The announcement was made by former Microsoft executive Howard A. Schmidt, appointed cybersecurity coordinator by President Obama in December. The partial unveiling came during the RSA Security Conference in San Francisco, an annual industry conference for security professionals.

CNCI's 2008 launch was shrouded in secrecy by the Bush administration. Authority for the program is derived from a classified order issued by President Bush. However, the contents of National Security Presidential Directive 54, also known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 (NSPD 54/HSPD 23) have never been released for public scrutiny.

"Virtually everything about the initiative is highly classified," the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote in a 2008 report, "and most of the information that is not classified is categorized as 'For Official Use Only.'"

The Armed Services Committee joined their colleagues on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and urged that CNCI "should be scaled back because policy and legal reviews are not complete, and because the technology is not mature."

The Senate questioned the wisdom of a highly-secretive program that "preclude public education, awareness and debate about the policy and legal issues, real or imagined, that the initiative poses in the areas of privacy and civil liberties. ... The Committee strongly urges the [Bush] Administration to reconsider the necessity and wisdom of the blanket, indiscriminate classification levels established for the initiative."

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed suit against the government in federal court after EPIC's Freedom of Information Act request to the National Security Agency was rejected by NSA.

According to EPIC's complaint, CNCI has been described as "a multi-agency, multi-year plan that lays out twelve steps to securing the federal government's cyber networks." The agency refused to release the documents, stating that they "have been withheld in their entirety" because they are "exempt from release" on grounds of "national security."

Tuesday's summary provided no additional information on NSPD 54/HSPD 23, nor did the Obama administration release information on the Pentagon's strategy for waging offensive cyberwarfare.

The declassified portion of CNCI published March 2 discussed previously acknowledged intrusion protection programs, specifically Einstein 2 and Einstein 3, designed to inspect internet traffic entering government systems to detect potential threats.

As Antifascist Calling disclosed last July, the Einstein program in all probability is related to the much larger, ongoing and illegal NSA communications intercept program known as Stellar Wind, first exposed in 2005 by The New York Times.

And Stellar Wind, as I reported in another piece last July, is intimately related to what has come to be known as the "President's Surveillance Program," or PSP.

According to a 38-page declassified report by inspectors general of the CIA, NSA, Department of Justice, Department of Defense and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, presidential authorization for the secret state's driftnet surveillance program was derived by an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) Memorandum penned November 2, 2001, by torture-enabler John C. Yoo.

Despite long-standing prohibitions on military and CIA involvement in civilian law enforcement activities, Yoo wrote that electronic surveillance in "direct support of military operations" did not trigger constitutional rights against illegal searches and seizures, because the Fourth Amendment "is primarily aimed at curbing law enforcement abuses."

Yoo's tortured reading of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) claimed that the law "cannot restrict the President's ability to engage in warrantless searches that protect the national security."

While this particular memorandum was withdrawn, Congress granted the Executive Branch carte blanche for illegal spying under provisions of the despicable FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), supported by then-candidate and now president, Barack Obama.

Indeed, the administration has yet to lay out for the American people current guidelines that would guarantee such abuses are not continuing. Why? Because the PSP is ongoing and now, under the rubric of "cybersecurity," illegal spying by NSA and other secret state agencies continues apace.

As it now stands according to CNCI, Einstein will be tied directly into giant NSA data bases that contain the trace signatures of previous cyberattacks. The agency's immense electronic warehouses will continue to be fed information streamed to the agency by the nation's telecommunications providers.

Under FAA, telecommunications and internet firms are not liable for past or future violations of Americans' constitutional guarantees; indeed, these firms are partners in state-sanctioned surveillance operations.

Like their predecessors in the Oval Office, the Obama administration has obstructed the federal courts from examining the nature of the PSP, or lawbreaking by high government officials. In case after case brought by civil libertarians and privacy advocates, Obama's Justice Department has successfully argued that citizen lawsuits cannot be heard or Executive Branch programs reviewed by any court on grounds that sensitive "state secrets" would be disclosed.

The Washington Post disclosed last July, that under a classified Bush administration program "NSA data and hardware would be used to protect the networks of some civilian government agencies. Part of an initiative known as Einstein 3, the plan called for telecommunications companies to route the Internet traffic of civilian agencies through a monitoring box that would search for and block computer codes designed to penetrate or otherwise compromise networks."

Despite President Obama's pledge in May 2009 announcing White House cybersecurity policy, that his administration will not continue Bush-era surveillance practices under the PSP, Tuesday's partial release of CNCI signals just the opposite.

Indeed, Einstein 3 is based on technology developed for a NSA program called Tutelage that detects and halts security breaches. However, its filtering software can read the content of email and other electronic communications.

While the White House claims that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the lead agency overseeing government efforts to protect state networks and critical infrastructure--the electrical grid, telecommunications networks, internet service providers, and the banking and financial sectors from malicious attacks--NSA's role has raised red flags amongst privacy and civil liberties advocates.

As EPIC pointed out in their lawsuit, in March 2009 Rod Beckstrom resigned from his position as DHS National Cybersecurity Center director, citing the secretive role that NSA will play in these efforts, stating that "NSA currently dominates most national cyber efforts."

This is a critical point. As a Defense Department agency, NSA's primary role is the interception of Communications- and Signals Intelligence (COMINT/SIGINT). As an Executive Branch agency answerable not to Congress but to the Secretary of Defense and the President, the near nonexistent democratic oversight of NSA will be further undermined by CNCI.

This is made clear in the document released Tuesday by the White House: "The EINSTEIN 3 system will also support enhanced information sharing by US-CERT with Federal Departments and Agencies by giving DHS the ability to automate alerting of detected network intrusion attempts and, when deemed necessary by DHS, to send alerts that do not contain the content of communications to the National Security Agency (NSA) so that DHS efforts may be supported by NSA exercising its lawfully authorized missions."

DHS claims are undermined by Einstein 3's ability to perform deep packet inspections that "read the content of email and other communications" as The Wall Street Journal reported last summer.

The document claims that "Information sharing on cyber intrusions will be conducted in accordance with the laws and oversight for activities related to homeland security, intelligence, and defense in order to protect the privacy and rights of U.S. citizens."

This assertion is undercut however, when the White House states that "DHS will be able to adapt threat signatures determined by NSA in the course of its foreign intelligence and DoD information assurance missions for use in the EINSTEIN 3 system in support of DHS's federal system security mission." (emphasis added)

In practice, the same sources and methods deployed by NSA to conduct foreign intelligence, unrestricted by the agency's charter or U.S. law, will most certainly continue to target communications by U.S. citizens.

Although White House cybersecurity coordinator Schmidt states that "transparency is particularly vital in areas, such as the CNCI, where there have been legitimate questions about sensitive topics like the role of the intelligence community in cybersecurity," as Secrecy News points out "without a clear delineation of legal authorities and implementation mechanisms, the scope for meaningful public discussion seems limited."

Despite the fact that Congress stood up the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board as an independent agency in 2007 "to monitor and defend civil liberties in information sharing and counterterrorism activities," Secrecy News' Steven Aftergood disclosed that the Board "has remained vacant since that time" and thus, is "unable to fulfill its assigned task;" a telling commentary on the administration's largely rhetorical promise of "openness"!

Cybersecurity: Another Day, Another Endless "War"

As long time readers of Antifascist Calling are well aware, while hacking, online thievery and sociopathic behavior by criminals is a troubling by-product of the "information superhighway," state officials and shadowy security corporations have framed the debate in terms of yet another in a series of endless "wars."

Mike McConnell, a former NSA Director, Bush regime Director of National Intelligence and currently an executive vice president with the spooky Booz Allen Hamilton corporation (a post he held for a decade before signing-on for the "War on Terror") penned an alarmist screed for The Washington Post February 28.

McConnell, whose firm stands to reap billions of dollars in taxpayer largesse under CNCI, claimed that "The United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing."

Drawing a spurious and half-baked (though self-serving) parallel between the Cold World nuclear stand-off with the former Soviet Union and today's cybercriminals, McConnell declared that a "credible" cyber-deterrent analogous to the doctrine of Mutually-Assured Destruction (MAD) would serve the United States "well."

Ever the Cold warrior, McConnell avers that the U.S. needs to "develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace, identify intrusions and locate the source of attacks with a trail of evidence that can support diplomatic, military and legal options."

"More specifically," McConnell writes, "we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment--who did it, from where, why and what was the result--more manageable."

In other words, the secret state's role in monitoring each and every electronic communication, email, text message, web search, phone conversation or financial transaction must be subject to a pervasive and all-encompassing surveillance by securocrats or we won't be "safe."

Indeed, as McConnell and his shadowy firm are well aware since they helped develop them, "the technologies are already available from public and private sources and can be further developed if we have the will to build them into our systems and to work with our allies and trading partners so they will do the same."

Reckless advocacy such as this is the kiss of death for any notion of privacy, let alone the constitutional right to dissent. As Wired investigative journalist Ryan Singel wrote last week, "The biggest threat to the open internet is not Chinese government hackers or greedy anti-net-neutrality ISPs, it's Michael McConnell, the former director of national intelligence."

Why? Singel insists, "McConnell's not dangerous because he knows anything about SQL injection hacks, but because he knows about social engineering." And during his stint as DNI, "scared President Bush with visions of e-doom, prompting the president to sign a comprehensive secret order that unleashed tens of billions of dollars into the military's black budget so they could start making firewalls and building malware into military equipment."

Self-serving rhetoric by the likes of McConnell about an alleged "cyber-armageddon" are not only absurd but the height of corporatist venality.

As investigative journalist Tim Shorrock revealed in his essential book Spies for Hire and for CorpWatch, Booz Allen Hamilton, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the shadowy private equity firm, The Carlyle Group, "is involved in virtually every aspect of the modern intelligence enterprise, from advising top officials on how to integrate the 16 agencies within the Intelligence Community (IC), to detailed analysis of signals intelligence, imagery and other critical collections technologies."

Clocking-in at No. 10 on Washington Technology's "Top 100" list of Federal Prime Contractors, Booz Allen pulled down some $2,779,421,015 in contracts in 2009.

According to Shorrock, "BAH is one of the NSA's most important contractors, and owes its strategic role there in part to Mike McConnell, who was Bush's director of national intelligence." During an earlier stretch with BAH, "McConnell and Booz Allen were involved in some of the Bush administration's most sensitive intelligence operations, including the infamous Total Information Awareness (TIA) program run by former Navy Admiral John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame."

In his Washington Post op-ed, McConnell wrote that "we must hammer out a consensus on how to best harness the capabilities of the National Security Agency," and that the "challenge" is to shape "an effective partnership with the private sector so information can move quickly back and forth from public to private--and classified to unclassified--to protect the nation's critical infrastructure."

Super spook McConnell claims this will be accomplished by handing "key private-sector leaders (from the transportation, utility and financial arenas) access to information on emerging threats so they can take countermeasures." However, the "private" portion of the "public-private" surveillance "partnership" must have a quid pro quo so that private sector sharing of privileged, highly personal, network information with the secret state doesn't invite "lawsuits from shareholders and others."

In other words, privacy and civil liberties be damned!

As Ryan Singel points out, "the contractor he works for has massive, secret contracts with the NSA" and McConnell now proposes that NSA "take the lead in guarding all government and private networks."

But McConnell, and Booz Allen's advocacy goes far further than simple advocacy in developing a defensive cyber strategy. Indeed, BAH, and a host of other giant defense and security firms such as Lockheed Martin, are actively developing offensive cyber weapons for the Pentagon.

According to Washington Technology, Lockheed Martin will continue to work with the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) in that Pentagon agency's development of a National Cyber Range under CNCI.

That program is suspected of being part of Pentagon research to develop and field-test offensive cyber weapons. According to DARPA, "the NCR will provide a revolutionary, safe, fully automated and instrumented environment for U.S. cybersecurity research organizations to evaluate leap-ahead research, accelerate technology transition, and enable a place for experimentation of iterative and new research directions."

"Now the problem with developing cyberweapons--say a virus, or a massive botnet for denial-of-service attacks," Singel writes, "is that you need to know where to point them."

"That's why," the Wired journalist avers, "McConnell and others want to change the internet. The military needs targets."

Add to the mix a Senate bill that would hand the president "emergency" powers over the Internet and a clear pattern of where things are headed begins to emerge.

With giant ISP's such as Google already partnering-up with the NSA and other secret state agencies, the question is how long will it be before an American version of China's Golden Shield enfolds the heimat within its oppressive tentacles?

Described by privacy advocates as a massive, ubiquitous spying architecture, the aim of the Golden Shield is to integrate a gigantic online data base with an all-encompassing surveillance network, one that incorporates speech and face recognition, closed-circuit television, smart cards, credit records, and Internet surveillance technologies.

And considering that the Empire has reportedly stood-up a giant data base of dissidents called "Main Core," whose roots lie in programs begun during the Reagan administration, assurances by the Obama administration that Americans' privacy rights will be protected as CNCI is rolled-out ring hollow. According to exposés by investigative journalists Christopher Ketchum and Tim Shorrock, writing respectively in Radar Magazine and Salon, Main Core is a meta data base that contains personal and financial data on millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security.

The data, which comes from the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other secret state sources, is collected and stored with neither warrants nor court orders. The name is derived from the fact that it contains "copies of the 'main core' or essence of each item of intelligence information on Americans produced by the FBI and the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence community," according to Salon.

While the total cost of CNCI is classified, rest assured it will be the American people who foot the bill for the destruction of our democratic rights.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press , Uncommon Thought Journal, CJO's Avenger212, and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press.
Collapse

When products fail due to a systemic design, materials or manufacturing flaw, large and statistically significant levels of problems emerge fairly rapidly. This is definitely not the case with the Toyota problem. With many millions of Toyota models on which even more millions of miles have been driven, if there had been an inherent materials or manufacturing design defect, then we would have seen untold thousands of cases of sudden acceleration. It literally would have been virtually a daily event happening all over the country in many Toyota models. But, in fact, little more than 1,000 Toyota and Lexus owners have reported since 2001 that their vehicles suddenly accelerated on their own. This is a tiny, minuscule percentage of Toyotas.

This infrequent runaway car problem is not analogous to a serious case of bacterial contamination of a major food product causing many thousands of cases of food poisoning in a relatively short period. It is even more difficult to find the cause of.

Understanding this nature of defects also means that the so-called solutions of replacing floor mats and gas pedals are sheer nonsense. Indeed, it did not surprise me to read today that there have already been cases of sudden acceleration in cars that had received fixes by Toyota. More than 60 Toyota owners have complained to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about cars already repaired under the two major Toyota recalls, saying they aren't fixed and their throttles can still race out of control.

While recognizing the agony and suffering of sudden acceleration accidents and deaths it is also necessary to appreciate the statistically rare occurrences of this problem. Only by doing so is it possible to understand that the ultimate explanation - and solution - to the sudden acceleration problem will be a non-systemic flaw or defect in a critical component. In other words, either a random defect in a material or some unusual and infrequent deviation in a manufacturing process of some critical component. Only such a situation can logically explain so few sudden acceleration problems in so many millions of cars being operated for many more millions of hours and miles.

In my professional opinion, the likely scenario is a defect in a semiconductor chip used in the electronic control system. A defect that was caused by some infrequent flaw in a raw material or manufacturing process that would not show up in routine quality control testing of raw materials or components. That so many different Toyota models over many years have been found defective signifies the likelihood of a particular problem component made in a specific factory that has been used for quite a while. Moreover, the defect obviously does not ordinarily impair vehicle performance but only manifests itself under some infrequent conditions, as yet undetermined.

Rita Taylor of Fort Worth, Texas experienced runaway acceleration, took her car to a Toyota dealer, and had the floor mats removed. A few months later she had another frightening runaway episode. Ditto for Eric Weiss in California, who also had a second episode months after the first one and after removing the mats. Others who have not died and kept using their Toyotas have also had repeat events. Thus, perfectly normal vehicle performance is possible between runaway events.

Make no mistake, the precise cause of such a sporadic event is incredibly difficult to pin down and even more difficult to remedy. An extremely intense and costly investigation is necessary. It is the classic needle-in-the-haystack problem.

If my thinking is correct, then it is sheer folly to believe that replacing floor mats or gas pedals can solve the sudden acceleration problem. However, there is one aspect to the sudden acceleration problem that also is crystal clear and, in some ways, even more aggravating than the acceleration problem. This is the absence of an override system that absolutely prevents fuel being fed to the engine when brakes are employed while a car is accelerating. It is gratifying that the federal government is seriously considering requiring such an override system in all vehicles. An effective override system might, in the long run, be a faster and more cost-effective solution than chasing-the-defect strategy, especially for retrofitting many millions of vehicles.

Alternatively, finding the cause of the sudden acceleration problem requires a standard failure analysis methodology, namely to obtain absolutely every Toyota vehicle that has experienced sudden acceleration. Then meticulously examine through microscopic and other types of analysis and testing all critical components of the electronic system (called by Toyota the Electronic Throttle Control System with intelligence). Think of it like an autopsy.

This does not appear to have been done. To the contrary, the firm hired by Toyota tested several ordinary vehicles and components. One of the primary authors of the Exponent report said they did not examine any vehicles or components that had the unintended accelerations. This makes no sense whatsoever if the defect is rare and, therefore, its finding that there was nothing wrong was meaningless. Worse, it was a deception and distraction.

[The author has a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering and was formerly a full professor of metallurgical engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and a consultant for many corporations, such as IBM, Texas Instruments, Polaroid, and RayOVac, and has served as an expert witness in many legal proceedings. He was a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association and is the author of several nonfiction books and hundreds of articles.]

Collapse

Enter the newest fiasco, that sweetly named diabetes drug Avandia, so heavenly sounding, yet now revealed to be just another in a long history of drugs that get government approval but turn out to be lethal. According to Bloomberg News: "Safety reviewers at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urged the agency to take GlaxoSmithKline Plc's diabetes drug Avandia off the market in 2008 because they said it was causing 500 additional heart attacks per month." A month! The drug was linked to 304 deaths during the third quarter of 2009, which implies many thousands of deaths to date.

Consider these depressing developments. In recent years, pharmaceutical companies have committed acts that forced them to pay the largest criminal fines in American history. In cases involving Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb and four other drug companies, these fines and penalties have totaled over $7 billion since May 2004. That is an amazing number, but in comparison to drug industry profits, merely a pittance.

In particular, Pfizer has been fined multiple times in the past 6 years for illegal off-label promotion of their drugs. In its latest plea agreement, which took place last September, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in fines and penalties for off-label promotion of Bextra. This settlement was the largest criminal fine in US history. Clearly, this kind of corporate behavior requires diligent oversight by the Food and Drug Administration to protect Americans and to ensure the safety of American medicine. Yet this newest Avandia outrage proves, yet again, that the federal government is failing people.

The Senate Finance Committee has just released a report and a letter to the FDA. They have revealed that the FDA itself estimated that the drug caused approximately 83,000 excess heart attacks between 1999 and 2007. "Americans have a right to know there are serious health risks associated with Avandia and GlaxoSmithKline had a responsibility to tell them. Patients trust drug companies with their health and their lives and GlaxoSmithKline abused that trust," said Senator Max Baucus.

The Senate committee started their investigation after the New England Journal of Medicine published a study in May 2007 warning of the possible cardiovascular risk of Avandia. Avandia entered the market in 1999 and reached annual revenue of $3 billion by 2006, including sales of a combination drug that includes Avandia. Sales plummeted to $1.2 billion in 2009, two years after that study was published which linked Avandia to a 43 percent increased risk of heart attack. Before that the drug was the company's second best selling drug, and they did everything to protect sales, rather than users of the drug.

The Senate report provides incredible details on how the drug company pursued countless awful tactics to thwart many efforts to reveal to the public and the medical community just how unsafe Avandia is. The report notes: "The totality of evidence suggests that GSK was aware of the possible cardiac risks associated with Avandia years before such evidence became public.... Based on this knowledge, GSK had a duty to sufficiently warn patients and the FDA of its concerns in a timely manner. Instead, GSK executives intimidated independent physicians, focused on strategies to minimize findings that Avandia may increase cardiovascular risk, and sought ways to downplay findings that the rival drug ACTOS (pioglitazone) might reduce cardiovascular risk."

The company continues to fight to keep its drug in the market. You can imagine the army of lobbyists being used to safeguard the interests of drug companies. Other industries exhibit the same behavior, giving us widespread corporate pillage.

I and millions of other owners of Toyota vehicles cringe because, like so many other companies, it lost the capacity for telling the truth and protecting their consumers, and the federal government failed its oversight function. With 31 lobbyists in Washington last year, Toyota has spent nearly $25 million on federal regulatory and legislative lobbying matters in the last five years, much more than any other foreign automaker. Toyota's registered lobbyists include at least eight former officials from Congress and the executive branch and it employs former engineers and officials from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the regulatory agency that failed to detect a pattern of safety problems at Toyota.

Put aside the anti-government rhetoric of the Tea Party movement. The critical need is not for less government but for better government that really works in the public interest, especially protecting consumers from dastardly corporate powers. Until that happens it is not surprising that the recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans are dissatisfied or angry about the federal government. Nearly 75 percent of independents feel this way. If you think that electing either Democrats or Republicans will fix broken government, think again. Both major parties are corrupted by corporate interests.

[Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.]

Collapse

In fact, trial balloons have already been sent out bearing supposedly unrehearsed comments by former Israeli Army general and current Minister Yossi Peled, suggesting that another war is on its way. More recently, Israel's ultra-right and unabashedly racist Foreign Minister Avigador Lieberman threatened to topple the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad in case of a war.

And so it begins.

Historically, Israel has, with one understandable exception, determined the time and place of all of its wars with the Arabs. The only time Israeli forces were attacked in 1973 involved an Arab attempt to regain territories that were captured by Israel in 1967.

When Lieberman uttered his "message that should go out to the ruler of Syria from Israel" to an audience at Bar Ilan University, he was effectively saying that Israel will topple the Syrian government when it decides the time was ripe for war. And considering Peled's earlier statement that war was imminent, the only possible conclusion would be that a "regime change" in Syria is high on the Israeli agenda. It also perhaps represents the last chance of fulfilling the US neoconservative vision - that of "A New Strategy for Securing the Realm".

This inference should have been evident and thus sent shockwaves throughout the world, and especially through the US media which now know fully the price of the Israeli-neocon folly.

So why do Western mainstream media, especially in the US, continue to guard Israel's image so protectively, at times even devotedly, when the country's belligerence is so blatant? And if some in the media are indeed well intentioned in their coverage, why do they continually miss the many clear signs pointing to Israeli criminality and aggression?

A growing reference that is once again floating among political and media analysts is that Israel has greater mastery than the Arabs over fighting media wars. Often cited, for example, is the National Information Directorate, an Israeli propaganda center that was established a few months prior to the devastating war on Gaza last year. Ironically, the center was established after recommendations made by an Israeli inquiry into the equally bloody Israeli war against Lebanon in 2006 - ironically because independent war inquiries often chastise the army for violation of human rights, as opposed to recommending the establishment of a "hasbara" - more like propaganda - body to justify the crimes committed against civilians.

Still, even such "hasbara" should have had little impact on the Western media's depiction of Israeli crimes and hostilities toward its neighbors.

One could possibly consider the claim that Israel's media success story is the brainchild of Israel's own media expertise under very specific circumstances: That Israeli spokespersons are icons of articulation and charm; that Palestinian retaliations to Israeli crimes in Gaza were vile and gruesome; that the Israeli media blackout was so successful that Western journalists had no other way of finding any credible, decipherable facts; that there are no Arab spokespersons who are well-informed and articulate enough to present even a semblance of a coherent narrative to challenge the one offered by Israel.

But none of these scenarios are convincing. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is as faltering in English as he is in his mother tongue. The Palestinian resistance merely killed 13 Israelis, 10 of whom were soldiers - and recently "regretted" the killing of the three civilians - while Israel killed over 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and remains unmoved. The Israeli media blackout of Gaza during the war - which continues even now - hardly prevented footage and reports from beaming to all corners of the earth, thanks to the valiant efforts of Arab media and independent reporters, photographers and cameramen from all over the world, supplemented by the United Nations and other independent groups' findings. All of this made the scope of the tragedy known to all. And finally, the most eloquent and involved Palestinian and Arab academics, diplomats and activists can be found in every major Western city and reputable university or research institute.

Yet somehow it was Israel that "claim(ed) success in PR war", according to Anshel Pfeffer in the Jewish Chronicle, days after the initial Israel attack on Gaza. Pfeffer quoted Avi Pazner, Israel's former ambassador to Italy and France, and "one of the officials drafted in to present Israel's case to the world media," as claiming that "whenever Israel is bombing, it is hard to explain our position to the world ... but at least this time everything was ready and in place."

Utter nonsense. As someone who has been grilled and challenged in the media for making such outrageous statements as "Israel must learn to respect international human rights," I cannot take seriously the media's claims to "objectivity". If this were the norm, no Israeli hasbara campaign would have even dented public perceptions of the criminal war. No unfeeling Israeli Army spokesperson could possibly explain the logic of the wanton destruction of Gaza, as hungry civilians were chased in an open-air prison with nowhere to escape and no one to come to their rescue.

Israeli officials continue to congratulate themselves on a job well done, and must be preparing yet another marvelous hasbara campaign to justify the killings that are yet to follow. However, there are some things that are becoming increasingly obvious, at least to the rest of us. First, the secret of Israeli "success", if any, was not its own doing, but rather stemmed from the media's decision, made years ago, to protect Israel's image. Second, despite the fanfare and self-congratulating commentary, Israel has now largely lost the media war, and the tide since the Gaza war has been turning, thanks to the underfunded, but solid and increasingly determined efforts of independent media groups, intellectuals, citizen journalists, civil society activists, artists, poets, bloggers, ordinary people and those in the media who possess the courage to challenge Israeli hasbara and its devotees.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Collapse

Waging a decades-long psychological war against the American people, corporatist thugs embedded within the National Security State assure us that secrecy, deceit and imperial adventures that steal other peoples' resources are the one true path to national prosperity and universal happiness.

But what happens when those charged with protecting us from attack, actually aid and abet those who would kill us, and then handsomely profit from our slaughter in the process?

During a January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick F. Kennedy, testified that the visa of accused bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, wasn't revoked at the specific request of secret state agencies.

Kennedy, a Bushist State Department holdover, was the former Director on National Intelligence for Management and headed the transition team that set up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2005 under former Ambassador to Iraq, John D. Negroponte, a veteran of U.S. covert operations since the Vietnam war.

Given the avalanche of media interest, fueled by Fox News and the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, whether or not the suspect should have been read his Miranda rights, the only coverage of the hearings that reported Kennedy's explosive testimony, was a brief article in the Detroit News.

Claiming that "revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said that allowing the alleged terrorist to keep his visa would have "helped" federal investigators take down the entire network "rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort."

A "soldier" (indicted criminal) who would have murdered 300 air passengers if the detonator concealed in his underpants hadn't serendipitously failed to explode the device.

As Alex Lantier wrote February 3 on the World Socialist Web Site, the latest in a series of significant revelations "has been buried by the media." The socialist critic avers: "As of this writing, nearly a week after the hearing, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have published no articles on the subject. Nor have the broadcast or cable media reported on it."

Lantier charges that "despite--or perhaps more accurately, because of--the fact that this information exposes the official government story of the near-disaster to be a lie" the corporate media is fully complicit in the cover-up.

Weeks after the incident, it is now clear that intelligence agencies did far more than simply "watch" a potential terrorist. That they gave Abdulmutallab a leg up, bypassing airline security systems put in place after 9/11 that would have prevented him from boarding that plane, is also crystal clear.

The question is: was a reckless calculation made that gambled the lives of 300 air passengers for ruthless political purposes? If so, was it designed to destabilize the Obama government, thereby binding it ever-closer to a permanent, unelected, security apparatus that feathers its nest by serving the only constituency that matters--giant energy firms, defense-related corporations and those who finance them?

Is this scenario being played out in Washington where Republican right-wingers like Senators Susan Collins (ME), Tom Coburn (OK), John McCain (AZ), John Ensign (NV) and Lindsey Graham (SC), but also neocon Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), demand that the accused be turned over to the military for "special handling," thereby ratcheting-up pressure for increased domestic repression?

Just as pertinently, is this what White House insider Richard Wolffe meant when he said on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann January 4 that the "president is leaning very much towards thinking this was a systemic failure by individuals who maybe had an alternative agenda." (emphasis added)

For weeks now, the Obama administration and the media have played the same broken record: despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, a multitude of security agencies, ranging from the CIA, the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), a satrapy of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, "failed to connect the dots."

But as I have documented in previous reports, most recently on January 22, citing multiple domestic and foreign intelligence warnings, including a walk-in interview at the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria's capital, by the suspect's own father, a former top official in the Nigerian government, consular officials and CIA officers passed the warning up the food chain--where it sat.

Abdulmutallab on the CIA and NCTC's Radar

The revelation that various agencies of America's shadow government made a deliberate decision that allowed Abdulmutallab to board Flight 253 is more extensive than previously disclosed.

Newsweek revealed February 2 that "a single intelligence community database operated by the CIA, known by the code name 'Hercules'," held all the "'bits and pieces' of intelligence that White House officials believe could have led U.S. authorities to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before last December 25."

However, even though the agencies had assembled information on the suspect in a single computer system where it was readily accessible to analysts, anonymous "intelligence officials" told journalist Mark Hosenball that "all source" analysts at CIA and NCTC "which both had access to 'Hercules,' were unable to assemble the intelligence scraps in time to prevent Abdulmutallab from boarding his Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit with a bomb hidden in his underpants."

The unnamed officials told Hosenball that the failure to stop the suspect "validates assertions by White House and congressional investigators that the alleged lapses in the handling of intelligence related to Abdulmutallab did not stem from a failure of sometimes turf-conscious spy agencies to share information with each other."

"Instead," Newsweek reports, "they point to the intelligence analysis carried out by the CIA and NCTC."

As I previously reported, citing a January 18 investigation by The New York Times, the National Security Agency "learned from a communications intercept" that a man named "'Umar Farouk'--the first two names of the jetliner suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab--had volunteered for a coming operation." Additional NSA intercepts in December "mentioned the date of Dec. 25, and suggested that they were 'looking for ways to get somebody out' or 'for ways to move people to the West,' one senior administration official said."

Running for cover, an intelligence official told Newsweek: "The volume of any database doesn't matter much. That, by itself, doesn't get you anywhere." An interesting spin, when one considers the multibillion dollar expansion by NSA, as investigative journalist James Bamford reported last November.

The official continues, "Nor does the mere fact that the NCTC and the CIA have shared access to material. The key is knowing what to look for, how to bring together different bits and scraps of information that--on the surface and in an ocean of data--don't appear to be connected." Conversely, knowing which "bits and scraps" to ignore from a parapolitical perspective, may have played an equally critical role in a presumed analytical "lapse."

"This is hard stuff," the anonymous source pontificates. "It's not a case of punching in a couple of search terms, sitting back, and waiting for enlightenment. Once you know the answer, it seems easy. But in real life, you don't get the answer ahead of time."

Really?

To the contrary, as with the September 11, 2001 hijack team, the Flight 253 affair seems to indicate that the decision to allow Abdulmutallab to board the plane was a political, not a law enforcement decision that led analysts not to "connect" more than a few of the "dots."

As we now know, prior to 9/11, the Pentagon's Able Danger unit had amassed terabytes of data on al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States. According to published reports, the unit had obtained detailed information on ringleader, the drug-addled Mohammed Atta, and other members of the suicide squad. Yet just scant months before the atrocity, the unit was shuttered and the data destroyed.

Corporate media and the 9/11 Commission have advanced two contradictory propositions on Able Danger's demise: the Pentagon unit hadn't gathered intelligence on Atta and claims to contrary were overblown or they illegally obtained information on ordinary Americans and were shut down for inadvertent spying.

However as researcher Paul Thompson revealed in The Terror Timeline, Able Danger had identified Americans, only they were the wrong Americans. According to Thompson, the unit pegged "future National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and other prominent Americans as potential security risks" over their illicit dealings with foreign governments.

How's that for an inconvenient truth!

As with earlier warnings of impending terrorist strikes, political efficacy trumped the safety and security of the American people. This is underscored by January 20 testimony by NCTC Director, Bushist embed Michael E. Leiter, before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

CongressDaily revealed that Leiter told the senators, "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."

Journalist Chris Strohm disclosed that intelligence officials "acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities," a fact now confirmed by Patrick F. Kennedy's January 27 testimony before the House Committee.

Similar to the Detroit News report on Kennedy's admission, to date, not a single media outlet picked-up the trail and investigated CongressDaily's chilling disclosure.

Burying the Evidence, "Moving On"

Corporate media are chock-a-block with reports of efforts by right-wing Republicans and some Democrats to brand the Obama administration as "soft on terrorism."

As readers are well aware, Antifascist Calling doesn't carry water for the Obama administration; a government that has rightly been characterized as a slick makeover of the previous regime. However it must be acknowledged, unlike Bushist torture freaks, in Abdulmutallab's case constitutional norms were followed and a criminal suspect lawfully charged for an egregious act.

In "new normal" America however, not disappearing a suspect into a gulag, subject to tender ministrations by "enhanced interrogation" specialists (torturers) is viewed as a bad thing in our debased political culture.

Meanwhile media stenographers scrupulously ignore, with a single-mindedness one has come to expect from totalitarian regimes, considerable evidence that elements of the intelligence-security apparatus could be charged as accessories before and after the fact with Abdulmutallab's alleged offense.

In his prepared statement to the House Committee, Kennedy asserted that "following his father's November 19 visit to the Embassy, we sent a cable to the Washington intelligence and law enforcement community through proper channels (the Visas Viper system) that 'Information at post suggests [that Farouk] may be involved in Yemeni-based extremists.' At the same time, the Consular Section entered Abdulmutallab into the Consular Lookout and Support System database known as CLASS."

When it was discovered that officials in Abuja had misspelled the suspect's name "information about previous visas issued to him and the fact that he currently held a valid U.S. visa was not included in the cable."

Despite the misspelling however, "the CLASS entry resulted in a lookout using the correct spelling that was shared automatically with the primary lookout system used by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and accessible to other agencies."

In other words, even though the initial Embassy cable misspelled Abdulmutallab's name, the "lookout" notification sent out to intelligence agencies, specifically DHS, should have warranted further action. And it also appears that initially it did.

As both the Los Angeles Times and CongressDaily reported, Customs and Border Protection agents obtained the suspect's name from the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment or TIDE database, maintained by the NCTC and planned to question Abdulmutallab when Flight 253 landed in Detroit on arrival from Amsterdam.

However, as CongressDaily subsequently revealed, CBP agents "had information about alleged terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab three days before his departure" and not during the flight as the Los Angeles Times report initially suggested.

As we now know, information fed to NCTC's database contained specific warnings from the State Department--as did the CIA's "Hercules" system as Newsweek reported, and "that White House officials believe could have led U.S. authorities to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before last December 25," according to the newsmagazine's anonymous sources.

Why did the State Department fail to revoke the accused terrorist's visa?

When questioned by Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Kennedy told the panel, "We will revoke the visa of any individual who is a threat to the United States, but we do take one preliminary step."

Kennedy explained, "We ask our law enforcement and intelligence community partners, 'Do you have eyes on this person and do you want us to let this person proceed under your surveillance so that you may potentially break a larger plot?'"

The Undersecretary added: "And one of the members [of the intelligence community]--and we'd be glad to give you that [information] ... in private [closed session]--said, 'Please, do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of trying to roll up an entire network, not just stop one person.'"

In other words, despite multiple sourced reports from American and overseas security agencies that Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was planning to launch an attack, probably on Christmas Day, deploying an asset identified by NSA intercepts as a "Nigerian" named "Umar Farouk," high-level intelligence officials, claiming to have "eyes" on the alleged AQAP operative, a suspected suicide bomber to boot, allowed him to board an airliner packed with nearly 300 passengers and crew.

In a prepared statement to the Committee, NCTC Director Leiter said, "Let's start with this clear assertion: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should not have stepped on that plane. The counterterrorism system failed and we told the President we are determined to do better."

However, neither House Committee members, nor the corporate media which suppressed the story entirely, challenged Leiter's statement of a week earlier when he testified before a Senate panel that intelligence agencies allow watch listed terrorists to enter the country "because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."

If Leiter's testimony was taken under oath, he should be brought up on charges of perjury since he next asserted that "Intelligence Community analysts who were working hard on immediate threats to Americans in Yemen did not understand the fragments of intelligence on what turned out later to be Mr. Abdulmutallab, so they did not push him onto the terrorist watchlist."

This claim, as with practically all the "facts" released to the American people by the White House, Congress or by the secret state agencies themselves, is a rank mendacity.

As Newsweek's unnamed sources claim, CIA and NCTC analysts did have access to an "intelligence community database," "Hercules," and that it held all the available data on Abdulmutallab and "validates assertions by the White House and congressional investigators" that the failure to stop the bomber were not due to bungled efforts "to connect the dots."

As I reported last month, during a December 22 meeting at the White House, President Obama was briefed by top officials from the CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security "who ticked off a list of possible plots against the United States and how their agencies were working to disrupt them," as The New York Times disclosed January 18.

Last month, Newsweek reported that "intelligence analysts had 'highlighted' an evolving 'strategic threat'," and that "'some of the improvised explosive device tactics AQAP might use against U.S. interests were highlighted' in other 'finished intelligence products'."

"Finished intelligence products" on an evolving plot to destroy an airliner are hardly "fragments," as Leiter deceitfully testified to the House Committee. Cheekily, NCTC's head honcho falsely claimed that his agency, the recipient of billions of dollars in taxpayer largesse, "did not correlate the specific information that would have been required to help keep Abdulmutallab off that Northwest Airlines flight."

Citing the need to "improve" intelligence capabilities by accelerating "information technology enhancements, to include knowledge discovery, database integration, cross-database searches, and the ability to correlate biographic information with terrorism-related intelligence," Leiter implies that billions more in handouts to security contractors are needed to "solve" the problem.

This from the Director of an agency that under his watch wasted more than $500 million on its flawed Railhead project to "upgrade" the TIDE database, an initiative "crippled by technical failures and contractor mismanagement," as the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and congressional investigators revealed back in 2008.

Contractor hanky-panky aside, the problem is not one of technical "upgrades" to an agency that seems more concerned with facilitating the entrance of terrorists into the country "for some reason or another" than stopping them.

Rather, it is imperative that the American people demand that Congress and the Executive Branch, which in theory, controls the gaggle of alphabet-soup satrapies in cahoots with the most rotten and predatory sectors of the U.S. ruling class, clean house and bring to book, the rightist elements aligned with the petroleum-intelligence nexus who continue to deploy terror gangs such as al-Qaeda as strategic assets.

That they do so regardless of the cost, to the American people and to the victims of illegal U.S. wars and occupations, is a sign that the system, verging on bankruptcy will soon veer even further out of any effective democratic control.

How else can one interpret Director of National Intelligence, Dennis C. Blair's chilling assertion to the Senate Committee on Intelligence that he was "highly certain" that al-Qaeda "or one of its affiliates" will attempt a large-scale attack on American soil within the next six months," as The New York Times reported.

"We judge that al Qaeda maintains its intent to attack the homeland, preferably with a large-scale operation that would cause mass casualties, harm the U.S. economy or both," Blair wrote in his annual threat assessment to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

As investigative journalist Russ Baker wrote in his essential book, Family of Secrets, "Authoritarianism thrives in a climate of fear, and the [Bush] administration invoked fear continually. But when it came to security, there was the usual exemption for large corporate entities [and] the tattoo of terror was relentless, especially during the political high season."

Not much has changed since Barack Obama became president. Many of the same dodgy players who ramped-up production lines at the fear factory for the Bush/Cheney team are still in place, doing what they do best: hitting the corporate "sweet spot" for their clients in the Military-Industrial-Security-Complex.

In the weeks since the attempted destruction of Flight 253, one thing is certain: the White House, Congress, the intelligence agencies and their handmaidens, the corporate media, are participating in a massive cover-up.

And as we enter the "political high season," what might come next is anyone's guess.


Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press , Uncommon Thought Journal, CJO's Avenger212, and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press.
Collapse

Unnamed sources who spoke to Newsweek magazine said the Obama Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has concluded that John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who penned the infamous memos, used "poor judgment" but will not be subject to disciplinary action. Yoo and Bybee worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, along with Steven Bradbury, who is also named in the report.

The conclusions of the OPR report provide yet another demonstration of President Barack Obama's defense of the anti-democratic and criminal practices of the Bush administration in the "war on terror," and the current administration's resolve that no one--especially those at the highest levels of government--will be held to account.

An earlier version of the OPR report completed in December 2008 concluded that Yoo, presently a University of California at Berkeley law professor, and Bybee, now a federal appeals court judge on the 9th Circuit, violated professional standards when they drafted an August 2002 legal opinion authorizing brutal methods by the CIA in the interrogation of suspected terrorist detainees.

The OPR recommended referral of their cases to state bar associations, which could have revoked their law licenses. Bybee also could have faced an impeachment inquiry before Congress. However, under a new review of the OPR report ordered by Attorney General Eric Holder shortly after he took charge of the Justice Department, the two will not face even these weak sanctions.

In early 2009, the Obama Justice Department began to water down the conclusions of the OPR probe, which was initiated in mid-2004 during the Bush administration following disagreements between the Office of Legal Counsel and White House lawyers over the Bush administration's defense of "enhanced interrogation" techniques justified by the Yoo-Bybee opinions.

David Margolis, a 34-year career prosecutor at the Justice Department, was eventually tasked by Holder with reviewing the final version of the OPR report. It was reportedly Margolis who downgraded the report's initial findings against Yoo and Bybee from "professional misconduct" to "poor judgment."

As recently as December, Obama administration lawyers under the direction of Holder supported the dismissal of a case brought against Yoo by Jose Padilla, the US citizen held incommunicado and tortured for more than two years after his arrest at Chicago's O'Hare Airport.

Earlier last year, Obama administration attorneys supported the dismissal of suits brought by a wide range of victims, including those subject to "extraordinary rendition," targets of government eavesdropping, and detainees transported from the Middle East to US military bases in Afghanistan.

The Justice Department's defense of Yoo and Bybee testifies to the Obama administration's continuation of the police-state structures developed under Bush. The memos drafted by Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury were solicited by the Bush White House to provide pseudo-legal justification for systematic torture that was already being carried out by CIA interrogators.

The memos made the gruesome and legally absurd argument that "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding, threats of death, sleep deprivation, extreme variations of temperature, and the use of psychotropic drugs do not rise to the level of torture unless they inflict pain equivalent to "major organ failure" or death.

Since authoring the memos, Yoo has gone on to write three books in which he defends his doctrine that the president as the "commander in chief" in wartime possesses unlimited powers, including the right to authorize torture and other illegal acts. In one of his August 2002 memos, he asserted that CIA agents accused of torturing Al Qaeda suspects could claim they were acting in "self-defense" to prevent future terror attacks.

Newsweek notes that the OPR report is "sharply critical" of the "legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding"' and other torture methods used by CIA interrogators after September 11, and that it will provide "many new details about how waterboarding was adopted and the role that top White House officials played in the process."

This is, however, merely window dressing for a cover-up of war crimes and crimes against the democratic rights of the American people and tacit sanction for the continuation of such practices. Obama has frequently touted his "ban" on torture, but this remains an empty and cynical gesture under conditions where the government protects former government officials who authorized these crimes.

There are two major reasons why the Obama administration continues to block any prosecution of those responsible for authorizing torture. First, the Democratic Party is complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration. Democratic congressional leaders were briefed by Bush officials on the torture practices and violations of democratic rights and international law, and supported them.

Second, such policies continue under the current administration.

One year after assuming office, Obama has broken his pledge to close the Guantanamo detention camp and blocked suits by Guantanamo detainees challenging their detention. He has explicitly defended the Bush administration policies of indefinite detention, extraordinary rendition, and military tribunals. The US military prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan continues to hold hundreds of prisoners, without charge or trial, under barbaric conditions.

Obama is going one step further than Bush by seeking to establish a military prison in Illinois where prisoners will be held indefinitely without charge or trial and subjected to treatment defined by international and US law as torture. He is thereby institutionalizing on US soil the illegal, police-state methods improvised by Bush.

Obama has moreover upheld the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, with Yemen becoming the latest target of US threats, along with Iran.

The administration's de facto support for John Yoo and his torture memo accomplices is of a piece with these policies, which are supported by both big business parties. Under conditions of expanding militarism abroad and deepening social inequality at home, there is no section of the political establishment committed to the defense of democratic rights.

Democratic rights can be defended only through the independent mobilization of the working class against the Obama administration, the Democrats and Republicans, and the capitalist system which is the source of war and repression.

Collapse

Along with new reports, evidence suggests that the administration's cover-up of the affair has very little to do with a failure by the intelligence apparatus to "connect the dots" and may have far more serious political implications for the Obama administration, and what little remains of a functioning democracy in the United States, than a botched bombing.

What the White House and security officials have previously described only as "vague" intercepts regarding "a Nigerian" has now morphed into a clear picture of the suspect--and the plot.

The New York Times revealed January 18 that the National Security Agency "learned from a communications intercept of Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named "Umar Farouk"--the first two names of the jetliner suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab--had volunteered for a coming operation."

According to Times' journalists Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, "the American intelligence network was clearly listening in Yemen and sharing that information." Indeed, additional NSA intercepts in December "mentioned the date of Dec. 25, and suggested that they were 'looking for ways to get somebody out' or 'for ways to move people to the West,' one senior administration official said."

Clearly, the administration was "worried about possible terrorist attacks over the Christmas holiday." These concerns led President Obama to meet December 22 "with top officials of the C.I.A., F.B.I. and Department of Homeland Security, who ticked off a list of possible plots against the United States and how their agencies were working to disrupt them," the Times reports.

"In a separate White House meeting that day" the Times disclosed, "Mr. Obama's homeland security adviser, John O. Brennan, led talks on Yemen, where a stream of disturbing intelligence had suggested that Qaeda operatives were preparing for some action, perhaps a strike on an American target, on Christmas Day."

In mid-January, Newsweek reported that the "White House report on the foiled Christmas Day attempted airliner bombing provided only the sketchiest of details about what may have been the most politically sensitive of its findings: how the White House itself was repeatedly warned about the prospect of an attack on the U.S.," Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff disclosed.

According to the newsmagazine, "intelligence analysts had 'highlighted' an evolving 'strategic threat,'" and that "'some of the improvised explosive device tactics AQAP might use against U.S. interests were highlighted' in other 'finished intelligence products'."

However, the real bombshell came last Wednesday during hearings before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when Bushist embed, and current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission.

CongressDaily reported on January 22 that intelligence officials "have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities."

Leiter told the Committee: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."

CongressDaily reporter Chris Strohm, citing an unnamed "intelligence official" confirmed that Leiter's statement reflected government policy and told the publication, "in certain situations it's to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts."

An alternative explanation fully in line with well-documented inaction, or worse, by U.S. security agencies prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and now, Christmas Day's aborted airline bombing, offer clear evidence that a ruthless "choice" which facilitates the murder of American citizens are cynical pretexts in a wider game: advancing imperialism's geostrategic goals abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home.

Leiter's revelation in an of itself should demolish continued government claims that the accused terror suspect succeeded in boarding NW Flight 253 due to a failure to "connect the dots."

However, as far as Antifascist Calling can determine, no other media outlet has either reported or followed-up CongressDaily's disclosure; a clear sign that its explosive nature, and where a further investigation might lead, are strictly off-limits.

Taking into account testimony by a high-level national security official that terrorists are allowed to enter the country for intelligence purposes, one can only conclude that the alleged "failure" to stop Abdulmutallab was neither a casual omission nor the result of bureaucratic incompetence but rather, a highly-charged political calculation.

Bushist Embeds: Destabilizing the Obama Administration?

One subject barely explored by corporate media throughout the Flight 253 affair, is the unsettling notion that the aborted Christmas day bombing may have been a move by rightist elements within the security apparatus to destabilize the Obama administration, a course of action facilitated by the Obama government itself as we will explore below.

This is not as implausible as it might appear at first blush. When one takes into account the meteoric rise to power by the 40-year-old former Navy pilot and federal prosecutor, Michael Leiter's ascent tracks closely with his previous service as a cover-up specialist for the Bush-Cheney regime.

"In 2004, while working as a federal prosecutor," a New York Times puff piece informs us, "Mr. Leiter joined the staff of a commission, appointed by President George W. Bush, to examine intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq. That led to a series of jobs in the intelligence world, and in 2008, Mr. Bush appointed him director of the counterterrorism center."

A rather curious appointment, if Leiter were simply an ingénue with no prior experience in the murky world of intelligence and covert operations. However the former Navy pilot, who participated in the U.S. wars of aggression against the former Yugoslavia and Iraq seemed to have the requisite qualifications for work as an intelligence "specialist."

While attending Harvard Law School, Leiter served as a "human rights fellow" with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, the U.S.-sponsored kangaroo court that has prosecuted America's official enemies in the Balkans whilst covering-up the crimes of their partners.

Amongst America's more dubious "allies" in the decade-long campaign to destabilize socialist Yugoslavia were al-Qaeda's Islamist brigade, responsible for carrying-out hideous massacres in Bosnia and Kosovo, with NATO approval and logistical support, as Global Research analyst Michel Chossudovsky, and others, have thoroughly documented.

As Deputy General Counsel and Assistant Director of the President's Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States, the so-called "Robb-Silberman" cover-up commission, Leiter focused on what are euphemistically described in the media as "reforms" with the U.S. "Intelligence Community," including the stand-up of the FBI's repressive National Security Branch.

Prior to joining NCTC, Leiter was the Deputy Chief of Staff for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under former NSA Director and ten-year senior vice president of the spooky Booz Allen Hamilton security firm, John "Mike" McConnell.

From his perch in ODNI, Leiter coordinated all internal and external operations for the Office, including relations with the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and the CIA.

Leiter's résumé, and his role in concealing Bush administration war crimes, predicated on ginned-up "intelligence" invented by Dick Cheney's minions in the Defense Department and the CIA, should have sent alarm bells ringing inside the incoming Obama administration.

As we have seen since Obama's inauguration however, rather than cleaning house--and settling accounts--with the crimes, and criminals, of the previous regime, the "change" administration chose to retain senior- and mid-level bureaucrats in the security apparatus; employing officials who share the antidemocratic ideology, penchant for secrecy and ruthlessness of the Bush administration.

While the Times claims his "unblemished résumé" has taken a hit over the Flight 253 plot, an interview with National Public Radio shortly before the Abdulmutallab affair, provides chilling insight into Leiter's agenda, particularly in light of his January 20 statement to the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

Presciently perhaps, the NCTC chief told NPR: "We're not going to stop every attack. Americans have to very much understand that it is impossible to stop every terrorist event. But we have to do our best, and we have to adjust, based on, again, how the enemy changes their tactics."

It becomes a painfully simple matter for "the enemy" to gain advantage and "change their tactics" when those charged with protecting the public actually facilitate their entrée into the country "for some reason or another"!

According to the Times, the White House has kept Leiter at the helm and that it came as "no surprise to Bush officials" because, get this, "Michael wasn't political," if we're to believe the carefully-constructed legend of former Bushist Deputy National Security Adviser Juan Zarate.

If the Bush-Cheney years tell us anything it's that appointments by the previous regime were ruthlessly political. As The Washington Post reported shortly after Obama's election, these appointments were made permanent across a multitude of federal agencies and departments, including the security apparat, in a cynical maneuver designed to reward Bush loyalists.

"The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions" the Post disclosed, "called 'burrowing' by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs."

The Times reports that the White House has publicly defended Leiter "and aides to the president said Mr. Obama called to convey his support." Perhaps not so curiously, the allegedly "nonpolitical" NCTC Director "has been mentioned as a possible future head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and how he performs might help determine whether he remains on the fast track."

One can only wonder, how many other counterterrorist officials have "burrowed" their way into, and hold key positions in the current administration, ticking political time-bombs inside America's permanent shadow government.

Senate Whitewash Fuel Attacks on Democratic Rights

During Wednesday's Senate hearings, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair, in keeping with the former Bush administration's assault on democratic rights, assailed the decision by the Justice Department to try the suspect in a court of law.

This is fully in line with the rhetoric of ultra-right Republicans and so-called "centrist Democrats" such as arch neocon Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Newsweek reports that new details "surrounding the Christmas Day interrogation of the bombing suspect aboard Northwest Flight 253 raise questions about the accuracy of testimony provided Wednesday by senior U.S. intelligence and Homeland Security officials."

Last week, the newsmagazine reported that "Obama administration officials were flabbergasted Wednesday when Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair testified that an alleged Qaeda operative who tried to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day should have been questioned by a special interrogation unit that doesn't exist, rather than the FBI."

This theme was quickly picked-up by Senate Republicans.

The overarching sentiments expressed by this gaggle of war criminals and corporate toadies was not to demand accountability from the responsible parties, but to call for further attacks on Americans' democratic rights.

Republicans on the committee lambasted Obama's Justice Department for its decision to try Abdulmutallab in a civilian court. John McCain (R-AZ), the Republican party's failed candidate in the 2008 presidential election, said the decision was "a terrible, terrible mistake," while the execrable Jeff Sessions (R-AL) claimed that the hapless suspect should have been delivered to the U.S. military as an "enemy combatant."

Ranking Republicans on the committee, Susan Collins (R-ME) and John Ensign (R-NV) went so far as to imply that Abdulmutallab should have been tortured. Collins inquired: "how can we uncover plots" if accused criminal suspects are allowed to "lawyer up and stop answering questions?" Ensign, a staunch supporter of policies articulated by the Bush administration, particularly former Vice President and war criminal, Dick Cheney, argued that "limiting" CIA interrogators to the methods laid out in the Army Field Manual would allow terrorists to "train" in advance of interrogations.

But the harshest criticism of the administration came in the form of a stealth attack by Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair.

The Wall Street Journal reported January 21 that "nation's intelligence chief said the man accused of trying to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day should have been questioned by a special interrogation team instead of being handled as an ordinary criminal suspect."

Rather than coming to terms and halting the Bush regime's practice of torturing so-called terrorist suspects, the Obama administration has compounded the crime by creating a secretive group of interrogators called the High-Value Interrogation Group or HIG.

Blair told the Senate that the administration had "botched" the handling of suspect Abdulmutallab, by, wait, not handing him over to a group that as of this writing, exists only on paper, a salient fact of which Blair was certainly knowledgeable!

In his testimony however, the DNI told the Homeland Security Committee that the HIG "was created exactly for this purpose--to make a decision on whether a certain person who's detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some of the other means."

Blair implicitly criticized the Justice Department's decision to uphold constitutional protections that guarantee a suspect a right to a trial in a court of law and not a one-way ticket to an American gulag. Blair said, "we did not invoke the HIG in this case; we should have. Frankly, we were thinking more of overseas people and, duh, you know, we didn't put it [in action] then."

Mendaciously, the DNI claimed "I was not consulted. The decision was made on the scene, [and] seemed logical to the people there, but it should have been taken using this HIG format, at a higher level."

Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff disclosed January 20 that "senior administration officials" told him that Blair was "misinformed on multiple levels" and that the DNI's assertions were "all the more damaging because they immediately fueled Republican criticism that the administration mishandled the Christmas Day incident in its treatment of the accused Qaeda operative as a criminal suspect rather than an enemy combatant."

Isikoff reported January 22 that Blair, Leiter and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were asked about the decision to try Abdulmutallab and all gave the same answer when queried by right-wing Senator Susan Collins, the Committee's ranking Republican: "Were you consulted regarding the decision to file criminal charges against [suspect Umar Farouk] Abdulmutallab in civilian court?"

Leiter and Napolitano both replied: "I was not." According to Newsweek, Blair also said he was "not consulted" and claims that the government "should have" brought in the yet-to-be activated HIG "to conduct the questioning of the suspect."

As with every aspect of this strange affair, Newsweek reports, these statements are riddled with lies and mischaracterizations.

Isikoff writes that "all the relevant national-security agencies, including top aides to Blair and Napolitano, were fully informed about the plans to charge the suspect in federal court hours before he was read his Miranda rights and stopped cooperating."

Newsweek further reveals that a "key event" was a secure videoconference on Christmas Day "that included Leiter" and Jane Lute, DHS' No. 2 official and that "neither Leiter nor any of the other participants, including representatives from the FBI and the CIA, raised any questions about the Justice Department's plans to charge the suspect in federal court, the officials said."

"If you participate in a conference call and you don't raise any objections, that suggests you were consulted," said one senior law-enforcement official. Another added that "nobody at any point" raised any objections, either during the meeting or during a four-hour period afterward when Abdulmutallab was informed of his Miranda rights to be represented by a lawyer," according to Newsweek.

Ultra-right Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a witting accomplice to the previous regime's high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people said, "That this administration chose to shut out our top intelligence officials and forgo collecting potentially life-saving intelligence is a dangerous sign."

It's a "dangerous sign" to be sure, for America's battered democracy.

An On-Going Cover-Up

As events continue to unfold and new information shreds the official story, is Leiter's chilling testimony that suspected terrorists are allowed to enter the United States "because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another," merely a banal slip or something far more sinister that betrays the real order of things in post-democratic America?

Relevant questions begging for answers include: Who made the decision not to "connect the dots"? Are right-wing elements and holdovers from the previous administration actively conspiring to destabilize the Obama government? Was the attempted bombing a planned provocation meant to incite new conflicts in the Middle East and restrict democratic rights at home?

As with the 9/11 attacks, these questions go unasked by corporate media. Indeed, such lines of inquiry are entirely off the table and are further signs that a cover-up is in full-swing, not a hard-hitting investigation.

In truth, what we are dealing with here as we stagger into the second decade of the 21st century, is not a "conspiracy" per se but a modus operandi as the World Socialist Web Site has argued, rooted in a bankrupt system quickly reaching the end of the line.


Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press , Uncommon Thought Journal, CJO's Avenger212, and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press.
Collapse

Following is a concise list of LOP(PPP);

First law of Politicianary Motion

The orbit of every politician is an ellipse with the power centre i.e. the king, the ruler or the president at its focus.

Law of Conservation of Political Corruption

It states that the total amount of corruption in a political system remains constant over time. A consequence of this law is that corruption can neither be created nor destroyed. It is always present in exploitable forms in any political system. The only thing that can happen to corruption in a political system is that it can change form, for instance power hunger can become nepotism that can in turn change into a buying and selling activity, a la the stock exchange, over a period of time.

Law of Buoyancy

Any politician, wholly or partially immersed in four letter gooey substances, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the four letter gooey substance displaced by the politician. In other words, the more voluminous an immersed politician is, the larger will be the mass of four letter gooey substance displaced by him.

Law of Heat Conduction

The law of Heat Conduction states that the time rate of heat transfer through a politician is proportional to the thickness of his skin, its temperature and to the nature of the organ the skin is covering and through which the heat is flowing.

The Uncertainty Principle

The Uncertainty Principle states that certain pairs of character virtues in a politician, like honesty and honor, cannot both be known to random exactness. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. In other words, an accurate measure of a politician's honesty cannot guarantee an honorable stand on important national issues and vice versa.

Law of Pressure

In a politician of given volume at constant temperature, pressure and volume are inversely proportional (while one increases, the other decreases). Or in other words, in politicians of ever expanding volumes, pressure points on their bodies continue to reduce.

Law of Political Entropy

Entropy, a measure of disorder, continues to increase in a political system. Or, alternately, the more improvements that are promised to have been delivered by the politicians, the higher the rate of breakdown in other subsystems they oversee.

Physical Laws of Political Motion

Then are the three physical laws of political motion that form the basis for classical politics. These are:

1. In the absence of a proper stimulus, a politician at rest continues to remain at rest and one in motion continues to remain in motion with constant speed.

2. A politician experiencing a stimulus S experiences an acceleration a related to S by S = ma, where m is the mass of the politician. In other words, for a politician of given mass, the larger the stimulus S, the larger will be the acceleration a.

3. Whenever one politician exerts a force F on a second politician, the second politician exerts a force −F on the first politician. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. The equilibrium continues till the introduction of a stimulus S at which time the −F becomes +F and the 2Fs continue in the same direction with combined force.

The scribe ends this piece with two quotes;

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy. ~Ernest Benn

Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. ~John Quinton

The reader may contribute a quote or add to LOP(PPP) if he/she so wishes.

X-X-X-X

Collapse

Create pressure on governments to keep the assistance flowing? Perhaps, but there is no shortage of assistance being sent to Haiti. There is however a huge problem in Haiti's limited ability to absorb the assistance.

Whether it's small and inefficient sea ports, one small and inefficient airport, a lack of decent roads, and a lack of government direction - all aspects of any place as poor as Haiti - it takes time for outsiders to come in, unload their cargoes, and organize a distribution network from scratch.

Certainly the disturbing reports and pictures are useless from the point of view of prevention. It was a natural disaster, not to be predicted, not to be prevented. One could argue that post-disaster investments could ameliorate events the next time there is an earthquake. But the kinds of images and reports being broadcast will be long forgotten if and when the world's governments get around to re-building.

So the question for me remains, what are we to do with such information?

I am reminded of another disaster, one that happened in the last few years. It was not a "natural" disaster but the deliberate work of the immensely powerful.

In this other disaster, roughly a million people died, about five times the current estimate of death in Haiti. I don't know how many were crippled, but it must have been a great number. This other disaster created more than two million refugees fleeing for their lives. Most of them fled to poor but generous countries, not being welcome by the rich and powerful, and especially not by the country responsible for the mayhem.

As far as pictures and reports, most of them seen in North America were sanitized. Many if not most of the reports were dishonest, clearly not informing people of the magnitude of the horror as it happened. There was a brave group of reporters who produced images every bit as terrible as those we see from Haiti, including scores of hideously mangled children.

But those pictures were not broadcast in North America, were not published in The New York Times or other newspapers "of record." Indeed, the reporters taking these images and writing tough reports actually became targets of the forces causing all the horror.

I'm referring, of course, to the invasion of Iraq, an event whose toll of killing and damage easily compared to the dropping of a thermonuclear bomb on a good-size city.

Of course, the great and bitter irony is that that disaster was both preventable and could even have been stopped once it had started. One could almost guarantee that publication and broadcast of pictures and reports comparable to what's now coming from Haiti would have stopped that demonic brutality. Here indeed gruesome, truthful press coverage could have made a difference, but not in Haiti.

And there was another, smaller disaster recently, smaller but still terrible, and it was completely preventable. In this one about 1,400 people died, including 400 children, and a great deal of the infrastructure of a relatively poor people was destroyed. The damage cannot even be repaired because those responsible for the horror maintain a siege on the victims, allowing no material assistance to be delivered.

Here too you likely will not have seen the kind of pictures or read the kind of stories coming out of Haiti. Some were available - I recall one of poor people trying to avoid stepping in a stream of blood flowing down a narrow street - again the work of amazingly brave reporters, but their work could only be found at not-widely known sites on the Internet. None were published or broadcast by the establishment press in North America. These events occurred in a place called Gaza.

If you think the press is objective, if you think the press does not slavishly serve the interests of the powerful, you just might want to think again.

Collapse

The US continues to see the world as its own business. It gives itself and its allies, most notably Israel, the right to geopolitical maneuverability. Iran, on the other hand, is censured, derided and punished for even its own internal policies, within its own borders. Thus, an Iranian move into Latin America is naturally viewed as unwarranted, uncalled for and most definitely dangerous as far as the US is concerned.

But Iran is not invading America geopolitical space per se. It is neither financing a terrorist group, nor involved in the ongoing narcotic war. More, there is no historical connection between an interventionist Iran and the bloody past of Latin America, including its former dictators and brutal juntas. In fact, Iran's 'cozying up' to Latin American merely began in 2005. Since then, Iran has opened embassies in several Latin American countries and launched important joint projects that provided funds and work opportunities for thousands of ordinary people. There is no Iranian equivalent to the School of the Americas.

So why the alarm?

Paul McLeary of Aviation Week gives us a clue. Iran's move "has set off a proxy conflict between Iran and Israel in South America, with the presidents of both countries logging frequent-flier miles to win friends in the region. One cause for concern among many analysts is the weekly flight between Caracas and Tehran (with a stop in Damascus) that Iran Air has flown for two years."

He quotes Frida Ghitis: "Flight manifests are kept secret, so neither cargo nor passenger information is well known ...one Israeli report suggested that Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying uranium to Iran."

Two questions emerge. One, is it required of Caracas and Tehran to provide a detailed report of the cargo and passengers to the US and Israel, and perhaps also cc-ed to a list of their friends and allies?

The second pertains to Israel itself. Why is the media most concerned by Iran's 'suspicious' behavior in Latin America, despite the fact that its presence is welcomed by various countries in the hemisphere, while Israel - whose bloody involvement has wrought much chaos to South America - is simply unquestioned, and even cited as a credible source? There is no evidence to link Iran to death squads, or any Iranian firm with "an archive and computer file on journalists, students, leaders, leftists, politicians and so on" to be hunted down, killed or simply made to 'disappear' under brutal regimes. Israel's own history in Latin America seems to inspire little commentary by the ever-vigilant 'many analysts'. McLeary, Ghitis and others need to do their homework before leveling accusations against others. The book Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship may be a good place to start.

Back to the lurking Ayatollahs in America's backyard, Susan Kaufman Purcell is also raising questions, this time about Brazil. In Brazil President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva welcomed his Iranian counterpart, president Ahmadinejad late November 2009. In the January 7 Wall Street Journal, Purcell claimed: "Until recently, the Obama administration assumed that Brazil and the United States were natural allies who shared many foreign policy interests, particularly in Latin America. Brazil, after all, is a friendly democracy with a growing market economy and Western cultural values." Purcell suggests that Brazil's various achievements - largely beneficial to the US - qualified the country to become "more like us".

The article infers, however, that Brazil is actually "not like us". The fact that it dares to be different - by pursuing a Brazilian-centered foreign policy - shows the audacity of the deceivingly loveable Lula. The Brazilian president is apparently going rouge simply by deviating from Washington's regional and international priorities. Amongst his many crimes: "Instead of expressing concern over Iran's activities in Latin America, Brazil is drawing closer to Tehran and hopes to expand its $2 billion bilateral trade to $10 billion in the near future."

Another: "He reiterated his support for Iran's right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses, while insisting that there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons." And of course, Purcell doesn't fail to remind us of "the weekly flights between Caracas and Tehran that bring passengers and cargo into Venezuela."

Western media is indeed rife with all sorts of unfounded accusations, baseless speculations and superfluous insinuations. They evoke in the reader and viewer a dread and fear, based in this case on the doomsday scenario whereby fanatical Latin Americans and radical Muslims gang up on America, and ultimately Israel.

Now consider these appalling insinuations by the Economist. First it claims that the Brazilian President "offered support for Iran's work on nuclear technology for (supposedly) peaceful use." Note the word "supposedly".

Then: One of the "instruments" of destabilizing Latin America is Iran's production of "news programmes and documentaries for Bolivian television, no doubt to give a fair and balanced view of the Great Satan." Note the writer's insertion of the little irrelevant term "Great Satan" to convert the act of TV production that challenges Western mainstream media's narrative into a menacing endeavor.

More: Brazil president talked "about Israel's right to stay just where it is on the map." Of course, Lula didn't phrase it that way. This is the writer's attempt to remind us of the claim that Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

Still, more: "...protesters waved banners reminding Mr Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust had indeed taken place". This provides the big climax - the claim that Iran's president has denied the Holocaust.

But why the charged, exaggerated commentary?

A seemingly random Economist 'advertisement' box embedded with the article, and another long side column at the magazine's website reminds readers of "The Economist Debate Series - January 11-18." The topic of the week, presented with an image of a warplane radar zooming in on the Iranian map, asks the question: "Is It Time to Strike Iran?"

After reading such unsubstantiated, yet disquieting analyses, how would most readers respond?

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Check out this short film (in English and Arabic) about my latest book: My Father was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story.

Collapse

Talk about validating that old Wobbly slogan: Direct action gets the goods!

And yet, the closer one looks at the available evidence surrounding the strange case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the more sinister alleged "intelligence failures" become. As this story unfolds it is becoming abundantly clear that U.S. security officials had far more information on the would-be lap bomber than we've been told.

The Observer revealed January 3 that the British secret state had Abdulmutallab on their radar for several years and that he had become "politically involved" with "extremist networks" while a student at University College London, where he served as president of the Islamic Society.

Examining "e-mail and text traffic," security officers claim to have belatedly discovered that "he has been in contact with jihadists from across the world since 2007."

Indeed, The Sunday Times disclosed that the 23-year-old terrorism suspect was "'reaching out' to extremists whom MI5 had under surveillance." The officials said that Abdulmutallab was "'starting out on a journey' in Britain" that culminated with last week's attempt to destroy Flight 253.

It is claimed by unnamed "British officials" that "none of this information was passed" to their American counterparts; on the face of it, this appears to be a rank mendacity.

The Sunday Times further reported that security officials have "now passed a file" to American counterterrorism officers that show "his repeated contacts with MI5 targets who were subject to phone taps, email intercepts and other forms of surveillance."

None of this should surprise anyone, however. In light of multiple prior warnings which preceded past terrorist atrocities, the selective leaking of information to the British media in its own way, buttresses the official story that the near-tragedy aboard Flight 253 was simply the result of ubiquitous "intelligence failures."

But as we have seen with Mohamed Atta, Richard Reid and Mohammad Sidique Khan, Abdulmutallab's "journey" was one undertaken by many before, often with a wink-and-a-nod by British and American security officials when it served the geostrategic ambitions of their political masters.

As security researcher and analyst Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed wrote in New Internationalist in October: "Islamist terrorism cannot be understood without acknowledging the extent to which its networks are being used by Western military intelligence services, both to control strategic energy resources and to counter their geopolitical rivals. Even now, nearly a decade after 9/11, covert sponsorship of al-Qaeda networks continues."

Networks which Ahmed and other analysts such as Michel Chossudovsky, Peter Dale Scott and Richard Labévière have painstakingly documented, enjoy the closest ties with Western intelligence agencies stretching back decades.

That intelligence officers, including those at the highest levels of the secret state's security apparat, did nothing to hamper an alleged al-Qaeda operative from getting on that plane--in a chilling echo of the 9/11 attacks--calls into question the thin tissue of lies outlined in the official narrative.

An Intelligence "Failure," or a Wild "Success" for Security Corporations?

Charged December 26 with attempting to blow up a U.S. airliner, according to The Washington Post Abdulmutallab "was listed in a U.S. terrorism database."

The Post reported that the suspect's name "was added in November to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE." It is further described as a "catch-all list" which "contains about 550,000 individuals" and is maintained by "the Office of the Director of National Intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center."

However, The New York Times revealed December 31 that the "National Security Agency four months ago intercepted conversations among leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen discussing a plot to use a Nigerian man for a coming terrorist attack."

Times' reporters Mark Mazzetti and Eric Lipton, citing unnamed "government officials," disclosed that "the electronic intercepts were translated and disseminated across classified computer networks" months before Abdulmutallab boarded Flight 253 in Amsterdam.

But when the NSA intercepts landed at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), overseen by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), analysts there "did not synthesize the eavesdropping intelligence with information gathered in November" when Abdulmutallab's father provided the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria crucial information on his son's involvement with the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets, also known as al-Qaeda.

Seeking comment from NCTC proved to be a daunting task. As the Times delicately put it, "officials at the counterterrorist center ... maintained a stoic silence on Wednesday, noting that the review ordered by President Obama was still under way."

Despite revelations in the British press, the White House maintains that U.S. intelligence agencies "did not miss a 'smoking gun'" that could have prevented the botched attack, the Associated Press reported January 3.

White House aide John Brennan, citing "lapses" and "errors" in sharing intelligence said, "There was no single piece of intelligence that said, 'this guy is going to get on a plane.'"

As we will soon see, Mr. Brennan has every reason to hide behind such mendacities.

Investigative journalist Tim Shorrock, the author of the essential book Spies For Hire, reported in CorpWatch, that NCTC is an outsourced counterterrorist agency chock-a-block with security contractors in the heavily-leveraged homeland security market.

Indeed, The Analysis Corporation (TAC), a wholly-owned subsidiary of defense and intelligence contractor Global Strategies Group/North America, "specializes in providing counterterrorism analysis and watchlists to U.S. government agencies."

"It is best known" according to Shorrock, "for its connection to John O. Brennan, its former CEO, a 35-year veteran of the CIA and currently President Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser. Brennan, the first director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), retired from government in November 2005 and immediately joined TAC."

Shorrock reports that "much of TAC's business is with the NCTC itself. In fact, the NCTC is one of the company's largest customers, and TAC provides counterterrorism (CT) support to 'most of the agencies within the intelligence community,' according to a company press release. One of its biggest customers is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which manages the NCTC."

"During the 1990s" Shorrock relates, "TAC developed the U.S. government's first terrorist database, 'Tipoff,' on behalf of the State Department."

Shorrock chronicles how "the database was initially conceived as a tool to help U.S. consular officials and customs inspectors determine if foreigners trying to enter the United States were known or suspected terrorists."

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks and subsequent reorganization of the U.S. security bureaucracy, the investigative journalist tells us that "in 2003, management of the database--which received information collected by a large number of agencies including the CIA, NSA, and FBI--was transferred to the CIA's Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) and, later, to the National Counterterrorism Center."

"In 2005" Shorrock discloses, "Tipoff was expanded and renamed the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, and fingerprint and facial recognition software was added to help identify suspects as they crossed U.S. borders."

Despite the utter worthlessness of a bloated database containing more than 1.3 million names according to the American Civil Liberties Union, and not the grossly undercounted figure of 550,000 cited by corporate media, TIDE has been a boon for TAC.

"In the five years after 9/11" Shorrock reveals, "its income quintupled, from less than $5 million in 2001 to $24 million in 2006. In 2006, TAC increased its visibility in the intelligence community by creating a 'senior advisory board' that included three heavy hitters from the CIA: former Director George J. Tenet, former Chief Information Officer Alan Wade, and former senior analyst John P. Young."

And what have the American people gained from inflating the corporatist bottom line? In light of the Christmas Day bombing attempt, not much.

As investigative journalists Susan and Joseph Trento revealed in their overlooked but highly-disturbing 2006 book, Unsafe At Any Altitude, most of the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta, Hani Hanjour, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Majed Moqed "were flagged by CAPPS (Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System)."

But because of CIA and FBI monkey-business that rendered watch-list information useless to stop suspected terrorists from boarding an airliner, "the only thing that was done as a result was that the baggage of several members of the Al Qaeda team was held on the ground until the cabin crew confirmed they had boarded as passengers."

And when you consider that Abdulmutallab didn't even have any baggage to check, alleged security "lapses" are even more glaring.

According to the Trentos, "the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security refuse to give the airlines an accurate no fly list, thereby allowing the most threatening terrorists to continue to fly." Is there a pattern here? You bet there is!

An unnamed "counterterrorist official" told The Wall Street Journal December 31: "'If you look back to these audit reports, there are significant issues raised with the accuracy and omissions to the watchlisting process that haven't been fixed, clearly,' as of Dec. 25. 'Essentially you're screening blindly, and that's not effective'."

However, we can be sure there will be very little in the way of a hard-hitting investigation into this alleged security breach. The New York Times reported that TAC's former CEO John O. Brennan, has been "granted a special ethics waiver ... to conduct a review of the intelligence and screening breakdown that preceded the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt on an American passenger plane over Detroit."

Enter the CIA, Stage (Far) Right

What "other government agency" may have suppressed intelligence on the would-be bomber?

The CBS Evening News revealed December 29 that "as early as August of 2009," tracking closely with the time-frame of NSA intercepts, "the Central Intelligence Agency was picking up information on a person of interest dubbed 'The Nigerian,' suspected of meeting with 'terrorist elements' in Yemen."

Unnamed "intelligence sources" told CBS, "'The Nigerian' has now turned out to be Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab." But that connection "was not made when Abdulmutallab's father went to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria three months later, on November 19, 2009. It was then he expressed deep concerns to a CIA officer about his son's ties to extremists in Yemen, a hotbed of al Qaeda activity." CBS claims "this information was not connected until after the attempted Christmas Day bombing."

Earlier reports have alleged that Umar's father, a wealthy Nigerian banker and former high state official, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, had only provided Embassy officials with a vague concern that his son's estrangement "may have" something to do with his growing "religious fervor." This too, turns out to be a lie.

The Times reported that a "family cousin quoted the father as warning officials from the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency in Nigeria: 'Look at the texts he's sending. He's a security threat'."

Nothing vague in this disclosure, but rather more concrete evidence in the form of "texts" which we now know were shortstopped by British security and included "phone taps, email intercepts and other forms of surveillance" by MI5 that led an anguished father to express well-placed fears about his son to U.S officials.

But as the Times were told by their source, "They promised to look into it. They didn't take him seriously."

And here's where things take a decidedly malevolent turn. According to the Times, "C.I.A. officials in Nigeria also prepared a separate report compiling biographical information about Mr. Abdulmutallab, including his educational background and the fact that he was considering pursuing academic studies in Islamic law in Yemen."

"That cable was sent to C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va.," Mark Mazzetti and Eric Lipton disclosed, "but not disseminated to other intelligence agencies, government officials said on Wednesday."

Then again, perhaps they knew all-too-well of Abdulmutallab's glide path and chose instead to turn a blind eye. Coming on the heels of disclosures in the British media, the evidence suggests that CIA intelligence provided by NSA intercepts, their own on-the-ground operatives in Yemen and MI5 surveillance reports were scrupulously ignored by factions within the secret state who sat on critical information that withheld, would disarm and paralyze normal security procedures in the face of an attack they knew was imminent.

We were told by corporate media, infamously serving as an echo chamber for grifting politicians, Bushist officials and the 9/11 Commission's 2004 whitewash, that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks resulted from "a failure of imagination" by counterterrorism officials to "connect the dots."

Seems there were plenty of "dots" in Abdulmutallab's case and yet, inexplicably, if you buy the official story, and sinisterly, if you don't, not a single one was "connected" prior to the time he took his seat on Flight 253.

Despite the fact that Abdulmutallab was denied re-entry into Britain, paid $2,800 in cash for his "ticket to Paradise," and had no luggage that normally would accompany a person holding a 2-year entry visa into the U.S., the erstwhile lap bomber scored a goal each time and eluded every intrusive "profile" presumably in place to keep us "safe." Talk about a hat trick!

Available evidence suggests that Abdulmutallab should have landed on TSA's hush-hush "Selectee list" for additional screening, or the agency's "No-fly list." And given NSA intercepts and a CIA biographical report on the suspect, this alone should have barred him from entering the country if "normal" security procedures were followed. They weren't.

As The Independent on Sunday reported last week, "the revelation of Abdulmutallab's background has confounded terror experts." One such "expert," Dr Magnus Ranstorp of the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College, told IoS that "the attempted bombing 'didn't square'."

"On the one hand" Ranstorp said, "it seems he's been on the terror watch list but not on the no-fly list."

"That doesn't square" Ranstorp elaborated, "because the American Department for Homeland Security has pretty stringent data-mining capability. I don't understand how he had a valid visa if he was known on the terror watch list."

Good question, Dr. Ranstorp. Perhaps because someone wanted him on that plane. The question is, who?

One would have thought, given the "special treatment" afforded antiwar activists by TSA at airports, that a warning about Abdulmutallab's possible involvement with terrorists, by his own father no less, a former top official in a government friendly to Washington, numerous NSA intercepts, a CIA dossier and MI5 reports would have raised at least one red flag!

In the suspect's case, there were so many red flags flying you'd have thought the Red Army was parading through Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport!

Then again, perhaps Abdulmutallab was on that plane because, as journalist Daniel Hopsicker was told by a former aviation executive during his investigation of the 9/11 attacks: "Sometimes when things don't make business sense ... its because they do make sense...just in some other way."

As the World Socialist Web Site points out: Collapse

We have been attacking Yemen both directly and indirectly. Most notably, we have been attacking indirectly via the Saudis, and directly with our own drone operations. The United States has also been providing support to the Yemeni government to fight alleged terrorists.

According to a NY Times report on December 18, 2009:

The United States provided firepower, intelligence and other support to the government of Yemen as it carried out raids this week to strike at suspected hide-outs of Al Qaeda within its borders, according to officials familiar with the operations.

The officials said that the American support was approved by President Obama and came at the request of the Yemeni government.

It is important to know that more than al Qaeda is happening inside of Yemen.

Internally, southern Yemen has been trying to secede. Southern Yemen is the location of what oil Yemen has, and primary sea access. However, the unification with northern Yemen has not brought an improvement in life for the south. Meanwhile, the primary ethnic group - Houthi - in the north have also been engaged in active fighting that has both sectarian and historical roots. The short story is that Yemen is one of the poorest nations in the world and internal conflicts are ripping it apart.

While the U.S. wants the Yemeni government to focus its efforts on al Qaeda, it is more concerned with its own internal struggles. Its poverty, and the conflicts, have made it a primary area for a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran - which tangentially means the United States and Iran. This is particularly true given the oil-arms relationship between the Saudis and the United States.

However, undiscussed but central to Yemen's internal problems is not oil, or even poverty, but lack of another resource - water:

Yemen is running out of water - fast.

But the water crisis and the rise of militancy are not unrelated perils said Abdulrahman Al Eryani, Yemen's minister of Water and Environment, in an interview. Much of the country's rising militancy, he argues, is a conflict over resources.

"They manifest themselves in very different ways: tribal conflicts, sectarian conflicts, political conflicts. Really they are all about sharing and participating in the resources of the country, either oil, or water and land," said Minister Eryani. "Some researchers from Sanaa University had very alarming figures. They said that between 70-80 percent of all rural conflicts in Yemen are related to water."

A big part of the water problem is tied to the cultivation of one plant - qat. Yemen is in a drought (dare we say an impact of global warming?). However, the only money making crop is qat - a mildly narcotic plant which is chewed (endlessly) by the Yemeni population. This is similar to the farmers in Afghanistan focusing on their (narcotic) cash crop - poppies. However, the lack of water, and water deliveries, across Yemen have led to water wars, illegal wells (draining the aquifers), and conflicts which frame themselves through various lenses.

Poverty, hardship, and failed government coordination (failed state) make Yemen a primary recruiting area for all comers who can demonstrably ease the hardship - namely Iran, sectarian interests, and al Qaeda. And the U.S. takes the now familiar militaristic path to decimate the reputed enemy. Silly us as al Qaeda (and other forces of "insurgency") are providing goods and money to the people. This is exactly the same (successful) strategy of the Iraq insurgency, and the Taliban and al Qaeda insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. No number of bombs or high tech (hackable) drones, or arms sales is going to "win" such a conflict. They make more desperation - not less - and drive more people into the conflict de jure.

Collapse

The Formation of the Committee
The British Parliament approved the forming of a non-political, non-government, inquiry group which was publicly launched by this report from the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee. The reasons for launching a public inquiry are instructive - particularly for the United States. The following quotes are from the Select Committee's report as the reasons for having an inquiry.

From "Conclusions and Recommendations" (Pg 7) 3. The need for effective accountability and public confidence demands that the inquiry be conducted as openly and publicly as possible. We recommend that the Government reconsiders its decision to conduct the Iraq inquiry in private. There needs instead to be a presumption in favour of the inquiry proceeding in an open and public manner. There should be only very limited exceptions to this general rule, which would be best decided by the members of the inquiry itself, not by the Government. (Paragraph 16)

So one reason to perform a public inquiry into Iraq is to restore public confidence in the openness and integrity of their duly elected government.

From "Purpose of the Iraq Inquiry" (Pg 10) 4. The scope of the Iraq inquiry, as announced by the Prime Minister, covers an eight year period that encompasses the circumstances leading up to the decision to go to war, the military conflict itself, and the post-conflict administration of Iraq. The inquiry will focus on the lessons to be learned from Britain's involvement in Iraq. We share the Government's belief that the inquiry should be constructive and that it should seek to identify the policy lessons to be learned from Iraq, particularly if there are lessons that could be applied to the UK's involvement in other conflicts (such as Afghanistan).

Another reason to engage in a thorough investigation is because it may impact on other conflicts such as Afghanistan - where both the United States and the UK are still embroiled.

From "Purpose of the Iraq Inquiry" (Pg 10) 5. There is, however, another fundamental reason for holding an Iraq inquiry. In the words of one of our seminar participants, an inquiry needs to "get at the truth" and to be seen to be getting at the truth. This is vital to restoring the loss of public confidence in governing processes and institutions that has resulted from the UK's involvement in Iraq. There is also a justified expectation--demanded in particular by the relatives of British soldiers who have died in Iraq--that the inquiry will enable the executive to be held to account for its decisions and conduct.

This is a stronger reiteration of 3 above. There is an admission that the Iraq war, and the events surrounding it, have damage the people's confidence in both the government and the institutions thereof. The confidence of the people of the United States has also been damaged, and there is a demand for accountability.

The Iraq Inquiry
Out of this came The Iraq Inquiry which is still ongoing. However, this is not the path that has been taken in the United States. Despite broad public demands for investigations, the Obama administration has repeatedly made clear its reluctance to pursue any such inquiry. Obama wants to "move forward." In fact, efforts that had been made to identify the various issues surrounding th invasion of Iraq, and notorious events surrounding it, have been quietly moved from public view. Perhaps you remember Representative Henry Waxman's dogged efforts to address various aspects of the Iraq adventure - such as his this link, or search the Guardian site for "Chilcot Inquiry."

Many of the things that have come up in the inquiry thus far should be making big news in the United States, and definitely should provide impetus for investigations in the United States.

Guardian report of Sir Peter Ricketts testimony

- In 2000, the new Bush administration was already talking about "regime change" in Iraq.

- That after 9/11/2001, the Bush administration was pushing a link between Hussein and bin Laden even though there was no evidence of any such connection.

SIr John Scarlett testified that Blair's claim of WMDs in Iraq, and the 45 minute launch capability, was overtly political. This is confirmed to some extent by Blair's own admission that he would have supported the invasion of Iraq even had he known there were no WMDs. However, as the Downing Street Memos and Scarlett's testimony show - it was known (or at least not proven).

As reported by David Stringer of the AP, the UK Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, testified that Bush was "hell bent" on invading Iraq, and felt the UN approval was a waste of time.

While Britain was the primary U.S. ally in the invasion of Iraq, Bush chose to go it alone by keeping Britain out of the information loop according to MI6 chief Sir John Sawyers.

Why Britain and not the U.S.?

The question has to be asked why it is that Britain keeps pursuing the truth of the Iraq invasion, but the United States does not. While it is no surprise that the Bush administration would not investigate itself, it is stunning that the Obama administration continues to pursue a "let by-gones be by-gones" approach. For all the much smaller involvement of the UK, they have much more concern for the effects on the people and their government. What happened in the United States poses a much more significant challenge to the very structure of our government and the way that it operates.

The Bush administration rewrote the balance of powers and transformed Constitutional protections. Those changes still largely stand under the Obama administration. This is not a partisan issue. What Bush crafted, and which is largely unchallenged and considered "water under the bridge" by Obama, ensures that those changes remain in effect. There remains the unchallenged policy of the Bush administration that the President can do anything he wants. I felt that was a threat to our rights and government under Bush, and it remains so under Obama.

Wrongs have to be righted. Failure to do so condemns future citizens to an ever eroding situation in terms of our government and our protections under the Constitution. Where Bush pushed the Unitary Executive to, is where the Obama administration starts. To leave the abuses of power unchallenged creates a new starting line of Executive Branch power into the future.

Instead, here in the U.S. we are largely "protected" from the public inquiries in the UK. Of course they directly impinge on and implicate the U.S., but if nobody knows who is hurt? We are - as are all future generations of the people of the United States.

---
Note: The Iraq Inquiry Digest does an excellent job of keeping up with the testimony from the Inquiry.

The Iraq Inquiry web site

After Downing Street - Complete text of the Downing Street memo

Collapse

The 9/11 bunch were mainly Saudis, almost certainly on a secret CIA training program in the U.S. that went very sour (they had valid American visas, and they were being followed closely by Mossad).

Osama bin Laden has been dead since the horrific bombing of Tora Bora. The extent of that bombing has been kept secret, but it was earth-shattering by first-hand accounts.

Al Qaeda, as a former British Foreign Secretary admitted a few years ago, does not exist. It is a Pentagon nickname to cover a group of disparate fundamentalist Muslims who hate American policy. The word means toilet.

America has worked to keep alive the idea of both bin Laden and Al Qaeda because they serve as focuses for the lunatic "war on terror."

You cannot have a war on a technique or a set of attitudes: it's a pure nonsense, rather like Israel's mantra about there being no such thing as a Palestinian people.

America went to Afghanistan, dragging others along, for vengeance, which it got in spades. Now, it does not know what to do.

In a sense, it is the victim of its own propaganda. As well, there are now huge entrenched interests in the Afghanistan effort, everything from Blackwater Corporation to the manufacturers of Hellfire missiles. America's Israel apologists, too, never saw a war against Muslims they didn't like: put them in their place, so to speak.

A very great assembly of forces for a newcomer like Obama to oppose, and, truth be told, he has already buckled.

But he cannot win his war. Absolutely, he cannot hold down a huge country of 30 million people, a land of mountains and deserts and sweltering heat and hardscrabble poverty; moreover, a place where millions deeply resent America's arrogance and brutality.

One hopes that Obama intends only to make a show and to reach a compromise with the Taleban from a position of increased strength and then get out with a shred of dignity. It is starting a system of payoffs - successful short-term in Iraq - hundreds of millions for opponents to lay down their arms temporarily.

But I am not optimistic. The Afghans are some of the toughest, hardest people on earth, largely because they live in an extreme part of the world with almost no wealth.

___________________________

America's "Drone Attacks" on Pakistan

It truly is dishonest to always write about "drone attacks."

Drones don't attack anyone. Gum-chewing thugs sitting in an office chair at a computer terminal do.

These drones are armed with American Hellfire missiles, the same ones Israel uses when it typically kills a dozen innocent people in a bloody horror trying to get one target, some man who has never been charged or tried or condemned.

The guy at the terminal somewhere in a locked room in the Pentagon basement undoubtedly pumps his arm as the missile explodes, killing God knows who.

Then he goes out for some lunch in Georgetown.

Disgusting.

An absolute lack of ethics, only praised by the apologists for Israel's bloody excesses.

Misery likes company, and the same goes for miserable criminal behavior.

___________________________

Secretary of State Clinton's Announcement of An Average of 290 Troops from Each of Two Dozen Nations

Clinton is simply out of her mind.

Two dozen countries sending seven thousand troops?

And many or most not for combat?

That's an average of about 290 troops per country.

290 cooks, guards, and orderlies each.

Some world crisis.

Everyone clearly sees what a mistake Afghanistan is, except the government of the United States.

Of course those eager not to offend American sensibilities, or those whose assistance or favors from America are under threat, send their token contingent.

This whole matter is like one of those slightly absurd British comedies of four or five decades ago.

World crisis, civilization in peril, so we better send 290 troops.

The press should be embarrassed to even report such press-release fantasy as an event.

Clinton should be embarrassed to utter a word about these 24 mice roaring, but this woman is long ago beyond any possible embarrassment, having said countless absurd things in recent years or quickly backtracking what she has previously said, making absolutely no sense in most of what she says.

Were a major business run the way America runs wars and foreign policy, the economy would collapse.

NOTE TO READERS: This is an assembly of several extensive comments, slightly edited by the author, recently posted to some of the world's leading English language newspapers.

Collapse

In between these two peculiar events, the targeting of Muslims in Western countries and the subjugation of entire Muslim nations all over the world has never ceased. Not for a day.

Moreover, the collective targeting of small or large Muslim communities in Western countries, and the deliberate abuse and degradation of Muslim individuals and Islamic symbols (from the Holy Koran to the Prophet Mohammed) has also never ceased.

Bizarrely, most of these actions have been done through "democratic" channels and justified in the name of democracy, on the basis of upholding the principles of secularism and Western values.

Many thoughts come to mind here; all unreservedly angry.

I remember when the word "democracy" used to resonate so loudly among Arabs and Muslims around the world. The more they were denied it, the more they yearned for it. University campuses in Cairo, Gaza and Karachi took their student union elections so very seriously. Innocent blood was spilled in clashes around campuses as students desperately tried to express their right to vote, to speak out and to assemble.

Those were the days, when al-demoqratia, Arabic for democracy, was the buzzword in the Middle East and beyond. Even Palestinian political prisoners held their elections, ever so faithfully, surrounded by highly fortified towers and under the deriding gaze of armed men in the unforgiving heat of the Naqab desert.

Arab and Muslim masses were keen on democracy to the extent that there was a near consensus that democracy, although a Western conception, could be distinguished from the many ills invited by Western interventions, imperialism and wars that scarred and continued to impair the collective Muslim psyche.

An entire school of Muslim thought was in fact established around the concept that democracy and Islam are very much compatible. Such a notion goes back to Egypt's Azharite scholar Rifa'a al-Tahtawi, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that the principles of European modernity were compatible with Islam.

"Al-Tahtawi's work influenced the philosopher Muhammad Abduh [1849-1905], another Azharite who is often described as the founder of Islamic modernism, which is captured in his statement that in Europe he found Islam without Muslims, while in Egypt he found Muslims without Islam," wrote German anthropologist, Frank Fanselow.

If one sets his prejudices aside to ponder this for a moment, one would realize the intellectual valor it takes to consider and even embrace commonalities with the very powers that have instilled so much harm and fear.

Even in their darkest, least proud moments, Muslim intellectuals and nations displayed impressive open-mindedness. They are hardly ever credited for that.

More recently, in Egypt, people tried hard to vote, in the face of beatings, public humiliation and imprisonment. In Palestine in 2006 the price was even higher - starvation. Gaza continues to endure under a medieval Israeli siege, ultimately because of an election.

Muslim communities in the West have long been considered the luckiest; after all, they live in the abodes of democracy. They drink from the fountain of rights and freedoms that never runs dry.

However, these idealized assumptions missed the fact that Western democracy was conditional. And unconditional democracy can only be a farce.

Much has been said to explain the West's faltering on its own commitment to democracy. No, the tragedy of September 11, 2001, is hardly the defining moment that created the growing chasm that made the West fearful of Islam. Despite all that has taken place since then - the constant spewing out of right-wing hatred, evangelical fanatic preaching and all the rest - America is still more tolerant than Europe. Nor was the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe a response in solidarity to America's woes.

Honestly, the French are not fond of Americans, nor are the Germans necessarily that passionate about the Swiss. But this didn't stop a German Christian Democratic state interior minister, Volker Bouffier, from making a "recommendation" to Muslim communities in his own country: "Naturally the Muslims in Germany have a right to build mosques. But they should make sure not to overwhelm the German population with them."

How do you overwhelm people with minarets? Is this a post-post-post-modernistic logic that we are yet to be informed of?

There are only four minarets in the entire country of Switzerland, a country with a population of approximately 7.6 million people. How overwhelming can that be? And aren't religious freedom and the freedom of collective and individual expression basic rights guaranteed by democratic values?

But this is hardly about a 4.8-meter tall minaret in the northern Swiss town of Langenthal. It's about the fact that the one who suggested the structure is a Muslim furniture salesman by the name of Mutalip Karaademi. He didn't know, of course, that his modest idea of adding a minaret to the community's mosque would generate a nationwide referendum, and an international "controversy".

Karaademi was not trying to "Islamificate" the Swiss. He just wanted his community to have a place for worship (as opposed to the unused paint factory it currently uses for prayer), to be able to express its collective identity without fear. Ironically enough, the Muslim community in Langenthal is mostly Albanians, refugees who fled Kosovo seeking escape and deliverance.

What a strange paradox: Muslims escaping to the West, physically and figuratively, only to find double standards, self-negation and, at times, pure hypocrisy.

For now, however, a new consensus is forming: democracy can be invoked and used against Muslims only, and not for Muslims. It can be manipulated to deny them their identity in Europe and their freedom in Palestine, to ensure their subjugation in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and to meddle in their internal affairs everywhere else.

Al-demoqratia, indeed.

Collapse

The author of the article is Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research In International Affairs and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs, both rather impressive sounding names, as all names of think tanks should sound. What was not mentioned is that Rubin is also
professor at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Israel. While checking this out on the internet, I discovered that the IDC had recently held a conference on victims of terror and how to help them: "...the first advanced academic conference focusing on the victims of terror and their families. The conference dealt with the impact of terror attacks on society and the individual and presented theoretical approaches and practical methods of helping the victims."

Even though it is a side issue to what I initially set out discuss, it only emphasizes the pro-Israeli slant of Rubin's connections as all the terror victims discussed in the precis were Israeli, soldiers, or U.S. victims of the Twin Towers. Absolutely no mention, as one might expect, of the terror suffered by the Palestinians. Although the Israeli press is often quite open about its operations within Palestine, the IDC is a private for profit institution and obviously considers the Palestinians to be the source of the terror and not the occupation of Palestine by the IDF.

My initial point was that the Vancouver Sun did not mention this association, perhaps through ignorance, but just as likely through not wanting to bias the readers interpretations of their own pro-Israeli slant. The appearance of neutrality is important even if that is not the case.

"Abbas isn't going anywhere"

Arguing against Rubin is difficult mainly because he does not present logically sequenced rational arguments, but starts off establishing his own emotional mind-set of Palestinian culpability for their problems with Israel. Following that, to support his argument he essentially lies about the factual support to his argument while disingenuously stating that all his ideas are "clear in any accurate factual account of what has happened."

The article itself is titled "Abbas isn't going anywhere" with the subtitle, "There's no peace deal in the Middle East because Palestinian leadership doesn't want one." He starts by saying that "Abbas never had any intention of resigning or calling elections...because the PA fears it would lose them and Hamas, which rules Gaza Strip, won't let them be held there." That could all be well and true, but until events actually unfold - or don't unfold in this case, it is speculation.

Rubin argues emotionally that the "Palestinians are always presented as victims, passive observers, people who have nothing to do with their fate." That of course is intended to play the 'reverse sympathy card' for Israel, but it is a statement that carries no truth. Most importantly in denying this is the obvious high degree of activism from civil disobedience, from civil protest, through quasi-legal formulations (think the Israeli created Palestinian Authority), to the much more aggressive and assertive militant insurgencies of the two intifada's and the suicide attackers. There is absolutely nothing passive about that.

Somehow he twists that first illogical statement into a much broader one in which "...everything must always be the fault of Israel or America or the West" with Rubin's "fact is" saying the problem is that of the Palestinians "...seeking Israeli's destruction over a compromise peace that would mean the conflict's end in a permanent two-state solution."

Both statements are falsehoods. Most Palestinian sources that I am familiar with recognize that their history, their leadership has its own faults. There is also plenty of material indicating that the Palestinians are capable of compromise in their search for peace, to the point of recognizing Israel's existence.

What is true is that, yes, the Palestinians are victims of military occupation, harassment, and torture, and yes they are victims of military rule that contravenes several international sources of law. What is also true is that they are not passive (a significantly incomprehensible statement for anyone following all the protests and violence in the region).

Rubin's statements about the passivity of the Palestinians is a somewhat clever reversal of the Israeli's inculcated doctrine that they are the innocent victims of Palestinian and Islamist terror, and are incapable of acting and reflecting on perhaps why the Palestinians are acting this way - or in his own words, Israelis "...are always presented as victims, passive observers, people who have nothing to do with their own fate." When his words are reversed in intention, they carry a similar falsehood.

Israel plays the victim role, yet it is the occupier, the aggressor, the perpetrator who wished from the inception of the Eretz Israel dream to ethnically cleanse all of the area of Palestinians. Because the Palestinians did not just passively move out of the way, and with fluctuating levels of belligerence and insurrection, the Israelis play to the world's sympathies as victims of their own culpability.

Camp David

Rubin's 'factual' support begins with Camp David. He says Arafat and the Palestinian leadership "were offered a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem and billions of dollars in start-up funding twice in the year 2000...." This "offer" had nothing on paper, there is no record of anything written down so that outside observers could examine what was said or truly offered. Unless something is in writing, especially in political agreements, it is worthless.

What was offered was offered verbally (if at all, see below), and by best accounts was not a state but a truncated series of bantustan like cantons surrounded by areas of Israeli control, with the Jordan valley remaining under Israel Defence Forces military control. There was no sovereignty offered, no sovereign rule over a contiguous piece of sovereign territory. In reality there was not even an offer made, as Robert Malley, Clinton's Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs and his advisor at Camp David. Malley indicated, "It is hard to state with confidence how far Barak was actually prepared to go....His strategy was predicated on the belief that Israel ought not reveal its final position - not even to the United States - until the endgame was in sight." [1] That endgame of course is the continued settlement of the West Bank until Israeli control is absolute.

Rubin follows the generally accepted Israeli obfuscation concerning Jerusalem and reiterates it as fact. The verbal tricks around the description of a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem indicates that the capital in East Jerusalem should more correctly have been labelled as 'east of' Jerusalem in Abu-Dis, as "It is only through this deceptive use of definitions that Israel can claim that it proposes that the city be divided into the Jewish part "Jerusalem" and the Palestinian part, "Al-Quds." [2]

The end result of all this is the Israeli statement about having no partner in peace, a cultural icon now prevalent within Israel and the U.S. but not supported elsewhere. It is the Israelis not wanting 'peace' as that would necessarily constrain there initial ambition to control all of Eretz Israel.

Partners in crime - the settlements

The article continues arguing about the settlement deal reached between the United States and Israel. The overwhelming obvious lack here (or at least it should be obvious) is that this agreement was between partners in crime and not with the Palestinians. As usual with these settlement agreements, the reality on the ground is that the settlements would continue to be built as the Israelis continued their verbal charade of complying with the agreement.

Rubin argues that the settlement deal was a "huge concession" even though it did not apply to Jerusalem. I would have to ask how a "huge concession" can be envisioned when it does not include the huge settlements that are being built in Jerusalem with the direct intent of eliminating the Palestinian population - but above all, how can it be a concession of any kind when settlements in occupied territories are illegal under international law? Of course, Israel, with the support of the U.S., has continually flaunted international law and disregards it completely.

Laughable solution (tragically)

Rubin's rather laughable solution in a tragic-comic farcical sense is "If the Palestinian leadership wanted to end the "occupation" [why is that quoted as if it is not a fact?] and get rid of settlements [ahh, I get it - get rid of settlements, but not necessarily all of them!] on its territory [aha, so it is their territory after all! So it must be occupied...!] there's a simple solution. It need merely negotiate peace with Israel as soon as possible." Really? These negotiations, mostly between the U.S. and Israel, have been ongoing for decades and have only succeeded in extending Israeli domination over Palestinian territory. And there is no way that Israel will give up its settlements, a few "outposts" perhaps [there, I can use useless quotes too!] but nothing significant if at all elsewhere, and they certainly will not give up territory around Jerusalem nor would they allow full sovereign control to any territory deemed Palestinian by the partners in crime.

In his final statement, he indicates that the "PA's rejections of peace" is in order to "keep the door open for total victory, to avoid compromising, to prevent internal conflict, it is willing....to use both real and fictional suffering as leverage in an attempt to get far more." Hmm, the pot calling the kettle black? Not even that. It is a true irrational reversal of what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, delaying, stalling, causing suffering, and, especially within the U.S., using fiction to leverage everything to their advantage.

Charades
The Palestinians are not passive as witnessed by the many events occurring within the occupied territories, nor should they be represented that way, nor should it be argued that they are creating this view of passivity. These are Rubin's constructs to present an illogical and false argument against the Palestinians. There has never been any "peace agreement" of any substance that has ever been presented to the Palestinians, only the ongoing charade between Israel and the United States, neither of whom truly cares about the Palestinians. The charade is for public consumption and the creation of a false mythology of leaderless terrorists attacking a passive Israel.

What happens with Abbas now remains as conjecture. Will he stay? Will he go? Is he truly refusing to negotiate with Israel? Or is he simply recognizing the real situation in that there is nothing to negotiate when Israel holds all the power, and is backed by the U.S.? Is he perhaps simply recognizing that negotiations under these conditions will simply be the ongoing charade of the U.S. championing Israeli rights, hoping and wishing that the Palestinians will acquiesce, roll over and play dead? To truly be passive?

Regardless, Rubin's article [3]only adds to the Israeli obfuscation of the situation, attempting to make the Palestinians the guilty party in their own occupation.

　

[1] Baroud, Ramzy. The Second Palestinian Intifada - A Chronicle of a People's Struggle. Pluto Press, London, 2006. p.21.

[2]1 Rinehart, Tanya. Israel/Palestine - How to end the war of 1948. Seven Stories Press, New York, 2005. p.35.

Note: there are many other sources that support the two cited above.

[3]Rubin, Barry. "Abbas isn't going anywhere. There's no peace deal in the Middle East because Palestinian leadership doesn't want one." Vancouver Sun. Saturday, November 28, 2009. Also available at: http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Abbas+going+anywhere/2279878/story.html

Jim Miles is a Canadian educator and a regular contributor/columnist of opinion pieces and book reviews for The Palestine Chronicle. Miles' work is also presented globally through other alternative websites and news publications.

Collapse

Washington has been pressuring its NATO allies to pour in more fighters even though Europeans don't want any part of it. The New York Times reported Nov. 25th the U.S. is asking NATO for 10,000 more troops above the 45,000 already in place. That could bring total Allied forces to about 150,000. Toss in 70,000 private contractors and the total force soars to over 200,000. Yes, Afghanistan is shaping up as another Viet Nam.

Obama apparently never seriously considered ending the war diplomatically. Recall his blustering campaign rhetoric about defeating the Taliban; recall the public commitment last December of Defense Secretary Robert Gates to strengthen military bases in Afghanistan. Gates was the Bush official Obama continued in office.

Even as polls show a majority of Americans want U.S. forces out of Afghanistan and that Americans do not believe the war is worth fighting, President Obama---a former editor at the CIA front Business International Corporation in 1983-84---embraces a position in line with the long-held CIA view the U.S. must control the Middle East's energy resources. It was the CIA that overthrew Iran in 1953 after Tehran nationalized its oil production, depriving British Petroleum of its lucrative swindle. Afghanistan is valued today for the oil and gas pipelines the U.S. wants built there, no matter what other reasons Obama gives.

"In the late 1990s," writes Washington reporter Bill Blum in his "Anti-Empire Report," "the American oil company, Unocal, met with Taliban officials in Texas to discuss the pipelines... Unocal's talks with the Taliban, conducted with the full knowledge of the Clinton administration...continued as late as 2000 or 2001." Adds Paul Craig Roberts writing in the December Rock Creek Free Press of Washington, D.C., the U.S./U.K. military aggression in Afghanistan "had to do with the natural gas deposits in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan." Roberts explains:

"The Americans wanted a pipeline that bypassed Russia and Iran and went through Afghanistan. To insure this, an invasion was necessary. The idiot American public could be told that the invasion was necessary because of 9/11 and to save them from 'terrorism,' and the utter fools would believe the lie." The war, Roberts continued, is to guard the pipeline route. "It's about money, it's about energy, it's not about democracy."

According to an AP dispatch of November 26th, "The president promised this week to 'finish the job' begun eight years ago...but liberal Democrats already are lining up against it (escalation), in part because of the also-surging cost---up to $75 billion a year." Describing the war in workplace terminology makes it sound as if Obama is running a personnel agency that was dispatching workers to build some public works, not as though he is continuing President George Bush's illegal war.

Apparently, only escalation in Afghanistan was considered by Obama. As The Washington Post reported last December, "standing at Kandahar Air Field in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the United States is making a 'sustained commitment' to that country, one that will last 'some protracted period of time.'" The story goes on to discuss $300 million in new construction at just one base, including a new power plant, electrical and water distribution systems, and housing for 1,500 personnel. Gates hardly would have made a "sustained commitment" if Obama planned to withdraw. And every day the war goes on while Obama mulls his options is a day of victory for the hawks.

In January, a Defense Department report stated "building a fully competent and independent Afghan government will be a lengthy process that will last, at a minimum, decades," The Nation magazine's Jonathan Schell reports (Nov. 30). So far from defeating the Taliban are Allied forces that US military contractors "are forced to pay suspected insurgents to protect American supply routes," Aram Roston writes in the same issue. "It is an accepted fact of the military logistics operation in Afghanistan that the US government funds the very forces American troops are fighting." In fact, an American executive there told Roston, "The Army is basically paying the Taliban not to shoot at them. It is Department of Defense money."

Nevertheless, the slick orator from Illinois continues U.S. aggression in the energy-rich Middle East. Obama clearly is no liberal, much less a progressive. He is a reactionary. He is advancing the militarist policies of the Bush-Cheney regime. He is defending the CIA. He is increasing the total Pentagon budget. He is expanding an illegal war into Pakistan. Once this is understood, the other pieces of Obama policy fall into place. Obama is continuing the illegal "extraordinary rendition" kidnappings authorized by President Bush. Obama rejects prosecuting CIA torture goons who broke the law and refuses to release photos of their grisly handiwork. Obama balks at signing a treaty to ban land mines that has been affirmed by 150 nations. Obama expands the Predator assassination attacks claiming hundreds of civilian lives. And so on, ad nauseam.

The military-industrial complex will support Obama's escalation of these wars in order to cash in on those lucrative defense contracts valued at $700 billion a year while good jobs in other sectors of the U.S. economy, starved for investment capital, continue to shrink; while cities continue to decline; while handgun massacres become commonplace in our schools and offices; while homeowners are forced into the streets; while start-ups can't get loans; and while Wall Street loots the Treasury. In short, Obama is propelling the once great USA toward Third World status.

What's more, in all the recent debate in Washington, who has heard a word of concern for the impact of escalation on the suffering civilian populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

"Our military demands ever more troops," Veterans Speaker Alliance's founder Paul Cox said at an Oakland, Calif., rally, last week with Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against the initial Afghan aggression. "Meanwhile, our economy is in the toilet, health care costs are out of control, and we can't afford to educate our children. But somehow, there's always money for war." Rep. Lee called for putting "this stage of American history--a stage characterized by open-ended war--to a close."

Europeans---who are supporting a NATO organization that has no real purpose since the end of the Cold War---would agree with Lee. As the New York Times reported Nov. 25th: "America's European allies have remained noncommittal about sending additional troops to Afghanistan. France and Germany in particular have continued to limit their combat role, with both countries refusing to deploy troops in the south of the country, where Taliban forces are strongest."

If the majority Democrats won't end it, Americans could embrace the Green Party, which has consistently called for pulling U.S. forces out of the Middle East, sharply reducing the Pentagon budget, and shifting spending to respond to true public needs. Right now, voting Green appears to be the way to let the peace dove out of its cage.

(Reach the author, a former reporter for the Chicago Daily News, at sherwoodross10@gmail.com)

Collapse

While congressional Democrats and Republicans diverted the public's attention with claims and counterclaims whether or not the Company had "misled" Congress by not disclosing the program's existence, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported months earlier that former Vice President Richard Cheney had stood up an "executive assassination ring."

According to Hersh, that fully-operational program was run, not by the CIA, but by the Pentagon's secretive Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), a subunit attached to United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). During a "Great Conversations" event last March at the University of Minnesota, Hersh told the audience:

"Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

"Under President Bush's authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That's been going on, in the name of all of us." (Eric Black, "Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh describes 'executive assassination ring'," MinnPost.com, March 11, 2009)

Old news right? Well, not entirely.

Wired investigative reporter Noah Shachtman revealed November 3, that a report published by the Pentagon's Joint Special Operations University (JSOU), the "educational component" of USSOCOM based at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida, proposed creating a specialized "manhunting" unit with a global reach.

Shachtman writes that its author argues that the CIA "didn't go far enough. Instead, it suggests the American government should set up something like a 'National Manhunting Agency' to go after jihadists, drug dealers, pirates and other enemies of the state."

While not an "official" report, the fact that the monograph, Manhunting: Counter-Network Organization for Irregular Warfare, was written by retired Air Force Lt. Colonel George A. Crawford and published by JSOU, lends added weight to arguments by critics that the United States Government has "gone rogue" and is preparing a planet-wide Operation Condor network to capture or kill imperialism's enemies.

Currently a senior director for Archimedes Global, Inc., Crawford boasts a résumé that includes "operational assignments with special operations and special activities, intelligence collection and analysis, information operations and psychological operations."

The shadowy firm, while short on information describing what it actually does, like many newly-minted intelligence and security outfits in Washington, is chock-a-block with retired spooks and special forces operators cashing-in on the tsunami of public funds fueling the "War on Terror."

According to their web site the company offer services such as "Operations and Research" from "experienced, highly trained people" who possess "unmatched expertise across a number of industries and focus areas."

In the realm of Technology, Archimedes specializes in "Cryptanalysis and Applied Cryptography." Hint, hint, this is what the National Security Agency does when it isn't spying on the American people and building an exploitable database on dissidents destined for "special handling" should the need arise.

The firm's "Information and Risk" brief claims they will solve "the most difficult communication and risk problems by seeing over the horizon with a blend of art and science." And with focus areas that include "strategic communications, media analysis and support, crisis communications, and risk and vulnerability assessment and mitigation," it doesn't take a rocket scientist to infer that those well-schooled in the dark art of psychological operations (PSYOPS) would find a friendly home at Archimedes!

With some 25-years experience "as a foreign area officer specializing in Eastern Europe and Central Asia," including a stint "as acting Air and Defense Attaché to Kyrgyzstan," Crawford brings an interesting skill-set to the table.

A trained interrogator "selected by the commander of United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) as an inspector for the Secretary of Defense Interrogation Special Focus Team," one shudders to contemplate what his duties entailed in that capacity.

As the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported in 2004 in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal, with Special Operations Forces (SOF) tasked with "greater responsibility for planning and conducting worldwide counterterrorism operations," systematic human rights violations in Afghanistan and Iraq was just another day at the office.

Intimate with the narcotrafficking, al-Qaeda-linked Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), JSOU avers that Crawford "personally authored the intelligence plan for military operations in Kosovo and was the lead strategist for developing USSOCOM's advanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities for counterterrorism operations."

A rather ironic claim considering that right-up to the moment of the 9/11 attacks, as former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds revealed, the United States employed Afghan-Arab veterans of the anti-Soviet jihad for destabilization operations in innumerable global hot spots.

Manhunting: The Return of Operation Condor?

This isn't the first time that America's engagement with "dark actors" involved in "manhunting" as a state-sponsored blood sport led to a devil's pact with torturers, drug dealers and sociopathic fascist killers.

During the 1970s, in the wake of the overthrow of Chile's democratically-elected socialist president, Salvador Allende, the intelligence and security services of several Latin American states, notably Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay launched a secretive program, Operation Condor--with a major assist from the CIA and the Pentagon--that tracked down and murdered leftist opponents.

Operating under the radar, Condor operatives included military personnel, European neofascists, CIA-trained Cuban terrorists and international narcotraffickers who did the "wet work" for their political masters, Latin American oligarchs and their North American allies. Thousands were killed and thousands more "disappeared" into clandestine prisons.

Long Island University political science professor, J. Patrice McSherry, revealed, "U.S. military and intelligence forces were well informed of Condor operations, and the United States played a key covert role in modernizing and extending the Condor apparatus. An Argentine military source told a U.S. Embassy contact in 1976 that the CIA had been deeply involved in setting up computerized links among the intelligence and operations units of the six Condor states."

Indeed, so extensive were these links that "U.S. forces also gave the Condor organization access to the U.S. continental communications system based in the Panama Canal Zone." A declassified 1978 cable from U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay Robert White to the Secretary of State, "revealed that Condor operatives made use of a U.S. facility in the Canal Zone for secret communications and intelligence coordination."

The Pentagon, according to White's declassified cable, provided the narco-linked death squad with the sophisticated electronic means to coordinate global operations.

General Alejandro Fretes Dávalos, commander of Paraguay's armed forces told the ambassador, "that intelligence chiefs from Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay used 'an encrypted system within the U.S. telecommunications net[work],' which covered all of Latin America, to 'coordinate intelligence information'."

"Essentially," McSherry wrote, "U.S. military and/or intelligence forces put the official U.S. communications channel at the disposal of Operation Condor. It was a collaboration reflecting high-level executive approval of Condor."

This "high-level executive approval" of an international death squad reflected past--and current--Pentagon thinking that when it comes to killing capitalism's opponents, everything is permitted.

The parallels to contemporary American covert intelligence and military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with their documented linkages to the flourishing international drug trade are striking.

That these moves by Washington to seize the geostrategic high ground vis-à-vis their imperialist rivals, as in Latin America decades earlier, have spawned an unholy alliance with far-right political forces, warlords, religious extremists and drug traffickers, exposes the lie that U.S. military intervention has anything to do with democracy and human rights. Thirty years ago Danish journalist Henrik Krüger observed:

International Fascista was a crucial first step toward fulfilling the dream not only of [SS Col. Otto] Skorzeny, but also of his close friends in Madrid exile, José Lopez Rega, Juan Peron's grey eminence, and Prince Justo Valerio Borghese, the Italian Fascist money man who had been rescued from execution at the hands of the World War II Italian resistance by future CIA counterintelligence whiz James J. Angleton. They, and other Nazi and Fascist powers throughout Europe and Latin America, envisioned a new world order built on a Fascist Iron Circle linking Buenos Aires, Santiago, Lima, La Paz, Brasilia and Montevideo. (Henrik Krüger, The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence, & International Fascism, Boston: South End Press, 1980, p. 210)

Shaped by French unconventional warfare doctrines, U.S. counterinsurgency tactics employed in Southeast Asia, and their own on the ground expertise crushing dissent, the "new professionalism of internal security" deployed by Condor operatives--code for massive repression and unrestrained violence--was directed against the people of Latin America with predictable results.

Eerily prefiguring America's "War on Terror," counterinsurgency "specialist" Roger Trinquier, the author of Modern Warfare and an architect of France's bloody repression during the Algerian anticolonial struggle (1954-1962), averred that counterguerrillas must employ the full range of psychological warfare techniques against the civilian population if victory is to be achieved. This is a thesis to which Crawford returns time and again, particularly as it relates to the covert decapitation of resistance networks by American manhunters.

Fast forward and it becomes all-too-clear that Krüger's "Fascist Iron Circle" didn't disappear with Pinochet's fall from grace; instead, it has morphed into a high-tech killing machine whose tentacles have fanned-out from the Washington Beltway to encircle the globe. Peter Dale Scott, writing on America's descent into a lawless state presciently remarked:

Mafias and empires have certain elements in common. Both can be seen as the systematic violent imposition of governance in areas of undergovernance. Both use atrocities to achieve their ends; but both tend to be tolerated to the extent that the result of their controlled violence is a diminution of uncontrolled violence. I would tentatively suggest an important difference between mafias and empires: that, with the passage of time, mafias tend to become more and more part of the civil society whose rules they once broke, while empires tend to become more and more irreconcilably at odds with the societies they once controlled. ("Deep Events and the CIA's Global Drug Connection," Global Research, September 6, 2008)

Indeed, the "controlled violence" implicit in Crawford's thesis, provides stark confirmation of Scott's analysis that as the imperialist empire unravels it tends "to become more and more irreconcilably at odds" with popular control in a democratic republic.

The Mechanics of Standing Up a Death Squad

In "Unconventional Warfare in the 21st Century," Antifascist Calling revealed last December that USSOCOM had published its definitive doctrine on the subject. Titled Unconventional Warfare, the 248-page document asserted that Unconventional Warfare or UW establishes a "litmus test," namely warfare conducted "by, with or through surrogates" and that their preferred assets are irregular forces:

Irregulars, or irregular forces, are individuals or groups of individuals who are not members of a regular armed force, police, or other internal security force. They are usually nonstate-sponsored and unconstrained by sovereign nation legalities and boundaries. These forces may include, but are not limited to, specific paramilitary forces, contractors, individuals, businesses, foreign political organizations, resistance or insurgent organizations, expatriates, transnational terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black marketers, and other social or political "undesirables." (Army Special Operations Forces, Unconventional Warfare, Field Manual No. 3-05.130, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 30 September 2008, p. 1-3)

And with an explicitly stated goal to "gain or maintain control or influence over the population and to support that population through political, psychological, and economic methods," the organization that Crawford proposes in Manhunting clearly exists along this UW warfighting continuum.

Manhunting--the deliberate concentration of national power to find, influence, capture, or when necessary kill an individual to disrupt a human network--has emerged as a key component of operations to counter irregular warfare adversaries in lieu of traditional state-on-state conflict measures. It has arguably become a primary area of emphasis in countering terrorist and insurgent opponents. (George A. Crawford, Manhunting: Counter-Network Organization for Irregular Warfare, JSOU Report 09-7, The JSOU Press, Hurlburt Field, Florida, September 2009, p. 1)

In the author's view, a national manhunting agency of necessity, will be a hybrid organization, combining features of a Special Forces small tactical team with those of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), the U.S. Marshals Services' Special Operations Group (USMSSOG) at the federal level, "down to Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams and fugitive or criminal task forces in most U.S. cities."

In addition to American examples, the author cites New Scotland Yard's Antiterrorist Branch (SO13), Germany's Grenzschutzgruppe (GSG-9), and the French Groupe de Sécurité et d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale (GIGN) as examples of a combined task force built on the "elite unit concept." Moving on, Crawford recommends Israel's Sayaret Mat'kal, "a special reconnaissance unit within Israel's General Headquarters Intelligence Corps.

Lest readers forget, New Scotland Yard's Antiterrorist Branch, SO13, was the "crack" unit that murdered Jean Claude de Menezes in cold blood on a London subway in 2005.

After an investigation that was little more than a cover-up, it was revealed that de Menezes was entirely innocent and had been mistakenly targeted by SO13's armed wing, SO19, as part of "Operation Kratos," the Met's controversial "shoot-to-kill" program meant to take down suspected terrorists and would-be suicide bombers.

De Menezes was neither, but that didn't stop police from pumping seven bullets into his head.

Tellingly, SO13 was stood up after consultations with Israeli "experts," well-known for their fidelity to human rights, the rule of law and the sanctity of life, as Israel's murderous assault last year on Gaza amply demonstrated. Collapse

Respecting the message on his T-Shirt, I try to keep to myself, but find it increasingly difficult. The wife is completely covered, all but her face. The contradictions are ample, overwhelming even.

The attire of the family, the attitude of the ladies and even the man with the provocative T-Shirt are all signs of the cultural schizophrenia that permeates many societies in the so-called Third World. It's a side effect of globalization that few wish to talk about.

It's almost always about trade, foreign investment, capital flow and all the rest. But what about culture, identity, traditions and ways of life; do these things amount to anything?

True, Globalization has various manifestations. If viewed strictly from economic terms, then the debate delves into trade barriers, protectionism and tariffs. Powerful countries demand smaller countries to break down all trade barriers, while maintaining a level of protectionism over their own. Smaller countries, knowing that they cannot do much to hide from the hegemonic nature of globalization, form their own economic clubs, hoping to negotiate fairer deals. And the economic tug-of-war continues, between diplomacy and threats, dialogue and arm twisting. This is the side of globalization with which most of us are familiar.

But there is another side of globalization, one that is similarly detrimental to some countries, and profitable to others: cultural globalization - not necessarily the domination of a specific culture, in this case Western culture, over all the rest - but rather the unbridgeable disadvantage of poorer countries, who lack the means to withstand the unmitigated takeover of their traditional ways of life by the dazzling, well-packaged and branded 'culture' imparted upon them around the clock.

What audiences watch, read and listen to in most countries outside the Western hemisphere is not truly Western culture in the strict definition of the term, of course. It's a selective brand of a culture, a reductionst presentation of art, entertainment, news, and so on, as platforms to promote ideas that would ultimately sell products. For the dwarfed representation of Western culture, it's all about things, tangible material values that can be obtained by that simple and final act of pulling out one's credit card. To sell a product, however, media also sell ideas, often one sided, and create unjustifiable fascinations with ways of life that hardly represent natural progression for many vanishing cultures and communities around the world.

Recently in some Gulf country, a few Turkish teenagers turned an Internet café into a shouting match as they engaged one another in some violent computer game. I desperately tried to mind my own business, but their shrieks of victory and defeat were deafening. "Kill the Terrorist", one of them yelled in English, with a thick Turkish accent. The "Rs" in "terrorists" rolled over his tongue so unnaturally. For a moment, he was an "American", killing "terrorists", who, bizarrely looked more Turkish than American. As I walked out, I glanced at the screen. Among the rubble, there was a mosque, or what was left of it. The young Turkish Muslim was congratulated by his friends for his handy work.

There is nothing wrong with exchanges of ideas, of course. Cultural interactions are historically responsible for much of the great advancements and evolution in art, science, language, even food and much more. But, prior to globalization, cultural influences were introduced at much slower speed. It allowed societies, big and small, to reflect, consider, and adjust to these unique notions over time. But the globalization of the media is unfair. It gives no chance for mulling anything over, for determining the benefits or the harms, for any sort of value analysis. News, music and even pornography are beamed directly to all sorts of screens and gadgets. When Beyonce sings she is a 'single lady', the whole world must know, instantly. This may sound like a harmless act, but the cultural contradictions eventually morph into conflicts and clashes, in figurative and real senses.

More, it makes little sense, for example, that Asian audiences are consumers of Fox News and Sky News, while both are regarded as rightwing media platforms in their original markets. And what can Nepali television, for example, do to control media moguls and morphing media empires all around? Young people grow, defining themselves according to someone else's standards, thus the Turkish teenager, temporarily adopting the role of the "American", blows up his own mosque.

Globalization is not a fair game, of course. Those with giant economies get the lion's share of the 'collective' decision-making. Those with more money and global outlook tend to have influential media, also with global outlook. In both scenarios, small countries are lost between desperately trying to negotiate a better economic standing for themselves, while hopelessly trying to maintain their cultural identity, which defined their people, generation after generation throughout history.

The Muslim family eventually left the coffee shop. The husband watched MTV throughout his stay; the young wife, clicked endlessly on her iPhone, and the older woman glanced at the TV from time to time, then quickly looked the other way. One is certain that a few years ago, that family would have enjoyed an entirely different experience. Alas, a few years from today, they might not even sit at the same table.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Collapse

The Boston "Tea Party" was populist activism by the colonists in "America" who were protesting the Tea Act of the British Parliament which imposed a tax on tea. The "rebels" felt that they should not pay a tax that was not passed by their elected officials. Interestingly, the Tea Act was passed by the Parliament to save the East India Tea Company from bankruptcy (Encyclopedia Britannica - Boston tea Party). The East India Company was given a monopoly on all tea exported from Britain to the colonies, as well as imposing a tax on that tea. The refrain of "No taxation without representation" was one of the arguments of the rebelling colonists (Wikipedia - Boston Tea Party)

Regardless of frequently claiming to be "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan," the current Tea Party is highly conservative in the contemporary sense of that word. They are anti-tax (meaning individual taxation and increasing taxes for the wealthy), anti-immigrant, and pro-corporate and privatization. They are largely anti-government, which is the supposedly "Libertarian" strain - which in the current popular rendition is largely "conservative" as well. (See site sampling at end of article).

This is a far cry from the rebel terrorists (and as far as the British were concerned the folks in Boston were terrorists) of the original "Tea Partyers". The Boston Tea Party rebels were acting against British rule in the American colonies, but particularly British taxation. They were acting against monopoly corporatism as represented by the East Indian Tea Company. They were making a first strike for liberating the colonies from Britain.

However, the current "Tea Party" does have close corollaries to another historical party. The party in mind is the "Know Nothings" also known as the American Party which arose roughly 80 years after the revolt of 1773. Both parties were responding to a social environment of slavery (and the conflicts around the institution), and to waves of European immigration. Feagin (1997: 19-20 as quoted in Wolf) characterizes this period as follows:

"In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the 'white race' emerged as a constructed social group for the first time in history." ... "Early English invaders and their descendants saw themselves as culturally and physically different from Native and African Americans, the stereotyped 'uncivilized savages.' Moreover, by the early 1800s the importance of Southern cotton plantations for the U.S. economy had brought a growing demand for Native American land and African and African American slaves. Slavery was being abolished in the North, and the number of free black men and women was growing. In this period, the Anglo-Protestant ruling elite developed the ideology of a superior 'white race' as one way of providing racial privileges for poorer European Americans and keeping the latter from joining with black Americans in worker organisations. By the mid-nineteenth century, not only later English "immigrants" but also "immigrants" from Scotland, Ireland, and Germany had come to accept a place in this socially constructed 'white race' whose special racial privileges included the rights of personal liberty, travel and voting." (As quoted in Wolf, 2008)

The Know Nothings were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic, though they were split North and South on the issue of slavery. As stated in Wolf (2008):

The Know Nothings grew out of a secret society called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner. They were formally known as the American Party. They were anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic and claimed to be champion of the rights of American male Protestant voters. The northern part of the party being anti-slavery and the southern part being pro-slavery (Anbinder, 1992; Billington, 1952). They took political control of many state and city governments from 1855 to 1860. They supported Millard Fillmore in the 1856 Presidential election and he took 21% of the popular vote and eight votes from the electoral college.

The "nativist" Know Nothing/American Party, were vehemently anti-immigrant, mirroring one of the foci of the current "Tea Party." As noted in Wolf:

The American Party platform included the following:

1. Only native-born Americans could hold public office;

2. A 21 year waiting period before foreign-born could vote;

3. Restrict public schooling to Protestants and have the Protestant bible read daily in classrooms. (Anbinder, 1992)

So called "native" Americans, those white descendants of primarily western Europeans who had been born here, saw the "immigrant" influx as a threat in a number of regards. They saw them as racially and culturally different and inferior to themselves. Samuel Busey (1856) wrote a book called "Immigration and its Evils" in which he presented a detailed discussion of the inferiority of the "immigrants." In the following passage he compares the illiterate American born to the illiterate foreigner.

"The ignorant natives who speak our language have been reared under our institutions, and are acquainted with the practical workings of our government; the ignorant foreigner is totally unacquainted with the language; has not enjoyed the advantages of experience and practical observation of the complex machinery of our government, and is consequently far inferior, intellectually, to the uneducated native. He cannot understand the theory of a free government, because he is destitute of the knowledge sufficient to comprehend its objects, purposes and blessings. He cannot acquaint himself with its practical operation and direct and immediate advantages to himself, because he wants the experience and observation, which birth and habits have taught; besides he is totally unacquainted with our language, and has been reared under institutions hostile to personal liberty, to free institutions, and to a Republican government; hence it is that foreigners are so prone to congregate together, to organise themselves into clubs, societies and even communities, occupying entire sections of a county, State, and of a country. These foreign organisations are dangerous to our established institutions; because, wherever they have been in our country, they have repudiated the fundamental principles of our government. (Bussey, 1856: 127-129)."

After WWI, white nativism reared its head again in the context of economic turmoil and rising immigration. The depression of the 1930s intensified nativism - now focused largely against Mexicans. It re-emerged again after WWII with the return of troops, and the displacement of the "substitute" workers who had been women, African Americans and Mexicans who had been encouraged into the country to fill labor demands. The racism that arose obviously focused in its hostility against Japanese Americans , "Asians," Jews, "Mexicans," Germans and Italians.

The point here is that nativism is an old theme, and the current "Tea Party" joins a long line of white "nativism" and so-called conservatism.

It seems disingenuous to call them the "Tea Party," and "Know Nothings" seems more appropriate. Regardless, it joins the long theme of racism and exclusion that is the uglier part of the history of the United States. While even loosely this movement does not represent the majority of Americans, they are currently influencing - even defining - the social and political terrain. Their effectiveness, one might even say their very existence, is due to corporate funding and big monied interests on the right. For example, their birthis out of Fox "News" owned by Rupert Murdock. This has given them - or their corporate inventors and sponsors - a media megaphone. If they are allowed to continue to define the social and political terrain, we are likely to see an extremely difficult and challenging time become very destructive and ugly as well.

Notes
The Know Nothing and American Party sections are quoted in Chapter 6 of The Dialectic of Social Inequality by Rowan Wolf. 2008.

Time Line of the Boston Tea Part. Google.

Sampling of "Tea Party" Sites
Tea Party Patriots

Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party

Tea Party Express

Re-Tea Party (ironically, the "principles" page is "not found")

Desert Conservatives Tea Party Issues Statement

Albuquerque Tea Party

Brentwood tea Party

Collapse

Obama's was hardly a brave or innovative act when you consider that it is a universally-condemned military junta keeping Aung San Suu Kyi penned up.

But when you appreciate the full context of Obama's call, you may agree with me that it was more a cowardly act than anything else.

A year ago, after eight years of mind-numbing stupidity, countless public lies and bloody war crimes, Obama's arrival on the American political scene thrilled the world. His intelligence, his grace, and his sense of decency were striking. His like as an American politician, quite apart from his race, had not been seen in the lifetime of many.

But the hopes raised by Obama, like so many flickering little candles in a fierce wind, already are largely extinguished. This polished, educated, liberal-minded and decent man, after only one year in office, has been overwhelmed by America's military-industrial complex, a terrible machine which grinds on night and day, chewing people in its gears, no matter who is elected ostensibly to be in charge of it.

Much as I resent Burma's treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi, it shines as genuinely humane compared to America's treatment of Omar Khadr.

The key facts in the case of this young man, a prisoner at Guantanamo, are easily told.

Omar Khadr was born to a fundamentalist Muslim, highly political family whose father knew and died fighting for Osama bin Laden. In an era whose ruling myths are a clash of civilizations and a war on terror, Omar would seem to have been doomed from birth.

Under intense pressure from his family, fifteen-year old Omar went to fight in Afghanistan when America invaded it. In doing that, he was doing nothing that tens of thousands of Americans hadn't done, both as idealists for causes and as soldiers of fortune in countless wars from the Spanish Civil War to the Cuban Revolution or the turmoil of the Congo.

Omar's experience reminded me a little of American Ron Kovic's Born on the Fourth of July, a story where the need for maternal approval helped drive his destructive participation in America's Vietnam holocaust (three million Vietnamese slaughtered, many hideously with napalm, and the legacy of soil saturated with Agent Orange and littered with millions of landmines more than justifies that term).

The American claim against Omar is that he shot an American soldier, a medic no less, a fact seemingly almost designed to increase his infamy.

The story, as I heard it in an interview a few years ago with an American soldier, a friend of the dead medic's, was that after a small firefight, Omar hid himself, then leapt up, heartlessly killing the medic whose only interest was the wounded. Omar was then captured and eventually sent to Guantanamo.

Even were that story true, and it is not, there would still be no excuse for sending a fifteen-year old child to Guantanamo. That act violated all international conventions on the treatment of child soldiers, but then almost everything America has done over the last eight years has violated international conventions, international laws, common decency, and the spirit of its own Bill of Rights.

For years, Omar, like hundreds of inmates at Guantanamo, was held incommunicado: he was allowed no contact with his family, he was allowed no visits from the International Red Cross (again in contravention to international conventions) and he was allowed no legal counsel. Omar was allowed no rights of any kind: being kept shackled in a secret prison ninety miles offshore was considered adequate to efface the entire spirit and meaning of America's own rights and laws.

We now know that the soldiers who captured Omar, in fact, shot him twice in the back as the frightened boy tried to run. Despite life-threatening wounds and his young age, Omar was consigned to years of imprisonment and torture at Guantanamo. Indeed, his worst torturer, a soldier with a reputation at Guantanamo as perhaps its most vicious interrogator, deliberately contrived his sessions with Omar so that the boy had to sit in a position which pulled at his slowly-healing and painful wounds.

We also know now, evidence having just been published in Canadian newspapers, that Omar could not possibly have killed the medic: Omar was photographed hiding under a pile of rubble as the soldiers passed.

So who killed the medic? One perhaps should recall the case of Pat Tillman, an American football player killed by his own forces in Afghanistan, a case at first covered up the military, but even now full of unanswered questions.

And why did the Americans shoot Omar, twice, in the back? One simply cannot avoid the suggestion that the American soldiers involved acted with cowardice and savagery.

Some readers may object that American soldiers are incapable of such behaviour, but let's go back to that time in Afghanistan, reviewing some things we now know as facts, and think about what they suggest about the ethos prevailing there when a fifteen-year old was shot in the back and sent to be tortured.

America's carpet bombing in Afghanistan was destructive beyond anything Americans have ever been told. Just as was the case in the First Gulf War when uncounted tens of thousands of poor Iraqi recruits were bulldozed into the desert after having been literally pulped into tailing ponds of human bits and fluids by B-52s, the true horror of what massive bombing did in Afghanistan was understandably not well advertised..

The public has been led to believe that, compared to the horrors inflicted upon Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan was almost bloodless. But I learned recently from an expert journalist - an American no less - with many years of experience in that country that a great deal of blood was shed. In Kabul alone, fifty to sixty thousand Afghans died in America's brutal bombing and artillery cover for its Northern Alliance proxy army, itself a gang of thugs many of whom are not one wit more ethical or civilized than the Taleban.

We knew too, those who cared to search, of the brutal tactics of American special forces in the mountains after the initial "victory": tales of heavily-armed goons marching into remote towns, throwing stun grenades, breaking down the doors of homes, holding women and children at gunpoint while their male family members were marched away with no explanation. The men were often kept for considerable periods to be "questioned."

At the least suspicion, air strikes were called in, and in dozens and dozens of cases, those air strikes wiped out whole families or groups of villagers who had done nothing to oppose Americans. They were the victims, thousands of them, of young Americans filled with irrational resentments over 9/11, anxious to prove how good they were with their high-tech killing machines, and let loose on someone else's country.

And we knew, at least again those who cared to search, the story of America's hideous treatment of Taleban prisoners in the early days of occupation, of Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld's Nazi-like public demand that all prisoners should be killed or walled away forever. One of America's ghastly allies of the Northern Alliance, General Dostum, took Rumsfeld in deadly earnest: he had his men round up three thousand prisoners, seal them in vans and drive them out onto the desert to suffocate in the heat. The bodies were then buried in shallow mass graves. All this was watched by American soldiers who somehow failed to act the way Jimmy Stewart did in war movies. Instead they picked their noses or smoked cigarettes as they gawked.

We also knew of the terrible tales of boys being raped while American troops never lifted a finger to help them. In a strict fundamentalist country like Afghanistan, where young women are kept guarded and almost hidden, the sexual behaviour of men often takes on the character of that common in prisons everywhere: that is, young and vulnerable men are brutally raped and often treated as "bitches" by older, tougher prisoners.

Only recently, I heard the horrible stories of a Canadian soldier with post traumatic stress who told of seeing a boy with blood running down his legs as two Afghan allies raped him. The soldier could do nothing and was told later only to buck it up. He told too of a translator, a hired Afghan, gleefully relating to him about the way he liked to use a knife on boys he raped.

We all saw the ghastly pictures from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Only now we know far uglier pictures and recordings have been suppressed, images and sounds of young Iraqis being raped and sodomized by American soldiers at the prison.

Those facts give us some realistic sense of the atmosphere in Afghanistan when American soldiers shot Omar in the back, falsely accused him of killing a medic, and sent a fifteen-year old boy off to years of torture.

Omar remains a prisoner in Guantanamo, although the torture mercifully has stopped, but it was announced only a couple of days ago that he would be among those who would stand trial in New York.

Trial for what? For trumped-up charges of murder? Trial for acts in war? Trial for being an abused child soldier? Trial under American laws which never applied to Afghanistan? A trial where every scrap of government evidence is tainted with years of torture and human-rights abuse? Where the government doing the trying itself has acted against countless laws and treaties in invading and occupying two countries?

If there were one breath of decency left in America's establishment, Omar and the other abused prisoners would all be released and allowed to live the rest of their lives in peace. They are no threat to anyone, most did nothing deserving imprisonment, and those who may have committed something we would regard as a crime have been viciously punished already.

Only days ago, Obama's White House Counsel Greg Craig was let go. Craig, an old friend of the President's, had promised to make his administration the most transparent in history. Craig was the main force behind the Obama's promise to close Guantanamo in one year.

Well, there is no sign Guantanamo is to be closed any time soon, and the policy's chief advocate is gone. But more importantly, when we speak of American torture chambers, it is easy to forget that Guantanamo is only the most publicized of many. What horrors go on at places like America's secret base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean or at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, or in a number of other locations, all part of the CIA's vast international torture gulag, is anybody's guess.

Obama has not uttered a whimper about the CIA's euphemistically-named extreme rendition, a practice whereby thousands of people have been kidnapped off streets and sent bound to some of the world's hell-holes for months of torture. Afterwards, having been discovered innocent of anything, they find themselves dumped in some obscure place like Bosnia without so much as an apology for their treatment.

Obama told people repeatedly during his campaign that American forces in Iraq would be withdrawn promptly, saying "you can bank on it," and people believed him because Obama did not vote in the Senate for that illegal war, but most of America's soldiers remain there still.

Obama appointed a commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who has a background swirling with suggestions of black operations and dirty business, and now that ghastly man has said he needs forty-thousand more troops.

American Predator drones, guided by buzz-cut, faceless men with computer screens in locked rooms in America, now frequently invade Pakistan's airspace. One can just imagine them hooting and pumping their arms like young men playing a computer game when one of their terrible Hellfire missiles strikes its target, the home of someone not legally charged with anything, killing everyone who happens to be nearby.

No, I only wish the ugly stain on America's flag was keeping a dissident under house arrest.

Collapse

Investigative journalist Declan McCullagh revealed that the "change" administration's legal eagles issued an order that required the "Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site 'not to disclose the existence of this request' unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization."

Kristina Clair, IndyMedia's Linux administrator, told CBS she was shocked to have received the subpoena with its flawed demand not to disclose its contents.

The subpoena from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on. (Declan McCullagh, "Justice Dept. Asked for News Site's Visitor Lists," CBS News, November 10, 2009)

Talk about intrusive! While grand jury subpoenas of news organizations and journalists are not unprecedented, under long-standing guidelines these subpoenas are supposed to receive special handling given their sensitive nature, thus ensuring that even the appearance of prior restraint of a journalist's ability to report the news is avoided. Collapse

In the first step of this process, we are presented with and idea, value or concept, that is external from the individual. In this example, the concept that the, "tax payer," should shoulder the responsibility of a bank's (i.e. financial institutions - there are so many I, I won't list them all) lack of integrity (financial and otherwise) was outside the expectation and value norms many tax payers had. Tax payers as individuals have to balance their checkbooks every month. Fiscal responsibility is a hallmark value of the, "the average tax payer." Now the average tax payer was being told that bailing out these irresponsible financial institutions, that did not adhere to their fiscal values, had to be the primary value to preserve their own.

Politicians, bankers and CEOs understand this process VERY well (they should, the revolving door between Wall Street, the Federal Reserve and Financial CEOs has left them well practiced at covering each other's dirty laundry-Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio on the Bill Moyers Journal,2009). This new concept needed to be presented to the public just right. And so..., a wave of information, disinformation, and marketing, began to fill the air. We began to become familiar with new terminology, company names; pundits filled the airwaves and TV. What was once vague or completely unknown began to have a face and a vocabulary and a ready-made solution.

This is where the slight of hand becomes boggling and we move into the next stage of social construction. As the public faces of an economic fix began to glow with a solution, they moved the tax payer into a level of objectification that made, "bailing out the financial institutions," take on a life of its own and morphed the concept of a bailout to an objective reality. Here, politicians, investigative boards, and the free press could have begun to point out fallacies in reasoning, the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street, shown earnings that belied the crisis consensus. But that didn't happen. Instead, the bailout became the reality through a combination of deliberate deception, believable authorities (of course that could be questioned now), and the marketing of fear by politicians and broadcast news. The marketing of fear cinched the deal. We heard over and over about the Great Depression and that if we didn't fix this problem quickly we would slide right back into another one. The average tax payer came to believe that the crisis was real and the bailout was a necessary, what else could we do? We can't let the banks and other financial institutions fail, it would destroy our way of life.

Finally we have made it to the last step of social construction, internalization. Now the American public, the average tax payer, country-wide shared the conviction that bailing out the banks was the only solution to saving the country and keeping us from descending into another depression. There was some objection, but not in the mainstream newscasts, and it was made to sound pro forma or, even worse, the way of staunching the financial bloodletting. The bailout solution had become an objective reality. Whatever the cost, we were now ready to let congress and the President spend trillions and do the bailout.

Why? In watching multiple interviews with Bill Moyers, guest after guest came on and told some shocking truth about the "real" story behind the bailout. Stories told by Simon Johnston, a professor of Global Economy and Management at MIT's Sloan School of Management, that the CEO of Bank of America told his stock holders, they had the best year ever. What? Stories form William Black former Director for the Institute for Fraud Prevention, now a professor at the University of Kansas, that the head of these institutions knew what would happen, knew they could push the bill for the bailout onto the taxpayer and there was only one reason to do it; it paid. Why would they do that? Information given by Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio who points out the like revolving door between Washington DC, Wall Street and the Finance Committee - we just keep recycling the same people with obvious conflict of interest into the top decision-making jobs.

If what they say is true, the average American taxpayer has been duped. I think the "why?" is a very good question; it says a lot about what allowed such a miscarriage of public faith and finance. When the whole financial mess is looked at though a cultural lenses, it begins to make sense. The values and norms of the Uber rich and powerful are not the same as, "the average American taxpayer." We are two different cultures co-existing in the same geographic space with extremely different values and standards. In the Uber rich and powerful culture, the average taxpayer's money is theirs. Money and power are their birth-right; there is no guilt on their part because this is just business as usual. To be among this elite, there is no place for "American" values like honesty, integrity, or responsibility to American taxpayers; their standards of right and wrong, good and bad are not the same- at all. Frankly, while the power brokers of America understand this and use it to manipulate, we, the taxpayers never seem to really be able to wrap our heads around it. It is just so far from our values and standards; so over and over we are unable to believe that such a financial crisis could be perpetrated deliberately; and over and over we vote for big bailouts. As I listened to Bill Moyer ask his guests over and over, "why?" and all the guests could answer with was another story of even more egregious behavior, I realized, they don't know. They cannot say, "Because, we don't really matter to them." They don't care if we lose our homes. They don't care if we lose our retirements. THEY DON'T CARE. Not only do our values not matter to them, we don't matter to them, because we are not a part of their culture. Paraphrased from William Black on the Bill Moyer show and his book, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, fraud is at the heart of most bank and financial institution meltdowns. Mr. Black lays the corruption out and does not shy from saying that the CEOs and politicians don't care. But he still calls it fraud. My point is; that the average American meaning of fraud with all its moral and legal connotations does not exist for those in power. They don't think they have done anything wrong - it's a different culture. Here is another way to look at it; with all these credentialed people crying out foul, writing books that cry foul, lecturing at universities and crying foul- there is no mass movement or outcry by the majority of Americans to remove any of the CEOs, politicians or committee members that are up to their eyeballs in this. None.

Ever wonder what it feels like to live in a, "third world country," at the bottom of the world economic structure? Well, this is it. Just as we don't care about what's going on half way around the world because it doesn't affect our daily lives and they are not part of our culture; the Uber rich and powerful of American don't care about the rest of us. We are as good as half a world away to them.

Bibliography
1-Henslin, James. 2005. The Essentials of Sociology. Pearson: New Jersey.
2-Bill Moyer Journal, 2009. Interview of Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Simon Johnson, professor of Global Economics and Management at MIT's Sloan School of Management.
3- Bill Moyer Journal, 2009. Interview of William Black in CSI bailout. Former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention and author of, The Best Way to Rob a Bank is To Own One.

Katrina Weener is a student in my Sociology 204 class

Collapse

If incessant adrenalin rushes enhanced by stupefying special effects are what you desire, seeing "Collapse" should be postponed until you are ready to hear, see, and feel how Director Chris Smith's uncanny discernment is brilliantly conveyed in one of the most poignant, but inspiring movies of this decade.

When was the last time you saw a movie that opened with a plea for revolution-no, not the kind with bullets and bombs, but the kind Thomas Jefferson said should happen every twenty years-a revolution in our thinking? In fact, the kind of revolution Mike Ruppert calls for in the opening scenes is one that takes place inside us. In fact, that kind of revolution is one he's lived since he was a political science major at UCLA in the seventies. Whether you like him or not, whether you agree with him or not, you cannot argue that every word that comes out of his mouth in "Collapse", issues from bone-marrow experience-the kind none of us would ever welcome, the kind some of us would have long since committed suicide over, the kind most of us would gladly walk away from. Yet, Mike Ruppert is still alive, still speaking his truth, and amazingly, still able to laugh and play music.

From this point forward in this review, I will refer to Mike Ruppert as simply "Mike." That's because despite the fact that we've had our disagreements in the past and not a few "come to Jesus" moments, this guy named Mike--"Ruppert", "MCR", the LAPD narc, the investigative journalist, and "batshit insane conspiracy theorist" as he has been derisively labeled, is still my friend, and has been for almost a decade.

So what kind of movie opens with the main character coming in, sitting down, lighting a cigarette, and being asked, "So who are you?" Shortly, the viewer may be thinking, "Wish they hadn't asked that question because I really don't want to know." That means that by the time you've heard three minutes of Mike's personal story, you are already appalled and prepared to plug your ears and do anything but hear more. Your first response may be, "That can't be true", yet his story is fully documented in writing and by verified numerous eyewitnesses. In summary, his was no ordinary childhood and certainly no ordinary law enforcement career. All roads led to that career as a highly decorated Los Angeles Police Department detective, and everything after has been impacted by it. For as Mike very clearly states in the movie, that clean, dedicated, twenty-seven year-old cop is still alive in him and has always wanted some answers-and yes, some justice.

But to the same extent the conscientious cop lives within him, so does the cartographer, the map maker, whose life depended on finding out how the world really works as opposed to how we've been told it works. I would say that at least 80% of his work has evolved out of an attempt to save his own life. That brings it down from ivory tower speculation to a cellular, soul level.

PEAK OIL

So if you're still hanging out with doubts about the validity of Peak Oil, you won't be after you watch this movie's second segment. I've heard and read volumes on Peak Oil, but Mike's explanation always rings in my ears more loudly than that of any other because of its clarity and simplicity. However, he admittedly stands on the shoulders of numerous Peak Oil researching giants such as Dale Allen Pfeiffer and what he calls "The Three Wise Men": Colin Campbell, Matt Simmons, and Richard Heinberg.

Mike explains that it requires the mind of a cop to understand how Peak Oil fits into the rest of the map of events in terms of motive, means, and opportunity. It is now the fundamental underpinning of foreign policy-not only that of the United States, but of all industrial nations. Institutionalized denial of Peak Oil or the refusal by our government to tell the truth about it is nothing less than criminal, according to Mike, because it means that we are building our future as if Peak Oil doesn't exist-sacrificing the lives of future generations so that we can live comfortable lives based on a lie. As for "alternative energy options", I've yet to hear anyone surpass Mike's explanations of how futile and farcical this notion is in terms of sparing us from a global energy crisis. On a small, local scale, renewable energy is necessary and useful, but it is an untenable solution for the long-term, big picture reality of the end of the age of oil.

THE DEADLY ACCURATE MAP

About the same time that Mike's newsletter, From The Wilderness began publishing stories about Peak Oil, he started connecting the dots between a number of other issues, and several articles published on the website at that time by Catherine Austin Fitts and by Mike, revealed the likelihood of a massive housing and debt bubble that would inevitably burst and result in a global economic meltdown. In his numerous articles and lectures, Mike began admonishing people to get out of debt, buy gold, pay off credit cards, and learn to grow their own food. It is illumining to return to the From The Wilderness website from time to time and revisit the economic forecasts made there which predicted the current crisis superbly. Some aspects of timing and minor details may have fallen short of accuracy, but for the most part, the forecasts were spot-on in terms of the larger picture.

Others, including myself, read, wrote for, and published aspects of the From The Wilderness map which at the time resulted in being scorned and called crazy. Those years from 2001 to the beginning of the economic crash in September, 2008 were especially tough for many of us in terms of being labeled inveterate doom and gloomers. Some of my close friends who got it were calling me "Cassandra Baker" and with good reason.

But neither Mike nor I have broken out the champagne to celebrate how right on target we were during those years because the collapse of civilization and all of its attendant horrors is not something to celebrate. However, we are both buoyed by the number of people who paid attention and acted accordingly and are still doing so today. Likewise, we are inspired and encouraged by the people who have awakened more recently and all those who are just now connecting the dots and experiencing in their bones, the same revolution to which Mike refers in the opening moments of "Collapse."

Fiat Currency, Fractional Reserve Banking, and Compound Interest-these are the only three things you need to know, says Mike, about money. These three inherently comprise a pyramid scheme; in fact, the entire global economy is a pyramid scheme. It is based on the infinite growth paradigm which has now collided with something much more powerful. Our economy is collapsing, but many other countries in the world are collapsing much more rapidly. In summary, the people who have been running the planet are now losing control.

POPULATION

Anyone who has been researching the collapse of industrial civilization understands, as Mike clearly reminds us, that a global population explosion occurred almost simultaneously with the discovery of oil as the 19th century moved into the 20th . Population has steadily increased as the availability of oil has increased, and it is axiomatic that as access to oil decreases, so must the population.

A question that naturally arises from these disturbing realities is whether or not the human race can understand them and change its behavior in time to avert catastrophe. At this point, Mike reminds us of three types of responses to a Titanic-like situation. One is the deer-in-the-headlights response in which one is frozen with fear and surprise and begins to ask, "What does this mean? What do I do?" Another kind of response is, "We know this is happening, we know we're all going to die unless we build lifeboats, so let's get busy doing it." Another group says, "This is the Titanic; it's unsinkable."

Everything is going to break down differently in different places, according to Mike. Currently, we are seeing the bumpy plateau of energy prices which fluctuate wildly. The critical, lethal point of the plateau for the human race is when oil prices spike again, and no one can afford to buy the oil, at which point, everything will shut down.

THE TRANSITION PHASE

What is critical now is for us to begin to put new structures in place before the old infrastructure completely crumbles. That phase could last between 20 years (which would be incredibly fast) to 50 or 100 years. What is crucial is that we don't panic but rather analyze our own local situation to see what structures must be put in place there. Shortages will occur, but most likely, gradually as opposed to abruptly. Specific shortages will happen in specific places for a specific period. Thus, what is important is not to prepare for the end result of collapse, but to prepare for the transition.

When asked if a collapse be "prevented" by human ingenuity, Mike pensively responds with, "No amount of technology, no amount of human ingenuity can overturn the laws of physics and the laws of the universe." Humankind's greatest peril, he asserts, is to believe that it can overturn the law of the universe and "become God."

He very directly admonishes us to: Buy gold, insulate your house, restore the soil around you and grow food in the restored soil; get organic seeds and store them; get a land line and realize that your cell phone will not be available as the system's collapse exacerbates. Local food production is the most fundamental key to human survival in the collapse of industrial civilization.

For example, when the Soviet Union collapsed, North Korea and Cuba were desperately dependent on Soviet oil. The two nations adapted to the loss differently. North Korea maintained its rigid communist system, and millions starved. The Cuban government, however, adapted by growing organic food almost everywhere, abandoning the agribusiness model. The idea was to grow food where people were going to eat food, and the result was remarkable resilience-and survival. The phenomenon to which Mike is referring in this section of "Collapse" is extremely well documented in the 2006 film, "The Power of Community". In summary, in the new human paradigm, everything will be local, and as all animals species know, survival must occur in community, not in isolation.

Director Chris Smith has succeeded in capturing the essence of Mike Ruppert, and one aspect of that essence is the monumental load of grief he carries regarding having spent three decades crying "from the wilderness" to humanity to awaken and embrace the new paradigm. Yet even as the grief is poignantly revealed to us through Mike's tears, so is the balance he maintains through savoring love, fun, play, and making people smile-all of which are very instructive to those of us who are consciously preparing for collapse.

Mike reminds us of Kubler-Ross's Five Stages of Grief and comments that currently, our society appears to be caught in the Anger stage. Ironically, the day I began this review was the same day in which the Ft. Hood massacre occurred, followed by another terrifying shooting rampage in Orlando, Florida. The protracted debate on healthcare over the course of 2009 has been punctuated with numerous violent outbursts at town meetings and insane rages against "socialism" by thousands of hurting middle class Americans. Caustic vitriol pervades our crumbling culture, and that chilling reality is exacerbated by mainstream media's massive lies, distortions, and omissions. How we get through this phase, according to Mike, is critical, and unfortunately, we have little in the culture to assist us in moving through it. However, once we do, and once we begin experiencing acceptance, we are then able to discover like-minded "passengers" on the Titanic with whom we can ally to build lifeboats.

I was recently asked if I thought it was possible that I could be "wrong" about Peak Oil and climate change. My response is that it's possible to be wrong about anything. But as Mike so powerfully comments in "Collapse", there is no longer anything to debate. Engaging in debate on these issues is very much like debating whether the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Peak Oil and climate change are happening; what's to debate?

For those who expend energy with political solutions, Mike points out that capitalism, socialism, and communism are terms "that need to be put in the trash can immediately." The only thing the human race will be concerned with in the future is survival, and ideologies and political parties are showing us less than nothing about how to do this. Engaging in large-scale political processes is not only futile, but deprives us of the energy we need to be investing in survival. All these ideologies were created on the premise of infinite resources, and none offer a balance with the planet's resources and other species.

Yes, we have a sincere, likeable guy in the White House, but, says Mike: He's a prisoner-a prisoner of the government, of politics, of the Federal Reserve, of a system that's archaic. Don't make success or failure rest on his shoulders. The only thing any of us can possible change is our minds.

Stop running from your fear, Mike admonishes us, and starting moving toward embracing your fear because therein lies our ability to survive. This will be, he optimistically reminds us, the greatest evolution in human thinking our species has ever known. Do not run away from your fear, your love, or any emotion because that is the life experience. In those emotions we find the richness of art, music, poetry, and all human creations. Our greater work, he says, is to pull that richness out of the rubbish of civilization's paradigm--a comment which bears uncanny resemblance to what I have written in Sacred Demise: Walking The Spiritual Path of Industrial Civilization's Collapse.

Asked if he would ever "walk away" from three decades of work, Mike asks: If there was a German in 1932-33 who had the foresight to look ahead and see what the end result of the Third Reich would be, could they have in good conscience turned around and walked away? We are collectively as a species responsible for what may be the greatest holocaust in human history-our own suicide.

While I have no negative comments regarding "Collapse", I do have concerns about two issues which could be interpreted as contradictions. One is Mike's statement in the movie that during the Bush administration, he believes Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were paying very close attention to his work. The viewer is left to wonder about his rationale for this bold statement, especially as he concludes the comment with, "that's all I care to say." Three decades of persecution by the powers that be does not, in itself, indicate that any two members of those powers were intensely interested in Mike and his work. So I'm left wondering what he knows that we don't.

Those of us who have been close associates of Mike in the past witnessed his dramatic exodus from Los Angeles to Ashland, Oregon in 2006, based as he said at the time on what a horrible place he believed L.A. would turn out to be in collapse. Yet it is precisely to that city that he returned in 2008. One may be tempted to accuse him of hypocrisy, but only if one does not understand that Mike spent most of his life in L.A., and it is for him "home" in every sense of the word. Some people preparing for collapse choose to relocate to exotic locations; some choose what is familiar and comforting.

The movie draws to a close with Mike's recounting in detail the Hundredth Monkey story. For all its poignancy and sad moments, "Collapse" leaves us with great optimism, joy, possibility, and inspiration. While the logistical focus of the movie is on Mike Ruppert, the ultimate focus is on each of us-on that part of us that knows in every cell of our bodies that we are now in the throes of collapse and that our survival and the meaning of our very existence lies in embracing and to some extent living the Michael C. Ruppert that abides in all of us.

Collapse

Having so affixed the mainstay of our strategy, next I would advise him that lengthening the current conflict favors us Taliban. And that while military resistance must continue in the long-drawn-out struggle, the bulk of the effort should gradually shift to political subversion through already supportive leaders of Islamic parties and malleable pseudo-seculars both within and outside the government. The idea, I would tell him, is to recruit enough people close to the nerve centers of the civilian government and the military apparatus to be able to ultimately seize control of governmental structure, given the signal.

Along with our efforts for political subversion, I will counsel my boss, we should take the war into the cities big time now. That Pakistan has become increasingly urbanized and if a change has to come it will be from the urban rather than the rural. That the hitherto infrequent suicide attacks were simply neither big enough for Pakistan's burgeoning mega-cities nor scary enough for their populace. By taking the war to the cities, not only will we terrorize the already somewhat terrified Pakistani nation some more, we will also sow chaos and disorder, I will opine. That is sure to invite a governmental backlash in the shape of further dictatorial measures in the name of security. Using the golden whip, we will quickly paint this reaction as a Godless government's repression of an innocent Muslim populace. Not only will we further frustrate the opponents, separating the people from the government is the corner stone of our struggle any way. The golden whip always, I will remind my lord.

Parallel to our strategies above, I will advise for raising the barbarity level up a notch or two. Up until now we have been rather careful in our mode and methods, what with just a few hundred killings every couple of weeks. Plus, suicide bombings have been repeated so many times, with some anonymous miserable wretches blown to doll rags, that the effects are now lukewarm. The Pakistani nation too has become kind of 'bomb-proof' to this routine. Let us introduce the full scale slaughter of women and children, I would plead. That though the chosen targets should preferably be related to government's officials, army personnel, media men and other prominent opponents, any one's family would do if the situation so demands. Later, brandishing the golden whip, we could always lay the blame on the Uzbeks, the Indians, the Jews, the Americans or any combination thereof. Simple really, I would add.

Next, I would point out that a time has come for our Jihad to move beyond clans, tribes and ethnic groups. That though marshaling the Punjabi Taliban was a good first step; we now needed to go national on urgent basis. Common Pakistanis needed to be rallied in our support and in that we should appeal to the exploited and the repressed by playing up their grievances. Economic injustices can foster revolutionary unrest, as can racial or ethnic persecution, I will remind the big man. Not only that, we should also invite more criminals, common thugs, mercenaries, murderers and all others who want to wash their sins by fighting for the holy cause. That should be easy, I would hint. Because under the present system, people have been indiscriminately abused maltreated, victimized, and dishonored for a rather long time. So while on the one hand we would remind the people of the tyrannical excesses of the present system, on the other we must promise them political, social, and economic benefits once our Caliphate takes hold. All this all under the hiss of the golden whip of course. The results would be sure, I would emphasize.

Once I have rendered all of the above advices, I will respectfully take my Emir to a corner and give him the ULTIMATE ADVICE. And that is that once the Taliban have the reins of power firmly within their grasp, we would then have to swiftly deal with two problems i.e. the problems of the 'will of the people' and the internal power struggle. It would be here that I will let my lord in on the real usage of the golden whip. To be the lifelong Caliph of a submissive Caliphate, I would suggest daring a wink, we will simply goldwhip into the system the 'will of God' and out of it the 'evil' power seekers, with the 'will of the people' taking a well deserved hike of course. The golden whip always, I will remind the Caliph, giving him the example of the next door Iran.

Two questions then. One, whose adviser the scribe really is? And two, who was it that said, "Good advice is always certain to be ignored, but that's no reason not to give it."?

Anyone?

Collapse

The truth of the vast reserves comes in an article by John Dizard of the Financial Times. In his article "Shale gas numbers may not add up," Dizard writes: (emphasis mine)

From one end of the known world to the other, which is to say from Boston to Washington and some points in between, there is a consensus among the well informed that one part of a national energy plan is in place. Thanks to the discovery and mapping of huge reserves of gas in shale formations, we have an alternative to dirty old coal, and, possibly, imported oil for transport fuel. A 40 per cent increase in the country's gas reserves! You can thank advanced American technology for that.

Well, you can thank advanced American something, but along with the technology you can also thank the advanced American ability to extract money from investors. The key element of this national characteristic is the willingness to listen carefully to determine what people with money want to hear, and then tell them that. Again and again.

Money, that thing we are told "makes the world go round." If one wants to extract money, then one must convince folks that the "product" is worth buying. In the world of investing, that "product" is making money - not natural gas, or cars, or grapes. In the case of oil and gas, the risks are higher because the failure rate is higher. There are hypotheses that oil and gas should exist some place, but drilling may end up "a dry hole," or far less resource than was thought. Therefore, to get investors (or government/tax payer) money, one has to engage in overselling the potential. This has become more difficult as oil has stayed below $100 a barrel (though that is unlikely to continue).

There is another obstacle. Namely, that the extraction of natural gas (and oil) raises its own problems regardless of how available - or profitable - that might be. The extraction of natural gas (and oil) comes with its own destructive side with toxic chemicals and redirecting and contamination of water supplies.

There is some degree of irony that the term used for extraction is "fracking." Fracking is a mining process where water and chemicals are pressure forced into the ground (or well) to both force the natural gas or oil to the surface, as well as to ease its movement through the ground and pumping process. Fracking potentially pollutes water sources as the fracking mixture escapes into ground water, and by the waste sludge that is pumped up. This is also a water intensive process and therefore diverts fresh water supplies from natural, agricultural, and human use.

This means, that while vast supplies of natural gas may lie just below our feet, the process of obtaining those resources may cause unacceptable damage to human populations and the environment. Fracking may also cause another problem - earthquakes. Increased levels of quake activity in Cleburne, Texas in the wake of fracking activities raises the level of concern about the practice. Given that the process does break down underground rock and soil, it is not a stretch that it could cause earthquakes.

Drilling and extraction companies have largely refused to say what the ingredients of the fracking mixture are by claiming that it is proprietary, and the EPA does not require them to disclose this information because the mixtures are claimed to be "proprietary." However, some energy company executives have also asked for this information. As reported at ProPublica, at least some of the mixture has been determined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. While, the mixture is broken down, the actual chemicals have not been released. In the NY samples, the composition included 90.6% water, .11% acid, .05% controller, .08% subtractant, etc. In other words, the purpose of the chemicals used, but not the chemicals themselves.

As noted in the ProPublica article:

At issue is whether hydraulic fracturing, and the chemicals it requires, might be responsible for water contamination incidents in drilling areas across the country. The process, which is currently exempt from federal oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act, forces millions of gallons of water, mixed with sand and small amounts of chemicals, into the earth to break rock and release gas. Scientists, including some at the Environmental Protection Agency, have said they can't thoroughly investigate the contamination incidents because the names of the chemicals are protected trade secrets.

The expanded exploration and drilling is meeting increasing resistance from East Coast to West. In the news of late, public protest and activism in Pennsylvania has stopped the plans to drill for natural gas in the northern Pennsylvania watershed. Likewise, a "plan to drill of the Colorado plateau" is meeting strong public resistance.

The impacts of oil and gas exploration in Wyoming is increasingly becoming publicly known. A new documentary, "Split Estate" is bringing attention to the multiple problems being faced by Wyoming residents. There are water contamination issues resulting in health problems, use and contamination of scarce water supplies, and encroachment on property rights and living conditions. The property rights issue ties to the fact that many people own the surface of their property and not what lies beneath it. This is not a new problem and has been an issue in water poor states such as those in the Southwest for quite some time. However, the issue in Wyoming is that drilling operations are being set up within feet of people's homes as exploration rights are granted to oil and natural gas companies. Below is a clip from the documentary "Split Estate:"

Or see at YouTube

We are in an age of global warming which is threatening water supplies across the planet. Even those in water rich areas such as the Pacific Northwest look to shrinking supplies and loss of water reservoirs as winter snowpack and glaciers dwindle. Therefore, massive new drilling expeditions across the country pose a significant threat, and that may exceed concerns about oil and gas supplies. Fracking, and perhaps for resources that are more hyped than real? No frakking way!

Related Articles of Interest
Don't Frack with Our Water!. Polly Howells. In These Times. 10/04/2009.

Water Worries Threaten US Push for Natural Gas. Jon Hurdles. Reuters. 10/01/2009.

DemocracyNow! 9/03/2009 segment Fracking and the Environment: Natural Gas Drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Contamination:

Collapse

The Iran nuclear threat - although theater is a more suitable term - was highlighted repeatedly, first by US President Barack Obama during a UN speech on September 23, then again by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the next day. The latter came armed with maps and relentlessly provoked Holocaust memories, following the ever so predictable, albeit insensitive and deceptive pattern.

This charade was meant to distract from the nearly 600 page UN report, prepared by South Africa judge Richard Goldstone and others, dedicated mostly to Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

Confirming that Israel wantonly used weapons, including illegal weapons, against a defenseless civilian population in Gaza and going so far to say that Israel did not only commit war crimes, but indeed may have also committed crimes against humanity, the findings of the report were all set by the wayside. The report was utterly rebuked by Netanyahu and his ilk, arrogantly disregarded and shelved.

Concurrently, Israel's official statement regarding the IAEA's pressure on Israel to sign on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that Israel "deplored" such a notion. The Israeli conceit may be redundant, but is as ever infuriating.

Many of Israel's devoted supporters accused the Goldstone mission of fabricating conclusions before the investigations even came to a close.

And so yet again, Israel unhesitatingly established that they it's above the law, promptly and successfully turning the world's attention to the greater menace: Iran.

It seems that President Obama is also learning some painful lessons regarding the balance of power between the US and Israel, going into negotiations in Washington this past week - along with Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas - with a strong stance for the complete freeze of all settlement activity, and ending with clear and potent calls for the Palestinians to continue down the road of diplomacy inspite of Israel's refusal to consider the option of adhering to international law. In the words of Israeli writer, Uri Avnery, "No point denying it: in the first round of the match between Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, Obama was beaten."

Learning from past history, one can hardly be optimistic to expect a US victory in the second round, or anytime soon for that matter.

And thereafter, the Israeli cue was emulated, and Obama followed it to the letter. Israel's recent use of illegal weapons on civilians, its arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons and its refusal to consider disarmament paled in comparison to the potential threat that could arise should Iran seek a nuclear weapon some time in the future.

Obama's words to Ahmedinejad and the people of Iran at the UN were decisive: "They are going to have to make a choice: Are they willing to go down the path to greater prosperity and security for Iran, giving up the acquisition of nuclear weapons ... or will they continue down a path that is going to lead to confrontation."

This is sure to ignite a war of words, to the pleasure of Netanyahu and his extremist government.

But the outcome of this duel will certainly exceed the realm of words.

It seems that Obama's rebuke and Netanyahu's declarations could actually lead to the detriment of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and indeed to us all, by encouraging nations who until this point do not possess nuclear weapons to expedite the creation of their own arsenal. After all, what we have learned from this episode is that nations who do not yet possess weapons of mass destruction had better get on the band-wagon and make some, for it seems that without them, they are nothing more than sitting ducks.

How ironic it is, and what a sweet-talker Netanyahu is, to successfully divert the worlds eye, ears and conscience away from what he has indeed done, to the dangerous notion of what another man with up until this point can only be branded for fiery speeches, could do some time in the future.

As for Ahmedinejad's crusade for Iran, it could be very possible that in the end, the ones who will pay for his bold declarations will be as usual, the Palestinians, who after the scourge of Israel's Operation Cast Lead nearly one year ago, still await the bare necessities to rebuild, still thirst for clean water and basic sustenance. Netanyahu has been tireless at drawing parallels between Iran and Gaza, presenting them both to the world as dire threats to the existence of the Jewish State. When addressing the UN in New York on September 24, he branded Iran once again, exhorting that. "The struggle against Iran pits civilization against barbarism. This Iranian regime is fueled by extreme fundamentalism. What starts as attacks on Jews always ends up engulfing others. This regime embodies the extremes of Islamic fundamentalism."

Interesting words from a man whose former administration and current administration could very well face the International Criminal Court for the endorsing the carrying out of crimes against humanity.

Such utterances make one wonder, just who in the world are we to trust, and who in the world are we to fear?

For the time being however, one can only hope that the international community reject all attempts to be blinded by Netanyahu's fear mongering, and insist on a stern and decisive investigation into the alleged war crimes in Gaza, as presented in the Goldstone report so that the real culprits, not the imagined ones in Tehran, pay for their heinous crimes against the defenseless people of the Strip.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London) and his forthcoming book is, "My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story" (Pluto Press, London), which is now available for pre-orders at Amazon..

Collapse

Yet, it was. These victims identified a problem and named it "predatory lending" in the late 1990s. Their campaign to reform Household International (also known as Household Finance and as Beneficial) played out from 2001 to 2003, concluding with a settlement that includes a ban on badmouthing the company. That's why more people haven't heard about this. The families who fought back and defeated Household are barred from bragging about it or teaching the lessons they learned, because that would require recounting the damage that Household did to homes and neighborhoods. These families are members of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

I was ACORN's communications coordinator during much of the Household campaign, but left before it ended. No one has asked me not to tell this story.

In low-income minority neighborhoods in the United States, what little wealth there is, is in home equity. Home equity makes up 74.9 percent of the net wealth for Hispanics in the bottom two income quintiles (0-40 percent) and 78.7 percent of the net wealth for African Americans in the second income quintile (20-40 percent). There have been gains in minority home ownership over the past few decades, in part as a result of the work by community groups like ACORN and National People's Action to force banks to make loans in these communities, but the home ownership is fragile and not protected by additional savings. Lenders in the past decade have focused on stripping away equity and community groups have been forced to focus on keeping out loans that are worse than no loans at all.

Most high-cost loans are refinance loans. Too often they are marketed aggressively and deceptively, including through live- checks in the mail that result in very high-cost loans that the lender will be only too happy to refinance into a new mortgage. Often these loans are made with excessive, sometimes variable, interest rates, outrageously high fees, and fees financed into the loans so that the borrower pays interest on them and often is not told about them. They are made with bogus products built in, on which the borrower also pays interest. Hidden balloon payments force repeated refinancings for additional fees each time. Mandatory arbitration clauses attempt to prevent borrowers from taking lenders to court. The practice of loaning more than the value of a home traps borrowers in loans they cannot refinance with a responsible lender. Consolidation of additional debts further decreases equity, placing the home at greater risk. Quiet omission of taxes and insurance from a mortgage that previously included those charges results in a crisis when yearly bills arrive.

Predatory lenders turn the usual logic of lending upside down. They make their money by intentionally making loans that the borrowers will be unable to repay. They charge fees for each refinancing until finally seizing the house. Fannie Mae has estimated that as many as half of all borrowers in subprime (high-cost) loans could have qualified for a lower cost mortgage.

High-cost loans are not just made to people with poor credit. They're often made to people who have poor banking services in their neighborhoods.

ACORN members don't take abuse of their neighborhoods lying down, and Household was a leading cause of the rows of vacant houses appearing in ACORN neighborhoods in the 1990s. ACORN launched a campaign to reform Household that included numerous strategies. One, an ACORN stand-by, was direct action. Repeatedly, ACORN members in numerous cities around the country simultaneously protested in Household offices to demand reform. At the same time, ACORN was working to pass anti-predatory lending legislation in local and state governments and Congress. ACORN members made sure that in each case the victims testifying were victims of Household and that Household's abuses were highlighted. When ACORN released major reports on predatory lending, the examples included were always from Household.

ACORN also worked with the Coalition for Responsible Wealth to advance a shareholder resolution that would have tied Household's executives' compensation to ending its predatory lending. In 2001 Household held its shareholders meeting in an out-of-the-way suburb of Tampa, Florida. A crowd of ACORN members was there with shark suits and shark balloons to protest.

The resolution won 5 percent. Over the next year, ACORN pressured state pension funds and other shareholders. Household held its 2002 meeting an hour and a half from the nearest airport in rural Kentucky. Members made the trip by car from all over the country. The protest may have been the biggest thing the town of London, Kentucky had seen in years. The resolution won 30 percent.

As a result, various local and state governments threatened to divest from Household. ACORN also put pressure on stores like Best Buy that used Household credit cards. At the same time, ACORN Housing Corporation was assisting many Household victims in either refinancing out of their Household loans or at least canceling some of the rip-off services built into their loans, such as credit insurance. ACORN was also getting the word out to stay away from Household.

ACORN wrote up numerous accounts of Household predatory loans and took them to the attorney generals in state after state urging investigations. ACORN similarly pressured federal regulators to act. ACORN assisted borrowers in filing a number of class-action suits against Household targeting those of its practices that were clearly illegal even under existing law. They let Wall Street analysts know what Household stood to lose from these lawsuits, as well as from various reforms that Household periodically announced in its attempt to hold off the pressure.

But ACORN members never let up. They protested again and again at Household offices and held press conferences in front of homes about to be lost to Household. They protested the secondary market that was putting up capital for these predatory loans and they held a major protest at the trade group that lobbied in Washington for Household and its fellow sharks. Then, in the summer of 2002, in the wealthy suburbs north of Chicago, victims of Household from around the country poured out of busses by the thousands onto the lawns of the board members and the CEO of Household. They knocked on doors and spoke to those who had hurt them from a distance. When the police made them leave, ACORN members plastered "Wanted" posters all over the neighborhood telling the board members' neighbors what crimes the Household executives were guilty of.

Through all of this, we worked the media. I kept a database of victims' stories and contact information and put them in touch with reporters whenever the reporters were willing to tell not just the victimization story but also the story of fighting back. We generated several hundred print articles and several hundred TV and radio stories about Household's predatory lending practices. We worked the small neighborhood papers, flyers in churches, posters on walls. We provoked lengthy articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times , and Forbes Magazine . We kept up an endless barrage in the trade press: the American Banker, National Mortgage News, etc.

A handful of ACORN staff people with great expertise and unrelenting effort organized thousands of members to drive this campaign until Household agreed to pay victims $489 million through the 50 states attorneys general, and later agreed to pay millions more through ACORN, as well as to reform its practices.

This campaign was an example of what can be done if enough different angles are pursued at once and the company ripping you off is put on the defensive and constantly hit with the unexpected. This campaign increased the size and power of ACORN to effect future progressive change. This is good news for low-income neighborhoods, but bad news for Wells Fargo, the predatory lender next on ACORN's list.

DAVID SWANSON is a longtime activist for social justice. He has worked hard in recent years to obtain an impeachment against the Bush camarilla. He is also the author of Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union

Collapse

On September 2, 2009, Reuters reported that ElBaradei believes the nuclear threat is "hyped." According to the article:

Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there was no concrete evidence that Tehran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program.

"But somehow, many people are talking about how Iran's nuclear program is the greatest threat to the world. In many ways, I think the threat has been hyped," he told the specialist Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

This does not mean that ElBaradei is giving Iran a bye on the issue. He has consistently called for greater transparency from Iran. However, he does not see the imminent threat claims that keep reemerging from Israel, and under Bush, and now under Obama.

Perhaps part of his hesitancy regarding the imminent threat posed by Iran has to do with the documentation the IAEA has been looking at regarding Iran's nuclear status and ambitions. This comes in the form of sheaves of documentation coming from the United States and other "western" nations. The concerns over this documentation were discussed by Gareth Porter writing for the Inter Press Service on September 14, 2009.

According to Porter, and verified by his sources, is that there is possible veracity to Iran's claim that these documents are forgeries. While the IAEA tacitly vouches for the credibility of the documents as they "appear(s) to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, is detailed in content and appears to be generally consistent". However:

Iran has submitted serious evidence that the documents are fraudulent. Iran's permanent representative to the United Nations in Vienna, Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told IPS in an interview he had pointed out to a team of IAEA officials in a meeting on the documents in Tehran in spring 2008 that none of the supposedly top secret military documents had any security markings of any kind, and that purported letters from defence ministry officials lacked Iranian government seals.

Soltanieh recalled that he had made the same point "many times" in meetings of the Board of Governors since then. "No one ever challenged me," said the ambassador.

The IAEA has responded to this issue by suggesting that perhaps the supplying agencies have removed these types of identifying markers. As noted by Porter, why would an agency remove marking from documents that proved the validity of their origins and nature? Porter gives one specific example of the type of document which Iran claims is fraudulent:

Iran has also provided the IAEA with evidence that the handwritten notes on a May 2003 letter, which supposedly link a private Iranian contractor to the "alleged studies", were forged by an outside agency. The letter was from an engineering firm to the private company Kimia Maadan, which other documents in the collection identify as responsible for part of the alleged covert nuclear weapons programme called the "green salt project".

The letter itself has nothing to do with any "green salt" project, but handwritten notes on the copy of the letter given to the IAEA by an unidentified government referred to individuals who are named in other intelligence documents as participants in the "alleged studies", according to the latest IAEA report.

But the original letter, which Iran has provided to the IAEA, has no handwritten notes on it. Amb. Soltanieh recalled that he showed that original letter to an IAEA team led by the deputy director of IAEA's Safeguards Department, Herman Nackaerts, in Tehran Jan. 22-23, 2008.

He said the IAEA team was able to compare the original document with the copy that they had been given as part of the alleged studies documents and that Nakaerts declared that his team accepted the authenticity of the original they were shown.

I am starting to hear a lot of "You can't believe Iran because they have consistently lied to us." This sounds suspiciously like the methodology used to justify discounting Iraq's claim they did not have "Weapons of Mass Destruction." We were told the "Hussein's a liar, has always lied, he's lying now." Well we know how that turned out.

I don't know what the status is of Iran's nuclear projects - nor their purpose. However, once burned twice cautious as they say. It makes me quite nervous that the corporate media seems to not be any more cautious in jumping on the "Bad Iran" band wagon than they were on the "Bad Iraq" band wagon. Either they are stupid and don't learn from their mistakes, or they have much to gain from unquestionably beating the drums.

Collapse

The buyer: an Arkansas-based pharmacy chain with a keen interest in how the debate plays out.

Ross sold Holly's Health Mart in Prescott, Ark., to USA Drug for $420,000 -- an eye-popping price for real estate in a tiny train and lumber town about 100 miles southwest of Little Rock.

"You can buy half the town for $420,000," said Adam Guthrie, chairman of the county Board of Equalization and the only licensed real estate appraiser in Prescott.

But the $420,000 that USA Drug paid for the pharmacy's building and land was just the beginning of what Ross and his wife, Holly, made from the sale of Holly's Health Mart. USA Drug owner Stephen L. LaFrance Sr. also paid the Rosses $500,000 to $1 million for the pharmacy's assets and paid Holly Ross an additional $100,000 to $250,000 for signing a noncompete agreement. Those numbers, which Mike Ross listed on the financial disclosure reports he files as a member of Congress, bring the total value of the transaction to between $1 million and $1.67 million.

And that's not counting the $2,300 campaign contribution Ross received from LaFrance two weeks after the sale closed.

Holly Ross remains the pharmacist at Holly's Health Mart under USA Drug. Neither she nor her husband agreed to speak with ProPublica for this story.

At the time of the 2007 sale, the county assessor's office valued the pharmacy's building and the land on which it sits at $263,000 -- nearly $160,000 less than the Rosses got for it.

Because an assessor's valuations don't always reflect true market value, ProPublica hired Guthrie to appraise the property. He placed the current value of the lot and building at $198,000, substantially lower than the county's assessment, which was raised from $263,000 to $269,000 this year. Guthrie explained the difference between his appraisal and the county assessment by saying county assessments have been running higher than actual market value.

Mike Ross frequently speaks for the coalition of House moderates known as the Blue Dogs, a group that helped force changes to the version of the health care reform bill drafted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The role has lifted him to national prominence in recent months.

"We held the bill hostage in committee for 10 days to make it better," Ross, a member of the committee, told reporters Aug. 5 in Little Rock. "We protected small businesses. ... And we ensured that if there is a government option, it will be just that, an option. It will not be mandated on anybody."

Ross bristled at suggestions he was trying to kill the bill.

"I wasn't trying to kill health care reform," he said. "If I was, I wouldn't have been in negotiations for 10 days." LaFrance has amassed a privately held chain of more than 150 pharmacies operating in five Southern and Midwestern states under a variety of names, including USA Drug. It was the 15th-largest drug chain in the country in 2008, with an estimated $906 million in sales, according to Racher Press, which publishes business intelligence reports.

The pharmacy industry is aggressively lobbying Congress in an effort to protect its interests in the health care debate. Ross, who belongs to the 52-member Congressional Community Pharmacy Coalition, has introduced and supported legislation backed by pharmacy trade groups.

On Aug. 1, the National Community Pharmacist Association issued a news release thanking Ross for an amendment to the health care reform bill that would create greater transparency in the operations of pharmacy benefit managers, who act as clearinghouses for insurance company reimbursements for pharmaceuticals.

In June the National Association of Chain Drug Stores issued a news release thanking Ross for introducing legislation authorizing payments to pharmacists to train patients in how to manage their medications.

Health-related interests have donated $342,475 to Ross since 2007, according to federal campaign data maintained by the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics. No other business sector has given Ross as much.

Ross and LaFrance declined to be interviewed for this story. LaFrance's son, Stephen L. LaFrance Jr., who helps run the chain, asked for questions to be submitted in writing but didn't respond to them.

Ross's spokesman, Brad Howard, said the real estate deal was "open, honest and by the books." He described Ross and LaFrance as "acquaintances" but declined to say whether they have discussed the pending legislation, adding that Ross has discussed health care reform with many of his constituents.

The $157,000 gap between the property's assessed value and the price LaFrance paid wasn't unusual, Howard said, because assessments are done for tax purposes and typically don't reflect the full market value of the real estate.

"The appraisal always differs from the assessment, and you can't really compare the two," Howard said.

In an interview on Sept. 2, Howard told ProPublica that the appraised value of the real estate at the time of the sale "was somewhere around where the purchase price was, which was, you know, I think was, like, $420,000." He said he didn't have a copy of any such appraisal and suggested obtaining it from LaFrance, who did not respond to requests for a copy. Last Friday, however, Howard said he could "only assume there was an appraisal done on the property by the buyer in 2007" and that he "never said" the property was appraised at $420,000.

Nevada County, which includes Prescott, hires an outside firm -- Arkansas CAMA Technology Inc. -- to update its assessments every five years. After LaFrance bought Holly's Health Mart in 2007, someone from CAMA called the headquarters of LaFrance's pharmacy chain to verify the sale price for the lot and building, in part because "it was such an expensive sale for that area," CAMA employee Mike Shepherd told ProPublica.

"Commercial property values in Nevada County "have stayed flat" in recent years, Shepherd said, adding, "I would say flat or a slight increase, maybe. That would be pretty slight, though."

Brenda Williams of Nevada County Real Estate in Prescott said county property assessments tend to be slightly below market value but usually "no more than 5 percent."

"Being in the real estate business, I know that I see the tax card every time, and it's usually assessed a little bit less than the actual value or sales price, a little bit less but not that much less," she said. Asked about the value of the lot and building housing Holly's Health Mart, she said, "It might cost $250,000 to build it. I wouldn't have a problem with that $200 and something thousand. But not over $400 [thousand]."

The Rosses bought the lot in 1999 for $10,000, then constructed a building that the county assessed at $225,000.

Two months after the 2007 sale, LaFrance's concerns about health care reform were spelled out in an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

"Universal health care will ruin our health care in America," LaFrance told the reporter. "There'll be long lines, they won't be able to get treated, potential doctors will be afraid to go into medical school, there will be an outflux of doctors -- in my opinion. It's not broke, and don't fix it."

Describing the drug industry as "very big business," he said the high prices charged for prescription drugs are possible only because insurance companies and the government underwrite about 95 percent of the cost.

"So when the customer pays $7, $10, $15, $20 [for a prescription co-pay], it doesn't hurt him. They don't realize that the insurance company is paying the other $125. That's kind of a double-edged sword; if it wasn't for insurance, the American pharmaceutical industry wouldn't be able to charge the prices it charges today, because the public wouldn't put up with it," LaFrance told the Democrat-Gazette.

"Our sales are higher because it affects the top line of sales," he added. If the government doesn't interfere, there are "nothing but good days ahead."

-- ProPublica Research Director Lisa Schwartz and Researcher Kitty Bennett contributed to this story. ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.

Collapse

Kudos to Media Matters for making this available. They received the behind the scenes clip from an anonymous "tipster."

This is what was happening while the Fox "News" reporter - Griff Jenkins - was on the air.

This is what was shown on Fox by Glenn Beck

So what about Beck. Is he as way right as he seems, or is it entertainment hype? Well, it would seem that he is as way right as he seems. One of his political heroes is apparently W Cleon Skousen, as presented in a 9/16/09 Salon article by Alexander Zaitchik. Skousen was one of the intellectual founders of the contemporary ultra right wing - even to the right of the John Birch Society. This is an association which is affirmed by Beliefnet "Conservative politics and religion" writer Rod Dreher (who shows a Republican icon as part of his by-line) in his article "Glenn Beck, Cleon Skousen, Evan Mecham." Dreher, who is actually arguing against this type of "crackpot" activity notes:Glenn Beck is now the best-known devotee of the radical rightist Cleon Skousen. However, Dreher also partially recanted on Skousen with "I was wrong about "5,000 Year Leap"" a re-released book by Skousen, and which Beck has written the forward for (and pushed over the last year).

Where did Beck come from, and how did he land a gig on FOX? Well, he comes from a DJ and radio background. Which seems to be the pool that cable channels are fishing (for MSNBC, both Maddow and Schultz come in from radio). While being born and raised a Catholic, he converted to Mormonism - not surprising given how Skousen (a Mormon) "changed his life." Like another railing provocateur - Limbaugh - Beck has struggled with alcoholism and drug abuse.

As the Media Matters clips clearly show, despite Beck's alleged religiosity, he is not above deceiving to make his play. The current renditions of "conservatism" have clearly demonstrated that "the ends justify the means." This is where I am most dumbfounded by these supposed "religious" leaders of modern day conservatism. There is a seeming total embrace of this anti-Christian belief. Apparently lying, cheating, manipulating, are fine for "the cause" - even if people get killed (as with the Bush deceptions). Creating a propaganda at an event that was manufactured out of thin air and promoted by a media outlet that promotes itself as "news" is small potatoes I guess. One has to wonder though what Beck, and Murdoch, and Limbaugh, and O'Reilly, and Dobbs (to name a handful) see as "The Cause."

Collapse

Like the Manson Family, Limbaugh's Lackeys completely accept the paranoid fantasies of a manipulative con artist as reality. Like Charlie Manson, Rush Limbaugh exercises his control over his Pavlonian-trained dogs irresponsibly and capriciously with no regard for the consequences to his followers. And always at a distance.

Like Manson, Rush never confronts his targets personally but dispatches his programmed pooches to do his dirty work.

Lately, those pathetic puppies have been yapping away at public meetings, trying to prevent healthcare that would help them and their families live longer, healthier lives.

But these performing dogs care little for their families or their future and do as they are told. Their lack of understanding of the issues is as evident as their inability to think, speak or act on their own. The less they know, the louder they howl.

Just a word from Rush "Goebbels" Limbaugh and they are falling all over themselves, and each other, in a frantic rush to kowtow to the Fat Mouth Manson and his corporate handlers.

They would rather live on their knees than stand up for themselves and their families and demand health care reform, higher wages and better lives. These are the real family values that can only be achieved by an aggressive left-wing agenda that will begin our journey up the firm and verdant slope to socialism.

Collapse

The signs seem to indicate that the current economic downturn will continue, and perhaps even intensify over the next couple of years. Part of this has to do with more real estate issues, part with continued job losses, and part with the global economic scenario. For real people, things do not look all that good.

The real estate debacle is not behind us. The chart below from Credit Suisse shows mortgage reset activity remaining high through 2011. Elizabeth Warren, appearing on the August 12, 2009 MSNBC "Morning Joe," warned that another shoe would be dropping as commercial real estate entered a reset period that runs through 2012.

The chart below is an edited version found in an article by Doug Hornig, which is originally from page 47 of the Credit Suisse 2007 report Mortgage Liquidity du Jour: Underestimated No More

The U.S. (and other nations) continue to experience rising unemployment. The upbeat report by the Obama administration stating that the unemployment rate had dropped while the number of new claims increased was based largely on dropping 637,000 people from the labour count. In other words, a statistical change occurred in the number of people actively looking for work. It does not mean they became employed.

All those job losses translated into a 34 % increase in consumer bankruptcies - in July alone. Unemployment (and under-employment) is also fueling ongoing foreclosures. Foreclosures and tight credit drives down housing (and real estate values) putting more people (and businesses) upside down on their loans.

Not surprisingly, the global nature of the economic collapse is reflected in a major hit on global trade. It is down 36% from its peak in July 2008 or about $1.5 trillion.

And so we cycle around and around, sinking a bit lower on each spin. All of the indicators I see do not signal a recovery. However, there are other indicators which could be interpreted with a new meaning: that "recovery" may not mean the same thing any more. If "recovery" means returning to where we were before the current crisis, then the odds seem slim indeed. If "recovery" means returning to the growth path we were on, then the odds seem long beyond calculation. The reasons for this have to do with the physical constraints of the planet. Simply, there would appear to be a limit on the resources and capacity of the planet for continued development, growth, and exploitation.

Below are a series of graphs. The first one is a sample of an exponential growth curve. These curves are characterised by their "J" type formation. The sharpness of the "J" depends upon the rate of growth that the curve is measuring.

Sample of an Exponential Growth Curve

(From: Regents Prep Algebra Lesson

Here is the fossil fuels curve. This represents the dominant form of energy use around the world (and particularly in "developed" nations) at this point in time. Since it is frequently argued that the other human growth curves (population, development, per capita income, etc) are linked to energy availability, then the energy curve is distinctly important in any recovery.

(From: Geothermal Education Office slide 117)

However, fossil fuels are not the only resources that we use. This graph from The New Scientist is instructive (link gives scalable image of graph below).

Of interest is that if global consumption continues at the current rate, the materials indicated have a life expectancy of 58 years (on average). However, if the global rate increase to half of the U.S. current consumption, the expectancy drops to 20 years. Currently the uranium supply is expected to last another 30-40 years, but every nation that has the capability (including the U.S.) wants to dramatically increase the number of nuclear power plants to make up for the loss of fossil fuels (and decrease CO2 emissions). Such an increase would likely halve that 30-40 year estimate.

Certainly one major consideration is the global growth in population. That alone would naturally increase consumption of resources. However, if you add increasing consumption AND population growth, then the impacts increase significantly.

(From: SUSPS)

And of course we have the issue that consistently gets talked about, but not acted on - global warming. Below is a graph of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. While CO2 is hardly the only contributor to global warming, it is an indicator we ignore at our own peril.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

(From: Planet for Life)

Back to "J" curves.

I would make the proposition that an exponential growth pattern is not sustainable in a closed environment. When we look at fossil fuels, resources, population, CO2 (among a myriad of things we could measure), all are on an exponential curve. This means that any "recovery" will occur in a physical environment of increased demand and (soon) decreased availability. In other words, we cannot return to the previous path and continue on our merry way.

Some of you may be science fiction fans, and have read (or watched) the stories of people mining the junk yards for resources. We could well find ourselves in that situation. In fact, in poorer areas of the world, they are already "mining" our "junk." For example, in China (and elsewhere) electronics - particularly computers - are smelted down for precious metals or stripped for reusable parts. This may become a global (pre)occupation. Reducing consumption - or radically changing what and how we consume - is central to any recovery. So to is firmly addressing the issue of population. The U.S. consistently withdraws global family planning funds because of "religious" considerations. We have to get past this, and put reproductive control in the hands of women. That birth planning and control needs to be in women's hands. Such power increases the voice and status of half the population. It also reduces the number of unintended (or forced) pregnancies.

We need to look real hard at Reduce - Reuse - Recycle, and follow it. There are huge implications of the "three Rs."

Reduce, means consume less. Not good news in a society where consumption is 70% of the economy. However, reducing consumption would be aided by improving the quality and longevity of what is produced (get rid of planned obsolescence). On the other hand, there are those things which really do have a short use expectancy - packaging for example. These things should have an accelerated degradation so they do not persist in the environment, or can be remanufactured to other purposes.

Reduce also has possibilities for the energy scenario. It is estimated that we could globally reduce energy use by 60% by increasing energy efficiency across the board (transportation, electronics, buildings). Such efficiencies can lengthen the time frame to depletion, though not eliminate it.

Reuse means the repurposing of things. The simplest example is using plastic food containers for other storage purposes. However, it would be helpful if they could be used for the same food storage. In other words, instead of everything coming neatly packaged, people could refill their containers from bulk sources. Some stores already have this option for some consumables. Reuse may also be taking items and passing them on, or recycling them for a different purpose (clothing fabric into rugs for example).

Recycling presupposes a use for the recycled material. Right now, there is some recycling that occurs (unevenly across the country and across the world). However, the uses of recycled materials is not what it could be. Right now, the primary use for recycled plastic is outdoor furniture. We only need so many picnic tables in the world. Right now there is a global argument on the use of plastic bags. However, plastic bags are not the only plastic issue. Plastic seems to be the packaging of choice - even for food. It shouldn't be, and it doesn't need to be. It is something that the world can no longer afford to use the way that it does.

We need to look at the future (and the present) very differently. In that examination, we need to reframe the "economy." This may be the hardest for the U.S. to do. We have structured an economic system (and to some extent enforced it globally) where money stands between the individual and virtually everything needed to live (housing, food, power, education, water, medical care ...). This means that folks must get money legally, illegally, or through inheritance, to survive. When that legal path is based on high consumption, then we are chasing our tails through a tunnel of mirages. Profit means getting excess value - from the planet, from the workers, and from consumers. We are at the end of excess, therefore we need to reimagine a different way of living.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with needing to either change our path - or be forced to change our path. The planet provides certain baseline realities that add dimension to the current economic crisis - and strategies to "get out of it." Simply regaining the status quo is not a solution (or at least not one that will last long). In fact, a return to our previous path will only accelerate the next collapse - for which we will have even less capacity to respond. It is critical that we not be lulled to sleep by soothing rhetoric, and demand real answers - and real leadership - from decision makers.

Collapse

Let me say that the basic philosophy of the discussions is rooted in the fact that we are generally not talking about healthcare, but INSURANCE.

The "government option" has been morphing in front of our eyes. It has moved from being a mechanism for reintroducing competition in the insurance pricing market, to being a program to cover the currently (probably 50 million people) uninsured, while forcing those with existing healthcare insurance through private or government employment to stay with their existing plans. As framed in a Kaiser Health News article:

Jonathan Oberlander, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, "The rhetoric is that Americans will gain new alternatives, but the reality is that they are putting up firewalls that are going to restrict the access of people with employer-sponsored insurance to the exchange."

Indeed, the "alternative" being offered is primarily for those already uninsured to get insurance. It is not an alternative for the majority of the insured to change to the government plan. Therefore, it poses little "competitive" challenge to private health insurance.

Senator Ron Wyden (OR) has been pushing his plan which while essentially taxing insurance benefits, is aimed at providing health insurance to everyone in the country. In other words, an "option" which people currently insured could select, and which would challenge the stranglehold of private insurance corporations. However, Obama considers the plan "too radical". In Obama's opinion, it is too radical in terms of changes to the existing system, and too radical in term of providing universal coverage. That opinion speaks volumes about where President Obama plans for healthcare are likely to go - virtually nowhere.

Discussion of the "serious" plans bring up issues such as:

- focused on covering only a portion of the currently uninsured;
- requiring business coverage of employees in PRIVATE plans;
- not allowing people with employer or government-based plans to change to the government plan;
- taxation to pay for the government plan;
- requiring people to have insurance.

The hand of corporate insurance is clearly being shown in the plans. What will likely benefit them the most is an isolated government plan that covers part of those without access while requiring that everyone be insured (enacting penalties on individuals who do not purchase insurance). The first poses little price competition to private insurance, and the second guarantees a forced market for PRIVATE health insurance companies.

MCJoan has a nice article about the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPA) which has stayed firm on requirements for a "robust" public option which they summarised in a letter from the CPA to Senator Nancy Pelosi. In summary form, their requirements include a plan not conditioned on private industry, that is available to all and preserves choice of provider. Further, it needs to be affordable, and include access to populations often left without adequate coverage, and should maintain transparency and bargaining power. there should be one government plan that covers all, not a number of different plans that cover only targeted groups. They summarise their requirements as:

In conclusion, the public plan, like all other qualified plans, must redress historical disparities in underrepresented communities. It must provide a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. It must limit cost-sharing so that there are no barriers to care, and incorporate up-to-date best practice models to improve quality and lower costs. All plans, including the public plan, must include coverage for evidence-based preventive health services at minimal or no co-pay. All plans, including the public plan, should be at least as transparent as traditional Medicare.

MCJoan also provides a list of members of Congress who will not vote for a plan that does not meet the "robustness" criteria, and those who are leaning that way. It would be a good idea to encourage your representatives to support the CPA plan.

I am sure that most of you are on the mailing lists of many groups encouraging you to contact your legislators. We all know that the pressure is on and the timeline is short. Certainly the industry wants this to go through quickly and with as little review as possible. However, healthcare is a huge issue and it is critical that the "first swing" at this be fundamentally strong. If not, it will erode support for necessary change. Our elected representatives need to know that we are watching and that we WILL hold them accountable for their votes.

Here is the link to the House Bill currently under discussion in the House of Representatives.

Collapse

Meanwhile, top US administration and army officials cautioned Iraqis of their own recklessness. "Biden Warns Iraq About Reverting to Sectarian Violence," read a New York Times headline. "What will it take to make a good exit from Iraq?" inquired a Kansas City Star analysis. But missing from news headlines and commentary was any indication of direct US responsibility for the genocide that has befallen Iraq.

How can one claim that US ambitions in Iraq have altered if the ongoing legacy in Iraq is being perceived as a strategic mistake, rather than a moral one?

One thing remains the same, for sure: and that is the arrogance that has long permeated US relations with Iraq. "The president and I appreciate that Iraq has traveled a great distance over the past year, but there is a hard road ahead if Iraq is going to find lasting peace and stability," said Vice President Biden during a visit to Baghdad on July 3rd. Biden's remarks were saturated with the same hubris that defined the former administration's attitude towards Iraq for years: 'we did our share, that of liberating you, and now its your turn to take charge of your own security', type of rhetoric. "It's not over yet," Biden said. Ironically, he is right, since that could only mean the complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, the end of foreign meddling in the country's affairs, and the removal of corrupt politicians that have destroyed the country's national identity in favour of sectarian camps endlessly fighting for dominance and privilege. Indeed, it's anything 
but over.

It's true that the majority of Americans now accept the once rebuked claim that the Iraq war was predicated on a lie, and readily blame former President Bush for drawing the country into a costly war that should have never happened. President Obama's arrival has seemingly ushered in a new discourse of honesty and national introspection.

Although one wants to believe that the new administration is sincere in seeking an exit strategy from Iraq, one is hardly sure that the US is ready to divorce itself from the war-scarred country. There is little reason, aside from tactical redeployment, that should compel antiwar sentiments to weaken, or self-respecting commentators to halt their questioning of US intentions.

The terms "exit" and "exit strategy" are now dominating media discourse regarding Iraq. Some attribute this new language to the new administration. The odd fact is that the recent US army redeployment is not the brainchild of the Obama administration, but a provision of a November 2008 agreement signed between the Iraqi government of Nouri Al Maliki and the Bush administration. Talk of exiting Iraq indeed preceded the entrance of Obama. The new US administration simply honoured previous commitments. As per official statements, following the June 30 redeployment, the US is expected to reduce its forces by 50,000 troops by August 2010, and then many of those remaining by the end of 2011.

So, 2012 will witness a fully independent Iraq, right? Wrong. "Many studying Iraq believe the US will end up negotiating with Baghdad to establish a couple of permanent military bases," writes Matt Schofield. "Those could be essential to leaving behind a stable government, a military loyal to the nation and capable of defending it, and a country that has the backing of the people." Those who wish to decipher such deceptive language should comprehend the permanent US military presence as permanent occupation. Indeed, the US doesn't have to be present on every Iraqi street corner to officially occupy the country. The sectarian Iraqi army and police - US armed and trained - should be enough to carry out US wishes in Iraq (under the guise of fighting terrorists), while the US will "stand ready, if asked and if helpful, to help in that process," as explained by Biden.

Iraq headlines will eventually fade away, making space for the new escalation in Afghanistan, also in the name of fighting terror, bringing democracy and all the rest.

The faces of the victims will be hidden so as not to harm our sensibilities, and causality figures will be manipulated, contested and at times blamed on the coward terrorists who hide among civilians. In other words, the US will take the spirit of its Iraq war to Afghanistan, remain in Iraq - as inconspicuous as possible - so as to hold onto its strategic military achievement, and, if necessary, blame both nations for their growing misfortunes.

However, before we take our eyes off Iraq, Americans must remember their own culpabilities in what transpired there. Antiwar activists and people of conscience must not forget that 130,000 US soldiers remain in the country; that the US has complete control over Iraqi airspace and territorial water; that there is not yet a reason to celebrate and move on. Even if one is trusting enough to believe the administration and army's own account of its future in Iraq, one should recall comments made by Admiral Mike Mullen last February: "Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a 'residual force' of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down terrorist cells and guard American institutions."

One may be truly eager to see a sovereign, democratic and stable Iraq, but such hopes must not occur at the expense of truth and common sense.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London).

Collapse

The code words of "identity politics" are meant to indicate someone who is of a minority status - woman, person of color, homosexual, and sometimes not Christian. It means that the person or group places the interest of "their" group above the "common" good. It means that the person or group has an "agenda" that does a disservice to, or detracts from, what is "right" or "good."

What is interesting about the charges of "identity politics" are they almost always arise from the same people - namely white conservatives. It is parroted by others in the ordinary conversations and discussions. Once again, those speakers are almost invariable white.

Interestingly, we can follow this same generation of conceptual flow with such code phrases as "political correctness" and "reverse discrimination." It starts with a trumpeting and repetition on the far conservative right, is played repeatedly within the mainstream media, enters into "common" conversation, and comes almost invariably out of "white" mouths.

This pattern should raise eyebrows and questions, but it rarely does. First, if "identity politics" is confined to nondominant groups, the "common" good/interest/gain must be that of the dominant group. Second, if there is a pattern of commonality of these charges and concerns that are coming from the dominant group, would not their perspective also represent "identity politics?"

What we have watched and experienced over the last 40 years is a deliberate and repetitive strategy to gain and hold political power. It is a strategy that employs stimulating the fears of whites that they will be usurped, their privileges stripped away, they will be "overrun" by "others" who are out to "get" them. The strategy has been expanded to cover homosexuals, humanists, Muslims and women. It is a strategy that has been deliberately employed, honed, and largely successful. It has allowed a relatively small portion of the population to successfully frame almost every issue, and present an impression of a constant threat of the "divided" America ready to break out in a "Civil War" - and that terminology is also generated from the same sources to stimulate the messages being sent.

This particular strategy was popularized during the Nixon Administration and it was known as "The Southern Strategy." (1) This "strategy" was aimed at consolidating the whites in the south who had been Democrats, but were (supposedly) angered by the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.(1, 2) It was an ongoing attempt to motivate white voters to switch to and vote with the Republican Party. Over the years, the appeal expanded to include an activist Christian right with the party hammering on the issues of abortion and homosexuality. Alliances made to shape the power block of the Republican Party, and expanded by Ronald Reagan and those who followed him.

There are those who would argue that there was no such thing as the "Southern Strategy." However, in 2005 then Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman made a statement to the NAACP stating that the Southern Strategy was wrong (3):

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

One of the problems with the apology issued by Mehlman was that the Republican Party was not "exploiting racial tensions," but stimulating them. The mechanisms of the strategy were to increase a sense of threat from non-whites, and to create a sense of disenfranchisement among whites. This mechanism underlies the various formations of claims of "identity politics," "political correctness," and "reverse discrimination" among others.

However, there is much more going on here than even these rather blatant calls to white racial unification. Much more subtle, but no less racial, are calls to other "interests" that are predominantly shared by whites, but seem to be a broader appeal. These are appeals to class interests, community interests, and "national identity" interests.

Class interests are appeals such as: "They're taking our jobs," "They are a burden" (on our schools, our hospitals, and our social welfare system).

Community interests: "They are running the good people out"; "They are taking over".

National identity: "Pretty soon we'll all have to speak Spanish ;" "They are a threat to our community" (i.e. English Only movement); "Pretty soon whites will be a racial minority in the United States... "

National Security: "They are a threat to our national security" (crooks and criminals).

What is largely left out of the understanding of race formation and enforcement in the United States is that it is not just "prejudice in some people's heads." There is indeed "prejudice," but there is a larger bias of cultural ideology. Further the social structuring over the history of the United States has placed (and continues to place) different groups in different worlds. Some might refer to this as institutional discrimination; however, it is also structural inequality.

Racial qualifications were placed on citizenship in the United States for much of the history of the country. Both Native Americans and Black slaves were denied birthright citizenship in the United States . While that barrier was purportedly removed at the end of the Civil War for Black slaves, it was not removed for Native Americans until the passage of the Native American Citizenship Act of 1924.

Citizenship via naturalization had various racial limitations at a national level until 1965 (Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965). The first naturalization law in 1790 (Naturalization Act of 1790) restricted naturalization to "any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years." The issue of citizenship has always been an issue because of the rights and privileges of citizenship. Earlier in our history being excluded from citizenship limited one's ability to work, to own property, to access public services such as access to water and education, to testify against a citizen who had harmed you, and protections under the law. These are above and beyond whether one can vote.

While citizenship had racial restrictions, it was hardly the only structural process in place. Separate educational facilities were standard for a very long time (and de facto are becoming so again), as were radical inequities in the funding of education. Racial restrictions were in place for higher education, and entering a variety of trades and occupations. The occupational restrictions were extended in many areas by labor unions. All of which created a racially segregated labor force which is still all too prevalent today.

Housing issues also played a role, especially with the housing initiatives which decimated inner urban housing and created the suburbs after World War II. The government legalized an already existing segregation in housing practice by realtors and lenders with the national appraisal standards. This moved both tax dollars and mortgage lending to all white housing areas. Those who were non-white were almost totally excluded from this wealth opportunity.

What all of these various policies and practices across an array of social institutions did was to create a number of shared interests among whites. Many of those shared interests revolve around social class. In particular, the housing policies following World War II reinforced geographically racial segregation (and structural race inequalities) in U.S. society.

One of the consequences of this, is that frequently the rhetorical appeals and threats to social class interests are in effect a call for whites to unify to protect their shared interests. That call to white racial unity is indeed calling on white "racial identify" without ever mentioning the issue of race.

These constructed shared interests of whites are not shared equally by all whites, which are why there are a diversity of calls. This strategy effectively unifies many whites across both class and regional lines. It allows Lou Dobbs to disingenuously and stridently claim that his vehement rants against "illegal" immigration have "nothing to do with race."

The biggest lie of the accusations of "identity politics" is that those making that claim are engaging in identity politics. The attacks on Sotomayor are a thinly veiled attempt to stimulate white fear and enhance a feeling of dispossession and disenfranchisement. The fact that she is Latina only enhances the arguments around "the Latin threat" in its various manifestations. Overall, it is just another iteration of the same identity politics that have been utilized over the years.

Collapse

(user wolf pw wolf)

The transcript of the full program is available at this link from CNN. The Cheney interview starts about 1/3 of the way down the page. I will be excerpting from that transcript below.

Liz Cheney: But I think that, in fact, what's happened is, my dad has stood up and said: Wait a minute. If you're going to be the transparency president, and if you're going to libel the brave men and women who conducted this program...

And then later in the interview regarding the torture that occurred at Abu Ghraib she states: "I do know what happened at Abu Ghraib was a crime and that the people there have been prosecuted."

So where does she, and her father, stand? Are these valiant interrogators "brave men and women," or are they criminals? Surely they cannot be both.

The interview continues with Cooper trying to get acknowledgment on the link between the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison and the methods being used at other facilities.

COOPER: Your father said today -- and you have said it in the past -- and your father repeated it today -- he's said it a lot -- that -- that, basically, what happened in Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident. He -- he termed them sadistic prison guards.

Isn't that -- goes against the evidence, that, basically, there was a line between what happened in Guantanamo Bay and what happened in Bagram Air Base and what happened later on in Abu Ghraib?

L. CHENEY: No, I think that's just absolutely wrong, Anderson.

I mean, I think, first of all, the enhanced interrogation program, which the president has now stopped, was a program that was run by the Central Intelligence Agency, designed by the CIA, approved by everybody in the administration. And...

COOPER: So, you're saying there's no connection between all these?

L. CHENEY: No, absolutely. There's no connection.

So Ms. Cheney confirms that "everybody" in the administration approved of the use of abuse and torture in interrogation. Further, that those methods which came to light in Abu Ghraib were not the same methods being used elsewhere.

Cooper raises the issue of the Schlesinger report which discusses the transfer of General Miller who had  implemented "enhanced interrogation" at Guantánamo to Abu Ghraib for the purpose of instituting the same procedures there. Ms. Cheney just flatly claims "Anderson, you are completely rewriting history to say that there was a connection... " After another challenge by Cooper she charges that he is "misinterpreting" the report.

However, it is not just the Schlesinger report that stated that the interrogation "techniques" implemented at Guantánamo were transported to Abu Ghraib. So did the Taguba Report, the Fay Report, and others.

What is clear from the reports and investigations that we have known about for over four years now, is that the atrocities that came to light from Abu Ghraib were not isolated incidents. They were part of a systematized policy implemented within the highest levels of the White House, and through the Pentagon. Now with the initial release of the "torture memos" it becomes ever clearer how high and how far that approval went.

So Liz Cheney goes on to reassert her father's call for the release of all of the memos and reports to "prove" that the use of torture protected the people of the United States from another terrorist attack.

L. CHENEY: ... without saying, you know -- you know, you assert this, and I assert this, and the president asserts something.

But the president won't let the American people see. He was in the National Archives today, which is the building where these memos are housed. He could have walked up the stairs to the second floor of that building, and, with his pen, signed a declassification order, and those memos would be here tonight, so you and I could actually have a discussion about what we learned from the program.

But we're prevented from doing that because he is suppressing those memos.

I have found this demand for transparency from the Cheney duo particularly galling. The man who spearheaded the movement for the Unitary Executive, who marshaled one of the most opaque administrations in known history, who defied court orders to release information even before 9/11 is calling for complete transparency from the Obama administration. The whole stance reads as pure posturing on the part of the Cheneys.

And people were not only tortured, people died.

COOPER: But more than 100 people are known to have died in U.S. custody. I think about 20 of those have been ruled a homicide.

I mean, if -- if these were just tightly-controlled things, how come so many people are being murdered in U.S. custody?

L. CHENEY: Well, Anderson, I think that your question is highly irresponsible. And I think that you're...

COOPER: Why?

L. CHENEY: Because you are conflating things that aren't conflated.

And then continues...

COOPER: Do you personally have any reservations about what may have gone on with these enhanced interrogation techniques, as you call them, under CIA control, or in Abu Ghraib, or in Bagram, or in Guantanamo? I mean, do you have -- do you have any doubts at all? Because your father seems, very clearly, to have no doubts.

L. CHENEY: Look, of course -- of course, as my father made clear today, what happened at Abu Ghraib shouldn't have happened. Nobody is defending what happened at Abu Ghraib.

I have no doubts at all, no reservations and no regrets. And, in fact, I feel that we all owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women at the CIA who carried out this program. I think there are American lives alive today because of that program.

And here we have the lies within lies within lies. Because it was not the "brave men and women" in the CIA and military who were directing the torture. It was PRIVATE CONTRACTORS who were hired to supervise, direct, and sometimes participate in interrogation. This was pointed out in the Taguba report and others. The Bush administration not only legitimated and approved torture, but they outsourced torture.

One might wonder why this is the case. Why outsource torture? Why remove the United States from the International War Crimes Tribunal? Why create an legal no man's land in Iraq where private contractors were not subject to U.S. law, Iraqi law, and U.S. Military Justice?

Why? For this time when they are out of power. Why? To muddy the trail and make legal prosecution a rat's nest of conflict. Why? To drag the process out past the U.S. statute of limitations.

According to John Dean, the U.S. statute of limitations on war crimes and torture is five years. That clock is already almost down to zero on some of what has happened. The longer it can be drug out - and Obama is doing his best to deep six the whole thing - the more likely that absolutely no action will be taken. There will be no consequences for those within the Bush administration for violations of national and international law.

Further, the fact that a President of the United States can approve and implement a policy of denial of human rights, abuse, and torture will stand as a precedent for any administration that wants to do the same thing.

Right now, the two most urgent things that need to happen are to extend the statute of limitations on war crimes and torture, and to continue to press our elected representatives for multi-pronged investigations (House, Senate, Special Prosecutor).

Resources
Article archive of abuse of prisoners and detainees by U.S. Forces
The Fay Report
8/21/02 Memo from Alberto Gonzales
The Taguba Report
The ICRC Report
Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations 3/06/2003
The Schlesinger Report
Torture resources and mem