24 Dec - Killing the Hope for Peace on Earth

Image via Wikipedia

 Dred Scott Redux: Obama and the Supremes

Image via Wikipedia

Stand Up for Slavery
http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html

 While we were all out doing our Christmas shopping, the highest court in the land quietly put the kibosh on a few more of the remaining shards of human liberty.

It happened earlier this week, in a discreet ruling that attracted almost no notice and took little time. In fact, our most august defenders of the Constitution did not have to exert themselves in the slightest to eviscerate not merely 220 years of Constitutional jurisprudence but also centuries of agonizing effort to lift civilization a few inches out of the blood-soaked mire that is our common human legacy. They just had to write a single sentence.

Here's how the bad deal went down. After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person."  They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.

 Symbol Lyrics

Dedicated to Sgt. Patrick Stewart
and his beloved family

YouTube

Insanity Offense: Even the Mad Must Not Speak the Truth
http://chris-floyd.com

This sounds like something Mikhail Bulgakov might have written, deep in the sinister phantasmagoria of the Stalinist night. From the Israeli service ynetnews.com:

One of the large mental health hospitals in Israel was recently surprised to receive a young, good-looking patient in a psychotic state who was accompanied by a personal security guard, Yedioth Ahronoth reported on Sunday.

The doctors, who asked why the woman was accompanied by a guard, were shocked to learn that she was a Mossad agent and that the security guard was not assigned to her in order assure her safety or protect her life, but to ensure that she not reveal any state secrets in her shaky mental state.

The Mossad guard's orders were clear: "It is forbidden that the organization's secrets be passed on to those unauthorized to hear them." The doctors, who are unaccustomed to the presence of a third party during their treatment sessions, were left with no choice but to acquiesce to their demands. In addition, the staff had to receive a security clearance before being allowed to work on her exceptional case.

To their complete amazement, another young woman, also accompanied by a secret agent charged with ensuring that the she not leak any state secrets, arrived at the institution just a short time later. The doctors learned that she, too, is a Mossad agent.

It seems evident that the young women were driven mad by acts they have witnessed -- or carried out. These act were literally unspeakable crimes of state -- hence the presence of the state's goons to prevent the slightest whisper of the dark deeds from escaping.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator called for a global nuclear weapons ban on Monday but insisted all nations — including his own — have the right to develop nuclear energy.

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9099

Visiting Tokyo to meet with senior Japanese officials, Saeed Jalili said his country's nuclear program is for civilian purposes, although the U.S. and other nations fear its goal is to produce weapons.

"The crime that was committed in Hiroshima must never be repeated," Jalili told reporters at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan, referring to the United States' dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, at the end of World War II.
"All the efforts of the world should be directed toward the eradication of these weapons," he said.
The administration of President Barack Obama — who has also called for a world free of nuclear weapons — has given a rough deadline of year-end for Iran to respond to an offer of engagement and show that it would allay world concerns about its nuclear program.
At the same time that it is trying to engage with Iran, the Obama administration has also been building momentum toward imposing more sanctions after the revelation in September that Iran was secretly building a second uranium-enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom.
In Paris on Monday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the international community has no other choice but to impose new U.N. sanctions on Iran for its refusal to cooperate on its nuclear program.
Kouchner said Russia was already "on board" with the need for sanctions, and that he believed "the Chinese will follow."
"I think there is no other solution," Kouchner told journalists.
America's top military officer agreed Monday that Tehran shows no sign of backing down in the standoff and said that military force must therefore remain an option.
"My belief remains that political means are the best tools to attain regional security and that military force will have limited results," Adm. Mike Mullen wrote in an annual assessment of the nation's risks and priorities. "However, should the president call for military options, we must have them ready."

( Did  or did not the military representative advocate  War as a strategic necessity ? )

Salvaging the Uranium Deal 

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9108

The clock may be ticking for fresh sanctions against Iran, but a deadlock can be avoided if both sides demonstrate pragmatic flexibility and a willingness to reach a middle-of-the-road solution on Iran's nuclear program.
An initial proposal backed by President Obama after an Oct. 1 meeting in Geneva of the U.S., Iran and five other nations, would have Iran ship out a bulk of its low-enriched uranium in exchange for high-grade uranium necessary for a reactor in Tehran to continue to produce medical isotopes.
That deal is still salvageable, albeit in a revised format, contrary to an avalanche of media reports that have proclaimed it dead.
For sure, the Iranian side has taken its blessed time coming up with a definite and final response, and there have been strong domestic voices of opposition to the deal from the likes of Ali Larijani, the parliament speaker and former top nuclear negotiator.
However, news from Iran indicates that this debate has been largely if not entirely settled in favor of those advocating a nuclear swap. Recently, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told international media that Iran is willing to accept the proposal but with the following modification: Instead of sending out 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium in one go, Iran would be willing to send out 400 kilograms, initially placed under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency on the Persian Gulf island of Kish. Upon delivery of new fuel rods from Russia and France, Iran would place a second such shipment in the IAEA's hands.
Iran's counterproposal has many advantages, including the fact that it meets the U.S. demands two-thirds of the way and could well set into motion a new dynamic favoring resolution of other issues on the U.S.-Iran plate. Another advantage is that by virtue of including both the U.S. and France in the deal, it breaks Russia's monopoly on Iran's nuclear market. Equally important is the side effect in terms of confidence-building and thus improving the overall climate between Iran and the international community.
  
Iran Sanctions are Precursor to War

by Congressman Ron Paul (source: Texas Straight Talk)

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Last week the House overwhelmingly approved a measure to put a new round of sanctions on Iran. If this measure passes the Senate, the United States could no longer do business with anyone who sold refined petroleum products to Iran or helped them develop their ability to refine their own petroleum. The sad thing is that many of my colleagues voted for this measure because they felt it would deflect a military engagement with Iran. I would put the question to them, how would Congress react if another government threatened our critical trading partners in this way? Would we not view it as asking for war?
This policy is pure isolationism. It is designed to foment war by cutting off trade and diplomacy. Too many forget that the quagmire in Iraq began with an embargo. Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade. It is ironic that people who decry isolationism support actions like this.
If a foreign government attempted to isolate the US economically, cut off our supply of gasoline, or starve us to death, would it cause Americans to admire that foreign entity? Or would we instead unite under the flag for the survival of our country?
We would not tolerate foreign covert operations fomenting regime change in our government. Yet our CIA has been meddling in Iran for decades. Of course Iranians resent this. In fact, many in Iran still resent the CIA’s involvement in overthrowing their democratically elected leader in 1953. The answer is not to cut off gasoline to the Iranian people. The answer is to stay out of their affairs and trade with them honestly. If our operatives were no longer in Iran, they would no longer be available as scapegoats for the regime to, rightly or wrongly, blame for every bad thing that happens. As bad as other regimes may be, it is up to their own people to deal with them so they can achieve true self-determination. When foreigners instigate regime change, the new government they institute is always perceived as serving the interest of the overthrowing country, not the people. Thus we take the blame for bad governance twice. Instead we should stay out of their affairs altogether.
With the exception of the military industrial complex, we all want a more peaceful world. Many are hysterical about the imminent threat of a nuclear Iran. Here are the facts: Iran has never been found out of compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) they signed. However, being surrounded by nuclear powers one can understand why they might want to become nuclear capable if only to defend themselves and to be treated more respectfully. After all, we don’t sanction nuclear capable countries. We take diplomatic negotiations a lot more seriously, and we frequently send money to them instead. The non-nuclear countries are the ones we bomb. If Iran was attempting to violate the non-proliferation treaty, they could hardly be blamed, since US foreign policy gives them every incentive to do so.
Posted by Ron Paul (12-21-2009, 04:47 PM) filed under Foreign Policy

US Sanctions Iran Based al Qaeda, Zawahiri Promises Fighters to Yemen
http://janenovak.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/us-sanctions-iran-based-al-qaeda
The US Treasury Department placed financial sanctions on Saad bin Laden, thought to be in Pakistan, and three alleged al Qaeda operatives in Iran including a Yemeni. The terrorist designation Friday froze their assets within US jurisdictions and prohibits Americans from financial dealings with the four.

Lew Rockwell’s Website Warns of Coming U.S. Civil War
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/12/14/lew-rockwell-website-warns-of-coming-us-civil-war
( Sounds like CNN ) 

Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops To “Prepare For Civil War”
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/obama-orders-1-million-us-troops-to-prepare-for-civil-war 
( Russian intel was cited with forecasting impending attack on Iran 3 years ago. Of course, Iran has been under attack for years - including assassination squads targeting its military and political leaders, seizure of financial assets, and embargo. ) 

Democracy vs. Climate Change
http://thwapschoolyard.blogspot.com/2009/12/democracy-vs-climate-change.html
I'm not sure why anyone is so afraid of the economics of responding to the threat of global warming.


The top 9 eco-stories of 2009 (that have nothing to do with climate change)
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-change/stories/the-top-9-eco-stories-of-2009-that-have-nothing-to-do-with

More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to accelerated growth of certain tree species
http://salonesoterica.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-leads-to-accelerated-growth-of-certain-tree-species

Eva Golinger: U.S. Military Aggression against Venezuela escalating
http://pineriverspirit.blogspot.com/2009/12/eva-golinger-us-military-aggression.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PineRiverWorldNews+%28Pine+River+World+News%29

  Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez revealed today on his Sunday television and radio program, Aló Presidente, that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, have illegally entered Venezuela's airspace during the past several days. "A few days ago, one of these military planes penetrated Venezuela as far as Fort Mara," a Venezuelan military fort in the State of Zulia, bordering Colombia. The drone was seen by several Venezuelan soldiers who immediately reported the aerial violation to their superiors. President Chávez gave the order today to shoot down any drones detected in Venezuelan territory. Chávez also directly implicated Washington in this latest threat against regional stability by confirming that the drones were of U.S. origin.

On Thursday, President Chávez denounced military threats against Venezuela originating from the Dutch islands Aruba and Curazao, situated less than 50 miles off Venezuela's northwest coast. Both small islands host U.S. air force bases as a result of a 1999 contract between Washington and Holland establishing U.S. Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in the Caribbean colonies. Originally, the contract stipulated U.S. military presence in Aruba and Curazao soley for counternarcotics missions. However, since September 2001, Washington uses all its military installations to combat perceived terrorist threats around the world. The military bases in Aruba and Curazao have been used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaisance missions against Venezuela during the past several years.

 Stunning Statistics About the War Every American Should Know

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/stunning-statistics-about-the-war-every-american-should-know/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29

 A hearing in Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Contract Oversight subcommittee on contracting in Afghanistan has highlighted some important statistics that provide a window into the extent to which the Obama administration has picked up the Bush-era war privatization baton and sprinted with it. Overall, contractors now comprise a whopping 69% of the Department of Defense’s total workforce, “the highest ratio of contractors to military personnel in US history.” That’s not in one war zone—that’s the Pentagon in its entirety.

In Afghanistan, the Obama administration blows the Bush administration out of the privatized water. According to a memo [PDF] released by McCaskill’s staff, “From June 2009 to September 2009, there was a 40% increase in Defense Department contractors in Afghanistan.  During the same period, the number of armed private security contractors working for the Defense Department in Afghanistan doubled, increasing from approximately 5,000 to more than 10,000.”

At present, there are 104,000 Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan. According to a report this week from the Congressional Research Service, as a result of the coming surge of 30,000 troops in Afghanistan, there may be up to 56,000 additional contractors deployed. But here is another group of contractors that often goes unmentioned: 3,600 State Department contractors and 14,000 USAID contractors. That means that the current total US force in Afghanistan is approximately 189,000 personnel (68,000 US troops and 121,000 contractors). And remember, that’s right now. And that, according to McCaskill, is a conservative estimate. A year from now, we will likely see more than 220,000 US-funded personnel on the ground in Afghanistan.

Modern-Day American Imperialism: The Middle East and Beyond

I've been asked to talk about modern-day American imperialism. That's a rather challenging task.  In fact, talking about American imperialism is rather like talking about triangular triangles.  The United States is the one country that exists, as far as I know, and ever has, that was founded as an empire explicitly.  According to the founding fathers, when the country was founded it was an "infant empire."  That's George Washington.  Modern-day American imperialism is just a later phase of a process that has continued from the very first moment without a break, going in a very steady line.  So, we are looking at one phase in a process that was initiated when the country was founded and has never changed. 

The model for the founding fathers that they borrowed from Britain was the Roman Empire.  They wanted to emulate it. 

A History of American Imperialism by Noam Chomsky