials - nationally and in Houston - described for the 11 News Defenders a curious pattern of behavior by a group of people claiming to be Israeli art students.

Hatchett says they could be doing what he would be doing if he were a terrorist, sizing up the situation: "We need to know what are the entrances to this particular building. We need to know what are the surveillance cameras that are operating. We need to know how many guards are at this operation, when do they take breaks?" Says Hatchett: "This is not a bunch of kids selling artwork."

"Some organization, thinking in terms of a potential retaliation against the U.S. government could be scouting out potential targets and … looking for targets that would be vulnerable."

And a source tells the Defenders of another federal memo, stating that besides Houston and Dallas, the same thing has happened at sites in New York, Florida, and six other states, and even more worrisome, at 36 sensitive Department of Defense sites. "One defense site you can explain," says Hatchett, "well that was just a serendipitous, ... Thirty-six? That's a pattern."

In a follow up report a few days later, KHOU Channel 11 revealed that Dallas was also targetted:

"11 News reported how people claiming to be "Israeli art students" might be trying to sneak into federal buildings and defense sites, and even doing surveillance. And at least one expert said he thought it could all be preparation for an attack. Well, now federal sources say they are not ruling out that all of this could be connected with the hijackings on September 11, because of events in another Texas city.

In Dallas, the so-called students hit early this year at the city's FBI building, the Drug Enforcement Administration and at the Earle Cabell Federal building, where guards found one student wandering the halls with a floor plan of the building.

So the Dallas INS went on the alert, finding and arresting 15 people in March. Thirteen claimed to be Israelis and two are professed Colombians. But according to sources, once again their passports were phony. And another federal source says some of those arrested also appeared to have lists of federal employees and their home addresses.

All 15 "students" have now been deported.

MOSSAD agents acting as art students in the US.

MOSSAD agents using moving companies to carry out surveillance (and potentially "terrorist" acts within US soil).

MOSSAD agents impersonating Al-Qaeda agents.

MOSSAD agents using falsified passports and documents to conduct spying activities on the US.

And, after all of the above revelations upon apprehension, release and deportation back to Israel. How can this be happenning with so many related activities? Why is no one allowed to pursue these leads? Is this why a War on Terror exists?

If past behavior is any indication of the future, things do not bode well for America / Americans.

Technorati Categories: Espionage, Government, Mossad, Politics, Terrorism, War on Terror, Zionist

First Shot at Judicial Change

Here is what appears to be the first shot the Bush camp is taking at changing the Judicial Branch. From the Washington Post article, And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty, appearing on page A03 of the Saturday, April 9, 2005 edition:

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

Pretty strong language (emphasis mine), don't you think?

"should be impeached, or worse"... What could be worse than impeachment? Jail? Death? Those are the two immediate options that come to mind, but they (conservative leaders) wouldn't imply that, would they?

"Remedies to Judicial Tyranny"... Since when is a judicial interpretation of the law tyranny? Tyranny, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.


2. Absolute power, esp. when exercised unjustly or cruelly.

Hmm, sounds more appropriate to apply collectively to the Bush administration.

And here is an "expert" opinion:

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment."

Since when should someone be impeached for deciding not to allow capital punishment for juveniles? Impeachment should be reserved for wrongdoing with respect to official obligation. Mrs. Schlafly should know this, after all, a lawyer should know.

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary.

After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."

"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday.

This is very disturbing. Statements such as these must surely be coming from some fringe group! But wait, no. This is not some fringe group.

The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.

These are people in very influential positions whose statements and views carry significant weight. Hmm, I wonder what might their agenda be?

Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."

Looks to me as if someone is trying to take the focus away from Iraq and the budget, the two most important topics today, and replace it with a discussion about God. Sure, let's take the focus away from evidence-laden topics into a very emotional and personal area of discussion sure to get people excited.

Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."

From my perspective, the same could be said of Tom DeLay and the Bush administration. Perhaps the requests for impeachment should be directed at DeLay for his unethical behavior in office and the entire Bush gang for their actions in Iraq.

Technorati Categories: Current Affairs, Government, Politics

Bush Targets Judiciary

Little by little, the Bush adminstration has (choose one) taken over / undermined / strong-armed / coerced / threatened the institutions and organizations which stood in the way of "the agenda", to propagate US influence and control such that US interests are always being served first and foremost. Whether the take-overs were direct or indirect, whether those institutions and organizations were complicit or submissive matters not. We are so far down the road of having accepted all the lies mouthed as facts, without any accountability and action toward the liars, that we can no longer wait for anyone in a position of power to make a difference. The only way to make a difference is for you and me, the average person, to stand up and be heard.

First, the Bush administration took over the Congress...

Second, the Bush administration took over the media...

Third, the Bush administration took over the intelligence agencies..

Now, the Bush administration is preparing to take over the judiciary...

There is an MO (Modus Operandi) to the Bush administration's actions which usually follows three steps:

Step 1: Set up the "story" to be used to justify the reason to go after the "enemy". In reality, this sets up the implementation of the plan to further an objective of the "agenda".

Step 2: At some point information leaks out either impacting the credibility of the "story" or point out how poorly the "story" was handled. Bring out the patsy. Because, of course, everyone knows the administration would never knowingly pursue an action based on false information, the blame would then be placed upon the patsy and the inability to do the job.

Stpe 3: Come up with a solution for the patsy's inability to perform the job. Now, part of the solution should involve redirecting control of the job function to some one or group directly or indirectly controlled by those same individuals coming up with the "agenda".

From Progreso Weekly, "The Bush Syndrome: Dead Wrong and Proud of It" by Max J. Castro:

What links the intelligence fiasco and the Schiavo case is the willingness of this administration and its Republican allies in Congress to argue for and undertake the most extreme and arrogant actions in the absence of credible information and arguments to support them – and in the process demonizing anyone who opposes their schemes. Waging an illegal war and trampling all over the bedrock constitutional principle of separation of powers are variations of a single syndrome, the Bush syndrome.

Whether the subject is global warming, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, stem cell research, social security, or the Schiavo case, the Bush syndrome involves ignoring, twisting, and denying facts and reason in the interest of an extreme right ideology.

The Schiavo case, for its part, raised the profile of an old target for the Republican right: the federal judiciary. A whole litany of GOP stalwarts, including Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and House Majority Leader Tom Delay, have skewered the judges involved in the Schiavo case. Some Republicans even have threatened to punish the judicial branch through funding cuts and other means.

This time, Bush and his Republican allies were denied. But the Bush administration’s preference for believing in and acting upon its own ideologically driven delusions over reality has already produced disastrous consequences in the form of war and massive Iraqi and American casualties. More tragedy is sure to follow if Bush is allowed to implement his domestic and international agenda during the second term.

Let's sit back and watch how the judicial system becomes the patsy for all the "problems" with the system and how a solution to the problem is presented which ultimately provides more control from within the White House.

The separation of Church and State no longer exists.

The separation of the Executive and Judicial branches hangs precariously in the balance.

Iraq War an Intelligence Failure? Not!

*** UPDATE: Friday, 2005 May 1 ***

Read the article Lessons in Crass Deception at the Signs-of-the-Times site for a brief summary of the intelligence events leading to the Iraq War. Here's a snippet:

Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq, the IAEA, you know, they guys who have spent their ENTIRE LIVES working in the field of WMDs and their proliferation, said that, after many months spent combing the entire surface of Iraq and digging deep into Saddam's weapon manufacturing facilities, there were probably no WMDs in Iraq. They told the world, "Iraq has no WMDs". Those words fell on deaf ears in Washington, mainly because without WMDs there could be no reason for an invasion of Iraq. As the weeks passed the job of convincing the world was getting more and more difficult. Finally, Rumsfeld hit on an ingenious approach:

Rumsfeld: Lack of evidence could mean Iraq's hiding something

Yes indeedy, the greasy old codger was actually claiming that the IAEA's report stating that there were no WMDs in Iraq, was actually evidence in itself that Saddam really DID have WMDs. Rummy stated:

"The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," we do know that Iraq has designed its programs in a way that they can proceed in an environment of inspections and that they are skilled at denial and deception."

Rumsfeld said the United States and the United Nations have no obligation to prove that Iraq has continued efforts to develop nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instead, he said, Iraq must prove that it has abandoned them.

Imagine if we were to apply this logic in a criminal investigation. In such a case, anyone could accuse anyone else of a crime, using the fact that there is no evidence that they committed the crime as evidence that they did commit a crime, based on the idea that people are quite inventive and also often lie, so the person is probably lieing and has probably hidden the evidence that they committed the crime. Not only that, but the person themselves must prove to the court that they did not commit the crime. If they cannot prove this, then they are guilty of committing the crime.

Sounds a little unreasonable, does it not?

Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, got in on the act too with similarly bizarre logic when he stated in July 2003:

"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."

Needless to say, the mangled thinking coming out of the White House was evidence that the Bush administration was getting "kinda antsy" at the whole "lack of WMDs" argument.

So what to do? Well, when in doubt, call in the CIA. Surely "the agency", possessing some of America's most fervent patriots, could be relied on to perform above and beyond the call of duty and come up with the goods? Just to make doubly sure, Dick Cheney stormed over to CIA headquarters, not once, not twice, but ten times to offer some "direction". Now that the evil IAEA had to some extent put the kabosh on the "Saddam has WMD" angle, Cheney decided that a Saddam Osama link was the next best thing.

---

Original Post

A CNN article today, Report: Iraq intelligence 'dead wrong', presents the results of a panel (Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction), a Bush-appointed group, to investigate the intelligence gathering failures which led to the now-unjustified invasion of Iraq. If I remember correctly, there were several reports of members of the intelligence community speaking out against the "proof" of WMD capabilities being repeatedly and vociferously spouted by the administration as justification for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

The panel reports...

"We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," said a letter from the commission to President Bush. "This was a major intelligence failure."

Wasn't everyone else saying the opposite? The UN, the international community, the previous weapons inspectors, etc. Seems as if the administration was using selective hearing to accept only those perspectives most supportive of their cause to go to war.

The desire to remove Saddam Hussein from power was there from day one of the Bush administration.

Another report from the Washington Post, WMD Commission Releases Scathing Report, provides additional information on the panel's report.

Yet while unstinting in its appraisal of intelligence agencies, the panel that Bush appointed under pressure in February 2004 said it was "not authorized" to explore the question of how the commander in chief used the faulty information to make perhaps the most critical decision of his presidency. As he accepted the report yesterday, Bush offered no thoughts about relying on flawed intelligence to launch a war and took no questions from reporters.

I see. The commission was "not authorized" to pursue how such a major decision, which impacts all Americans and America's allies, was made when there was no irrefutable, verifiable intelligence to be certain going to war was the right course of action.

It is clearly obvious the decision had been made long before it was announced, and was just waiting to have a sliver of something to hang the justification on. Well, it seems I'm not alone. From the article:

Some Democrats complained that the commission effectively ducked the central issue of how Bush decided to go to war in Iraq to eliminate weapons that were not there. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said the report "fails to review an equally important aspect of our national security policymaking process -- how policymakers use the intelligence they are provided."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was even sharper. "The president's decision to go to war in Iraq was also dead wrong," she said, adding, "The investigation will not be complete unless we know how the Bush administration may have used or misused intelligence to pursue its own agenda."

Now, there is a Director of National Intelligence who will have carte-blanche to do as he wishes after confirmation, via this report, of how important it is to improve the intelligence gathering capabilities.

The panel proposed empowering the new director of national intelligence, a position created by legislation last year, to better integrate the collection efforts of the government's 15 intelligence agencies at the CIA, Pentagon, State Department, Energy Department and FBI.

I can imagine how many intel personnel are steaming at the findings. They know all too well there was no definitive proof the weapons programs existed after the first Iraq war. Once again, the intelligence community takes the heat for an agenda driven by the administration.

Technorati Categories: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD

Photos Unseen

Why have the various accounts of torture, directly or indirectly, at the hands of American personnel been out of the news? Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay are locations where abuses have been alleged. Recent accounts of rendition to other countries, where torture can be applied with impunity, have also been reported.

All of these related stories with the potential to rock the political world are missing or receive secondary coverage at best. One would expect such stories to receive top coverage based on the severity of the implications. Go figure.

American society, after all, is an entertainment and gossip-based society. A society whose attention is grabbed by visual or emotional stimuli. Exactly the same stimuli the current media controllers do not want to unleash by releasing photos capturing the abuse at the hands of "America's boys".

Some observations made by Matt Welch, a columnist for Canada's National Post and associate editor for Reason Online, provide the background why the torture and abuse accusations are not makeing headlines. In his latest article, The Pentagon's Secret Stash: Why we'll never see the second round of Abu Ghraib photos, he lays it all out on the table.

The images, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress, depict "acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman." After Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) viewed some of them in a classified briefing, he testified that his "stomach gave out." NBC News reported that they show "American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys." Everyone who saw the photographs and videos seemed to shudder openly when contemplating what the reaction would be when they eventually were made public.

But they never were... ABC News broadcast two new photos from the notorious Iraq prison on May 19, The Washington Post printed a half-dozen on May 20 and three more on June 10, and that was it.

"The Pentagon realizes that it's images that sell the story," [Steven] Aftergood [from the Federation of American Scientists] says. "The reason that there is a torture scandal is because of those photographs. There can be narratives of things that are much worse, but if they aren't accompanied by photos, they somehow don't register....The Abu Ghraib photos are sort of the military equivalent of the Rodney King case....And I hate to attribute motives to people I don't know, but it is easy to imagine that the officials who are withholding these images have that fact in mind."

We will not see these photos unless there is a major push made by influencial media personalities, which is highly unlikely as they will surely lose their jobs. Perhaps it will take grassroots activities and effort from the blogging community to bring more attention to the topic.

The reason these photos are not made public is simple: Torture photos undermine support for the Iraq war. Anything which draws attention to the illegality of the war, the hidden agenda and true reasons for the administration's decision to go to war, and the military abuses will receive little to no coverage, at best, or, worse, provocation for application of the Patriot Act by being labeled a terrorist for not supporting the war.

Technorati Categories: Human Rights, Politics, Prisoner Abuse, War

Torture by Proxy

In a New York Times article today, entries from FAA logs confirm the allegations made by Maher Arar, a 35-year-old Canadian engineer, who is suing the United States. Maher says American officials took him as he changed planes in New York and transported him to Syria where he was held for 10 months in a cell and brutally beaten with a metal cable.

...federal aviation records examined by The New York Times appear to corroborate Mr. Arar's account of his flight, during which, he says, he sat chained on the leather seats of a luxury executive jet as his American guards watched movies and ignored his protests.

The Justice Department is challenging the assertion Mr. Arar was sent to another country, specifically Syria, for interrogation. Why Syria? If Mr. Arar is Canadian, why not deport him to Canada? Perhaps Syria has persuasive methods of interrogation.

The tale of Mr. Arar, the subject of a yearlong inquiry by the Canadian government, is perhaps the best documented of a number of cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in which suspects have accused the United States of secretly delivering them to other countries for interrogation under torture.

In papers filed in a New York court replying to Mr. Arar's lawsuit, Justice Department lawyers say the case was not one of rendition but of deportation. They say Mr. Arar was deported to Syria based on secret information that he was a member of Al Qaeda, an accusation he denies.

The term rendition is used to describe the action of taking someone and deporting them abroad for interrogation. Justice Department lawyers argue the act was one of deportation, not rendition.

But, once again, why Syria? Also, notice how often we read about "secret" information or sources that if divulged would compromise national security or the investigation. Here's a typical response:

Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the government had no comment on the case. The administration has refused to cooperate with the Canadian inquiry into Mr. Arar's case and has asked a judge to dismiss most of his lawsuit, saying that allowing it to proceed would reveal classified information.

I don't know about you, but I want facts. There seems to be too much secrecy with this administration.

Again, from the article:

If the plane was used to move Mr. Arar, it is the fourth known to have been used to transport suspected terrorists secretly from one country to detention in another.

Among the three identified in previous news reports is one owned by a company apparently set up by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to The Washington Post. Another, first described by The Chicago Tribune, is an ordinary charter jet that was also used by the Boston Red Sox manager between missions ferrying detainees and their guards to Guantánamo, with the Red Sox logo attached to the fuselage or removed, depending on who was aboard.

As for who was using the aircraft during the time of his apprehension, it seems as if someone's privacy is more important than getting to the bottom of who was responsible for transferring Mr. Arar to Syria:

Nigel England, director of operations for Presidential [Presidential Aviation, operators of the Gulfstream III jet reported to have transported Mr. Arar, is a charter company in Fort Lauderdale, FL], said he would not divulge who rented the Gulfstream that day or discuss any clients.

"It's a very select group of people that we fly, from entertainers to foreign heads of state, a whole gamut of customers that we fly and wouldn't discuss one over the other," he said.

It is not clear how much support the Canadian government is going to receive in pursuing this lawsuit. Most likely, very little.

Why isn't any of this making headlines? Shipping off individuals to countries that will do the dirty work for the US, who knows how many individuals were affected and what cruely was inflicted upon them. This is not the first of such revelations. and this will likely not be the last.

Shame on the government.

Shame on us for not doing more to hold those responsible accountable.

Technorati Categories: Human Rights, Prisoner Abuse, War

Soccer Thoughts and the Death of Childhood

Yesterday, I watched my seven year-old son play soccer. Out in the open air, at dusk, with the wind blowing lightly. A beautiful evening in the making, both from the aesthetic pleasure of the natural surroundings and the joy of watching youth at play.

Normally, my son is more interested in what's on the ground and busy being care-free during the game. But, for some reason, yesterday was the day when he realized he is a member of a team, which counts on his active participation, and can make a difference in the game. He ran, he tried his best, he assisted his teammates, and he scored. Out of the blue...

After the game, I softly told him how proud I was of him. I could tell it was a beautiful evening for him too.

Today, I think about how many fathers have instead had to watch their children die because of the bullets and bombs of an occupying force. The Iraqi father having to hold his daughter's lifeless body after a bomb "missed its target". Or, a Palestinian father having to deal with the news of his daughter's head being shattered as she sits at her desk in school, the result of an "errant bullet" from an Israeli sniper.

Until each and every father considers what it would truly mean to have to watch your child or hold your children as they lay dying, helpless to save them, these cowardly acts will continue to occur without their due vocal responses.

What if it were your seven year-old son or daughter? Your one year-old baby? Put yourself in their shoes for just a brief moment and let it all sink in.

Look at your children when you go home tonight. Really look at them, their innocence, vulnerability, the fountain of life which is beginning to spring forward. Then, imagine them lifeless, unable to return your hugs or kisses. Gone forever.

Such a condition exists, and has existed for quite some time, for the Palestinian people. It now also exists for the Iraqi people.

When will the fathers speak in defense of all children. Be a man. Not the man who has to kick someone's ass to make his point. Be the man who stands up for victims of abuse, defenseless individuals, those who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and pay physically for their bad luck.

Most importantly, be a caring human being. Care for the situation of another human being. Do it today, for at some point in the future it may be you and your family needing the help.

Technorati Categories: Human Rights, Iraq, Middle East, Palestine, War

Abuse at the Hands of the Protector

For years America was viewed internationally as a beacon of hope, where those who were looking for a better life would be welcome and be afforded an opportunity to make a better life. America was the protector of the weak, the beaten, the abused. Now, once again, there is more evidence of America being the abuser.

First, it was the photos of the abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Proof of the maltreatment, the humiliation and disrespect for human dignity as experienced by Iraqi prisoners (many being held without being charged of any wrongdoing).

Then, first-hand accounts of civilian abuses at Fallujah, the killing of innocent civilians at a wedding party, the cold-blooded shooting of a wounded Iraqi hidden in a mosque and captured on film for the world to see.

Now, more evidence is released to further prove the degree to which American forces have used excessive force during detentions. What is becoming evident is the extent to which the Geneva Convention has been repeatedly violated.

In the UK Independent Online daily, the article "Fresh details emerge of Iraqis' abuse by American soldiers", evidence for the case against violations of human rights by American forces continues to build:

Damning evidence of American soldiers abusing detainees at another prison in Iraq was made public yesterday. It details how prisoners were "systematically and intentionally mistreated" at a military base in Mosul, culminating in the death of one. Nobody was court-martialled over the abuse.

An investigation by a US officer after a prisoner's jaw was broken found that inmates were hit with water bottles, made to do exhausting physical exercises until they collapsed, deprived of sleep, subjected to deafening heavy metal music and had cigarette smoke blown into sandbags they were forced to wear as hoods. One soldier said troops "always harassed the hell out of detainees"; another said that at times "the detainees would get so scared they would piss themselves".

The investigation was triggered by the case of Salah Salih Jassim, 20, who had his jaw broken in detention. He was not a suspect but had been arrested along with his father, an officer in Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia. Mr Jassim was held in a room with 70 other prisoners.

Unfortunately, it is very unlikely anyone at the top will be held accountable for any of these actions. It will be the bidders for those truly responsible which may pay some price.

Technorati Categories: Human Rights, Prisoner Abuse, War

DeLay and Congress Care about Terri Schiavo

Tom DeLay is a caring politician, or so he would like you to think...

From US Newswire, DeLay: Terri Schiavo Receives One More Chance; House Sends Schiavo Legislation to President for Signature:

"Tonight we have given Terri Schiavo all we could: a chance to live," DeLay said. "After four days of words, the best of them uttered in prayer, Congress has acted, and a life may have been saved. Democrats and Republicans, congressmen and senators all deserve respect and gratitude for their commitment to giving Mrs. Schiavo the chance we all deserve."

Let's see, where to start...

Congress has given Terri "a chance to live." Perhaps Congress should have applied the same compassion for the people of Iraq.

Tom, like many of his conservative ilk, can't pass up an oportunity to slide in a religious reference:

"After four days of words, the best of them uttered in prayer,..."

Applying the filter of religious overtone makes it sound like such a benevolent action. Here we clearly see the way those in power use religion within a political forum to take the edge off, to mitigate, the true implication of the message: we (the government) will continue to take more and more control over the individual rights until there are none left or only those we choose to leave for you.

And, we should be ever so thankful for the government stepping in and setting up the opportunity to legislate the right to life:

"...congressmen and senators all deserve respect and gratitude for their commitment to giving Mrs. Schiavo the chance we all deserve."

Bottom line: The politicizing of Terri Schiavo's situation is a totally insensitive act and completely disrespectful to Terri and her family. Whether the individual be Terri, her husband, or her family, this is none of the government's business.

The decision whether to artifically feed someone who has been in a vegetative state for years is a private decision to be worked out between family members. Since it appears there are conflicting positions between Terri's husband and her family, this is a very interesting case especially since the government has made this into a high-visiblility cause to begin the legislative discussion.

Today, a US District Court judge has decided not to overrule a state judge's decision to disconnect the feeding tube (Judge Won't Order Schiavo Tube Reinserted):

Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, praised the ruling: "What this judge did is protect the freedom of people to make their own end-of-life decisions without the intrusion of politicians."

Terri Schiavo has been in a vegitative state since 1990. She can breathe on her own, but she has relied on a feeding tube to keep her alive. Although doctors say Terri is in a "persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery", her parents believe she can recover with treatment.

I feel for the family who wishes to bring Terri back, her husband who wants to free her from the condition under which she has been in for 15 years, and the rest of us for not protesting against the government's intervention in individual matters.

Technorati Categories: Government, Individual Rights, Life,Religion

DeLay of DaLand

Tom DeLay, the United States House of Representatives Majority Leader, from Sugar Land, Texas, putting your tax dollars to work...

From DeLay's Dirty Dozen:

Here are 12 recent highlights from DeLay's illustrious career:

Delay Raises Corporate Cash for TRMPAC: DeLay is embroiled in a scandal in Texas for his active participation in illegally funneling corporate funds to assist state political campaigns. DeLay's political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), is under criminal investigation for using corporate money to finance Texas campaigns. DeLay has tried to distance himself from the group, but documents show DeLay "personally forwarded at least one large check" to the group and was "in direct contact with lobbyists for some of the nation's largest companies" on TRMPAC's behalf. [Source: NYT, 3/10/05; Salon, 10/04/04]

Delay Bribes Congressman to Vote for Medicare: DeLay has admitted offering to endorse Sen. Nick Smith's (R-Mich.) son Brad, who was running for Congress at the time, in exchange for Smith's "yea" vote on the Medicare bill. His actions violated House rules and earned DeLay a "public admonishment" from the Ethics Committee. Smith originally alleged – and then retracted after pressure from House leaders – that DeLay also offered a $100,000 bribe for his vote. DeLay extended the role call on the Medicare bill for nearly three hours in order "to avoid an embarrassing loss." [Slate, 10/1/04; WP, 10/1/04]

Delay Uses Taxpayer Money for Partisan Stunt: The House ethics panel rebuked DeLay for using government resources to help locate a private plane he thought was carrying Texas Democratic legislators. DeLay was trying to force the legislators back to the capitol so he could push through his "bitterly disputed congressional redistricting." The ethics report cited House rules that bar members from taking "any official action on the basis of the partisan affiliation...of the individuals involved" and said DeLay's behavior raised "serious concerns under such "standards of conduct." [WP, 10/7/04]

Delay Pays for Golf Tournaments with Cash Meant for Kids: DeLay used a children's charity, Celebrations for Children Inc., as cover for collecting soft money from anonymous interest groups, some of which was used for "dinners, a golf tournament, a rock concert, Broadway tickets and other fundraising events" at the Republican convention in New York. Because the money was supposedly for charity, companies wishing to curry favor with DeLay were able to do so without revealing themselves as campaign donors. Federal laws governing tax-exempt charities allow no more than an insubstantial portion of a group's revenue to be spent on activities other than the charity's main stated purpose. [CBS, 11/14/03; WP, 3/24/04]

Delay Promises 'Seat At Table' for Donor: In one of its three public rebukes, the House Ethics Committee cited the belief on the part of executives at an energy company, Westar Energy Inc., that a $56,500 contribution to a political action committee associated with DeLay would get them a "seat at the table" where key energy legislation was being drafted. DeLay also participated in Westar's golf fundraiser at The Homestead resort in the summer of 2002, " just as the House-Senate conference on major energy legislation ... was about to get underway." [WP, 10/7/04]

Delay Takes Money from Texas Prison Company with Legislation Pending: DeLay "took a $100,000 check from a private prison company" – the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) – at a fundraiser for his children's charity, the DeLay Foundation for Kids. CCA – whose 20-year history has been "fraught with malfeasance, mismanagement, and abuse" – was part of an ongoing lobby for a bill that would privatize up to half of Texas's jails. DeLay is known for wielding major influence over the Republican-led legislature that will decide on the matter. [Knight Ridder, 11/30/04; Texas Observer, 6/6/03]

Delay Blocks Legislation for Partisan Vendetta: In 1999, DeLay received a "private rebuke" for threatening retaliation against the Electronic Industries Association when the trade group named a Democrat to head its Washington operation. To punish the group, DeLay stopped two uncontroversial trade bills that would have benefited the EIA and told the association it would lose all GOP access unless it hired a Republican instead. The group still hired the Democrat, but a little later, the EIA quietly hired a former House Republican staff member who promptly showed up at a fundraiser for DeLay's ARMPAC. [Texas Observer, 2/4/00; Slate, 12/5/98]

Delay Takes Shady Donations for Legal Defense Fund: The list of recent donors to DeLay's legal defense fund includes two lawmakers placed on the House Ethics Committee this year (they replaced conservatives who were purged for being critical of DeLay), and corporations implicated in DeLay's alleged fundraising violations. Corporate donors include Bacardi U.S.A., the rum maker that has also been indicted in the Texas investigation, and Reliant Energy, "another major contributor to a Texas political action committee formed by Mr. DeLay that is the focus of the criminal inquiry." In December, DeLay was forced to return funds from registered lobbyists because those contributions violated House ethics rules. [NYT, 3/13/05; Time, 3/13/05]

Delay Leaves Ethics Behind On European Vacation: DeLay enjoyed a luxurious vacation at the Four Seasons Hotel in London in mid-2000, paid for by an Indian tribe and a gambling services company, both of which opposed gambling legislation DeLay voted against two months later. The payment was funneled through lobbyist Jack Abramoff, best known for teaming up with right-wing religious fundamentalist Ralph Reed to close down a Texas casino operated by the Tigua Indians in 2002, then persuading the tribe to pay the two of them $4.2 million to lobby Washington lawmakers, including DeLay, to reopen it. According to expense accounts obtained by the Journal, Abramoff financed DeLay and DeLay's staff's stay at the Four Seasons hotel to the tune of $4,285.35. The total reimbursement for expenses in London was $13,318.50. [WP, 3/12/05; Raw Story, 2/25/05; WP, 9/29/04]

Delay Leaves House Rules Behind on Asian Vacation: DeLay accepted an expense-paid trip to South Korea which, in direct violation of House rules, was paid for by a South Korean lobbying group. The Korea-U.S. Exchange Council, a group registered with the Foreign Agents Registration Act, was created with help from DeLay's former chief of staff. The cost to send DeLay, his wife and three of his lawmaker friends to Seoul for three days was $106,921, the fourth largest cost for any single trip taken by lawmakers between January 2000 and September 2004. [WP, 3/10/05]

Delay Kicks Ethics out of House: DeLay and his allies in the House have sought to cripple the House Ethics Committee. The committee, which rebuked DeLay three times last year, was purged of its most "responsible" members last month and is currently "paralyzed" by a proposed rules change that "would prevent the committee from launching any investigation without the support of at least one Republican-a restriction designed to protect the majority leader." [WP, 2/5/05; WP, 10/7/04; Time, 3/13/05]

Delay Tries to Change Rules to Protect Power: DeLay was the driving force behind the decision by House leaders to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that "required leaders to step aside temporarily if indicted." The idea was dropped only after rank-and-file lawmakers complained "the party was sending the wrong message." [NYT, 11/18/04; WP, 3/11/05]

Technorati Categories: Politics

NeoCon Heading the World Bank?

All signs are pointing to the NeoCons in Washington continuing to place their people in positions where their agenda can be pushed onto the rest of the world. The lates is an announcement made Wednesday, March 16, by the White House to nominate John Wolfowitz to lead the World Bank.

Not very surprising is the response from the international community, both financial and humanitarian groups, to the nomination of the Iraq War architect.

From the CBC News article World reacts to Wolfowitz nomination with skepticism and alarm :

Wolfowitz, nominated Wednesday by U.S. President George W. Bush, is widely seen as a key instigator in the American push to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. International organizations worried about the nominee's hawkish politics and questioned whether he is the right man for the job.

"As well as lacking any relevant experience, he is a deeply divisive figure who is unlikely to move the bank toward a more pro-poor agenda," said Patrick Watt, policy officer at British charity Action Aid.

Dave Timms, spokesman for London-based World Development Network, called it a "terrifying appointment" that highlighted a lack of democracy in major lending institutions.

Wolfowitz's notoriety as a hardliner made it difficult to cheer his nomination to head the World Bank, said Nigerian newspaper columnist Pini Jason. He said it could a "bad omen" for the Third World.

"It is very likely that George Bush will want to link World Bank policies to his own vision of democratizing the world: Democracy according to the White House," said Jason, who writes for the Vanguard newspaper.

From the Financial Times article Shareholders' dismay at lack of consultation:

The lack of consultation before the announcement meant that European governments - who collectively hold about 30 per cent of the votes on the bank's executive board to the US's 17 per cent - were slow to react. "There are going to be a lot of very unhappy people, but they may be as upset about the process as about the person," said one European official. "They were supposed to consult us and there was no consultation."

Privately, European officials in Washington and bank staff have expressed concern that the US would put forward such a controversial candidate for the post. One concern is that his appointment would make it more difficult for the World Bank to operate effectively in the Middle East.

Many development campaigners were in no doubt. "We consider the choice of Wolfowitz utterly inappropriate to lead such a key institution," said Jeff Powell, co-ordinator of the Bretton Woods Project, a watchdog non-governmental organisation. "This appointment will only serve to confirm suspicions that the World Bank is a tool of US foreign policy."

One common concern was whether the White House was trying to turn the World Bank into an agency of the "war on terror", assuming a mission of democratisation and adopting political criteria for lending.

From a Reuters article Activists decry Wolfowitz choice, analysts divided:

Wolfowitz, No. 2 at the Pentagon, is a divisive figure in Europe and the Middle East for helping shape the Iraq war. Some said the U.S. choice, coming on the heels of the appointment of hawk John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, highlighted White House contempt for international diplomacy.

"If the Bush administration wanted to poke a finger into the eye of every nation on Earth, it couldn't have made a better choice," said John Cavanagh, director of the Institute for Policy Studies, a liberal think tank.

"Wolfowitz does not have an interest or knowledge about poverty and development problems. With him at the helm, the bank will be seen more and more as a tool of U.S. foreign policy, not a multilateral institution," wrote Alex Wilks, a Brussels-based activist whose Web site (www.worldbankpresident.org) tracked speculation over the presidency.

Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs also criticized Wolfowitz's lack of development mileage.

"We need someone with professional experience in helping people to escape from poverty. Mr. Wolfowitz does not have that track record. We need other nominees," he told CNN.

The decision is a very telling sign of how the current administration views itself and its actions above reproach. Regardless of the response from the international community, regardless of whether the individual may be the right person for the job, the administration is moved by a higher mission. Unfortunately for all of us, it is not looking good for those opposed to their view of "democracy".

Global Warming Signs

Global warming, once regarded as a cry by the Chicken Littles of the world, appears to be a reality. Not only that, but the pace of proof is increasing daily.

The latest proof of global warming lies in recent photographs of Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro where, for the first time in 11,000 years, the mountain top is visibly stripped of its snowcap. On RedNova, Global Warming Thaws Mount Kilimanjaro contains a recent photograph of the disappearing snowcap.

An article, Photos Show Climate Change As Ministers Meet In UK, from the Reuters World Environment News website, states how photos will be used to visually communicate the severity of the situation to the G8 country representatives meeting in London this week.

Another article, Himalaya Glaciers Receding Fast Due To Warming, reports how the rate of glacier retreat in the Himalayas is the fastest on the planet and threatens millions of people in China, India and Nepal with water shortages.

How long will the United States, the world's biggest emitter, and China, the fastest growing industrial power, be allowed to continue down their irresponsible paths? This is a global problem with only grassroots solutions. The corporate and political powers at the top will not change their ways until individuals make a financial statement negatively impacting the bottom lines of those who benefit.

Technorati Categories: Climate Change, Environment, Global Warming, Greenhouse Gases