November 29, 2005 -- British mercenary firm with Pentagon contracts exposed in civilian shooting incident in Iraq. A souvenir video (WMP) (Quicktime) has surfaced on the Internet showing private security contractors working for Aegis Defense Services "Victory" Group firing indiscriminately at Iraqi civilian motorists in Baghdad. The video was reportedly taken by an Aegis employee and posted on a web site run by an ex-Aegis employee. The video has since been removed from the site. The video contains four clips showing Aegis mercenaries firing at civilian automobiles. The video's soundtrack includes Elvis Presley's "Train I Ride." Aegis is run by former British Scots Guard officer Lt. Col. Tim Spicer, an international mercenary who has been involved in UN sanctions busting in Sierra Leone and Bougainville invasion planning in Papua New Guinea. Spicer's firm, Aegis, was awarded a $293 million security contract in Iraq. Spicer's men also stand accused of shooting teenager Peter McBride in the back in Belfast in 1992. That has prompted a number of members of the Irish Caucus in the Congress to demand the Pentagon withdraw its contract to Aegis. The Pentagon has rejected such action.
Pentagon Iraq contractor head Tim Spicer under arrest in 1997 in Papua New Guinea following failed Bougainville invasion and resulting coup d'etat.
Aegis maintains its head office in London's Picadilly. It is also reported to have an office on K Street in Washington, DC.
The Pentagon has had a longstanding relationship with Spicer. The Pentagon's love affair with mercenary firms began in the 1990s when they were viewed with favor for their military activities, including sanctions busting, in Africa. Under the Clinton administration, mercenary firms blossomed. Under George W. Bush, they have flourished. On June 24, 1997, the Defense Intelligence Agency sponsored a seminar titled "The Privatization of National Security Functions in Sub-Saharan Africa." This conference ushered in the present cooperation between mercenaries, oil companies, diamond and other mineral companies, U.S. intelligence agencies, the military, and non-government organizations (NGOs), including the always suspect Human Rights Watch, an NGO that often obscures and obfuscates important facts, as it did with the causality of the Rwandan genocide and as it is currently doing with regard to offering an incomplete list of CIA prisoner aircraft in Europe.
WMR has obtained the attendee list [Page One Page Two] for the 1997 Pentagon mercenary seminar. Spicer attended along with two colleagues from Sandline International (for which Spicer served as CEO), a mercenary firm that had already been implicated in illegal Sierra Leone and Papua New Guinea operations.
Mercenary firms, which in neo-con "Newspeak" are referred to as "Private Military Contractors," "Private Security Contractors (PSCs), and Personal Security Details/Detachments (PSDs), are viewed by informed observers as the future military forces that will continue to protect US business interests in Iraq after the planned withdrawal of a large number of U.S. troops next year. These companies are not governed by any military regulations or international legal constraints. According to informed sources within the security contractor community, three U.S. firms, Phoenix, Anteon, and Sytex, should be looked at closely by U.S. authorities for their interrogation operations in Iraq. Sytex is currently advertising for interrogators for the US Central Command's Area of Responsibility (AOR), which includes Iraq and Afghanistan. Military interrogators who were charged with sexually humiliating prisoners at Guantanamo and Iraq are now working for firms like Anteon and Phoenix Consulting Group.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
El conflicto con Venezuela es de Fox, no del pueblo de México
A la Opinión Pública Nacional e Internacional,
El delicado estado en que se encuentran actualmente las relaciones entre los gobiernos de México y Venezuela, al borde de la ruptura, es motivo de grave preocupación para todos los mexicanos y mexicanas.
No se trata de un conflicto entre los pueblos de México y Venezuela, sino de un conflicto que tiene su origen en la actuación del gobierno mexicano en la IV cumbre de las Américas realizada en Mar del Plata, Argentina. Ahí, el presidente Fox fue a jugar vergonzosamente el papel de promotor y defensor a ultranza del proyecto de Estados Unidos conocido como Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas (ALCA), criticando abiertamente a los países que, con dignidad, se atrevieron a resistirse a incluirlo en los acuerdos. Tal actitud es aún más reprobable a la luz de las desastrosas consecuencias económicas y sociales dejadas en nuestro país por más de diez años de Tratado de Libre Comercio con Estados Unidos, el cual sirve de modelo al ALCA. Una conducta que, sin embargo, es congruente con la decisión del gobierno de Fox de firmar el Acuerdo para la Seguridad y Prosperidad de América del Norte (ASPAN), un TLC plus, que avanza en la integración subordinada de México a Estados Unidos.
Fox no se limitó a confrontarse en Mar del Plata con los gobiernos del MERCOSUR, sino que los acusó de hacerse eco de los reclamos surgidos de la III Cumbre de los Pueblos de América, que se realizaba exitosamente en esa misma ciudad y que tenía como reivindicación central el que no se reviviera el cadáver del ALCA. Fox confunde sus deseos con la realidad cuando afirma que los países que se opusieron a revivir el ALCA son minoría o están aislados; los pueblos de América han dejado claro su rechazo a ese proyecto neocolonialista estadounidense.
Como antes en sus deliberados conflictos con Cuba, el gobierno de Fox está haciendo el trabajo sucio para Estados Unidos, con lo que de hecho se convierte en punta de lanza de nuevas ofensivas desde el exterior contra Venezuela. El pueblo de México no debe dejarse engañar con el viejo truco de que se trata de defender a nuestro país y a sus instituciones, cuando lo que se busca en realidad es que avalemos los desatinos de Fox. Nadie ha insultado a México; lo que está en cuestión y nos agravia realmente es la torpe y entreguista política exterior que está siguiendo el gobierno mexicano en todos los foros internacionales, sin el respaldo ni la consulta del pueblo mexicano. Lo que está en el fondo en realidad es el debate entre el modelo de "libre comercio" e integración subordinada de América Latina a Estados Unidos y un modelo alternativo de integración más justo y equitativo que viene siendo promovido desde el Sur.
El delicado estado en que se encuentran actualmente las relaciones entre los gobiernos de México y Venezuela, al borde de la ruptura, es motivo de grave preocupación para todos los mexicanos y mexicanas.
No se trata de un conflicto entre los pueblos de México y Venezuela, sino de un conflicto que tiene su origen en la actuación del gobierno mexicano en la IV cumbre de las Américas realizada en Mar del Plata, Argentina. Ahí, el presidente Fox fue a jugar vergonzosamente el papel de promotor y defensor a ultranza del proyecto de Estados Unidos conocido como Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas (ALCA), criticando abiertamente a los países que, con dignidad, se atrevieron a resistirse a incluirlo en los acuerdos. Tal actitud es aún más reprobable a la luz de las desastrosas consecuencias económicas y sociales dejadas en nuestro país por más de diez años de Tratado de Libre Comercio con Estados Unidos, el cual sirve de modelo al ALCA. Una conducta que, sin embargo, es congruente con la decisión del gobierno de Fox de firmar el Acuerdo para la Seguridad y Prosperidad de América del Norte (ASPAN), un TLC plus, que avanza en la integración subordinada de México a Estados Unidos.
Fox no se limitó a confrontarse en Mar del Plata con los gobiernos del MERCOSUR, sino que los acusó de hacerse eco de los reclamos surgidos de la III Cumbre de los Pueblos de América, que se realizaba exitosamente en esa misma ciudad y que tenía como reivindicación central el que no se reviviera el cadáver del ALCA. Fox confunde sus deseos con la realidad cuando afirma que los países que se opusieron a revivir el ALCA son minoría o están aislados; los pueblos de América han dejado claro su rechazo a ese proyecto neocolonialista estadounidense.
Como antes en sus deliberados conflictos con Cuba, el gobierno de Fox está haciendo el trabajo sucio para Estados Unidos, con lo que de hecho se convierte en punta de lanza de nuevas ofensivas desde el exterior contra Venezuela. El pueblo de México no debe dejarse engañar con el viejo truco de que se trata de defender a nuestro país y a sus instituciones, cuando lo que se busca en realidad es que avalemos los desatinos de Fox. Nadie ha insultado a México; lo que está en cuestión y nos agravia realmente es la torpe y entreguista política exterior que está siguiendo el gobierno mexicano en todos los foros internacionales, sin el respaldo ni la consulta del pueblo mexicano. Lo que está en el fondo en realidad es el debate entre el modelo de "libre comercio" e integración subordinada de América Latina a Estados Unidos y un modelo alternativo de integración más justo y equitativo que viene siendo promovido desde el Sur.
Al Jazeera, en la mira de EEUU
El 4 de abril de 2003 estaba yo en la azotea de la corresponsalía de Al Jazeera en Bagdad. El horizonte era una gigantesca epopeya de incendios petroleros y edificios en llamas. Las baterías aéreas ubicadas en un parque público cercano lanzaban proyectiles al cielo y el aullido de los jets resonaba en toda la ciudad. Me disponía a empezar una entrevista de dos vías con la oficina de la televisora en Qatar cuando un cohete estadunidense llegó rugiendo desde el Tigris, a mis espaldas. Su zumbido arrancó un grito al técnico qatarí, que lo pescó en sus audífonos.
"¿Fue lo que me pareció que era?", me preguntó. Me temo que sí, repuse, mientras el misil crucero pintado de blanco volaba bajo uno de los puentes del río y desaparecía corriente arriba. Después de terminar mi "toma desde lo alto" -todavía hoy la televisión exige escenas de azotea desde Bagdad, pese a que la mayoría de los reporteros están confinados a sus oficinas y hoteles por equipos de mercenarios- descendí a la sala de prensa de Al Jazeera, donde el jefe de la oficina en Jordania-Palestina, Tareq Ayoub, trataba de preparar su siguiente informe. Tú, le dije, tienes la corresponsalía de televisión más peligrosa en la historia del mundo.
Le hice ver que su oficina en Bagdad sería blanco fácil si los estadunidenses quisieran destruir su cobertura de víctimas civiles en el bombardeo anglo-estadunidense de Bagdad, que se veía en todo el mundo árabe. "No te preocupes, Robert", contestó. "Hemos dado a los estadunidenses la ubicación exacta de nuestra sede para que no nos vayan a dar". Tres días después, Tareq estaba muerto.
Cierto, Al Jazeera había proporcionado el mapa de coordenadas de su corresponsalía al Pentágono. De hecho, el representante de relaciones públicas del Departamento de Estado en Qatar -un hombre de ascendencia libanesa llamado Nabil Khoury- había ido el 6 de abril a la dirección del canal para asegurar que su sede no corría peligro. Luego, el día 7, cuando Ayoub transmitía a las 7:45 desde el mismo lugar de la azotea donde yo había estado, un jet estadunidense cruzó el Tigris y disparó un solo misil a Al Jazeera. La explosión mató a Tareq al instante. No fue un disparo al azar: "El avión volaba tan bajo que creímos que iba a aterrizar en el techo", me dijo después Taiseer Alouni, colega de Tareq.
Y Taisser sabía de lo que hablaba. En 2001 era corresponsal de la televisora en Kabul cuando un misil dio contra su oficina, por fortuna vacía. Al Jazeera había estado transmitiendo las amenazas y sermones de Osama Bin Laden desde Afganistán y nadie dudaba en ese tiempo que el ataque fue deliberado, aunque los estadunidenses lo atribuyeron a un error. Después de la muerte de Tareq Ayoub, en 2003, la escueta carta del Pentágono lamentaba su muerte pero no se molestaba en ofrecer explicación alguna. ¿Por qué habría de hacerlo? Después de todo, ese mismo día un tanque Abrams M-1 A-1 disparó un proyectil contra el hotel Palestina y mató a otros tres periodistas. Desde el edificio se habían disparado armas ligeras, afirmaron los estadunidenses. Era mentira.
No me sorprendió. Allá en Belgrado, en 1998, había yo observado a los estadunidenses bombardear la sede de la televisión serbia, acto que, según escribí la mañana siguiente, permitía a la OTAN (Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte) atacar blancos por las palabras que hombres y mujeres decían, no por los actos que cometían. ¿Qué precedente sentaba para el futuro? Debí haber adivinado.
¿Qué de extraño tenía el deseo de George W. Bush de bombardear Al Jazeera en 2004? Que lord Blair de Kut al-Amara -el hombre que supuestamente convenció al presidente estadunidense de desistir de esa nueva locura- amenace ahora a la prensa británica conforme con la Ley de Secretos Oficiales para que no divulgue la verdad completa va muy a tono con la arrogancia del poder que hoy asociamos con la alianza Bush-Blair. Ministros británicos repetían cobardemente las mentiras estadunidenses cuando los aviones del Pentágono asesinaban a inocentes en Bagdad, en 2003, y sin duda cubrirán con gusto el deseo de Bush de continuar bombardeando a sus supuestos enemigos, por inocentes que sean.
Cuando Al Jazeera comenzó a transmitir a todo el mundo árabe, los estadunidenses elogiaron su aparición como símbolo de libertad entre las dictaduras de Medio Oriente. Tom Friedman, mesiánico columnista del New York Times, la encomió como bastión de libertad -siempre un peligroso precedente, viniendo de Friedman-, en tanto que funcionarios estadunidenses señalaron las transmisiones de la estación como prueba de que los árabes deseaban libertad de expresión. Y algo había de cierto en ello: cuando Al Jazeera emitió una brillante serie de 16 capítulos sobre la guerra civil libanesa -tema que las televisoras de Beirut evadían escrupulosamente-, la playa de Corniche, frente a mi casa en Líbano, que por lo regular estaba atestada, quedó desierta. Los árabes querían ver y oír la verdad que sus gobernantes les habían negado.
Pero cuando la misma televisora empezó a difundir las palabras de Bin Laden, todo el entusiasmo de Friedman y el Departamento de Estado se secó. Ya en 2003 el subsecretario de Defensa Paul Wolfowitz -ese campeón de la democracia que preguntó por qué los generales turcos no tenían "algo que decir" cuando el Parlamento democráticamente electo de su país prohibió a las tropas estadunidenses utilizar su territorio para invadir a Irak- afirmaba en forma fraudulenta que Al Jazeera "amenazaba la vida de los soldados estadunidenses". Su jefe, Donald Rumsfeld, dijo una mentira todavía más grande: que la televisora cooperaba con los insurgentes.
Me pasé días investigando esas acusaciones, y todas resultaron falsas. Las cintas de ataques guerrilleros a fuerzas estadunidenses eran entregadas en forma anónima a las oficinas de la estación, no filmadas por equipos de ésta. Pero la suerte estaba echada: el gobierno iraquí recién electo demostró sus credenciales democráticas expulsando a Al Jazeera del país, cumpliendo la amenaza que Saddam Hussein hizo a principios de 2003.
Desde luego, Al Jazeera no es el niño bueno del periodismo. Sus programas de análisis están a menudo sobrecargados de acérrimos islamitas, y su fiel presentación de los extenuantes sermones de Bin Laden se equilibra con entrevistas a líderes occidentales bastante más duras que cualquier pregunta hecha al barbado liderazgo de la red Al Qaeda. Pero es una voz libre en Medio Oriente, por eso fue atacada por los estadunidenses en Kabul y Bagdad, y por poco en Qatar. Y por eso ahora los periodistas británicos deben ser suprimidos por lord Blair de Kut al-Amara si se atreven a hacer la más reciente revelación desde el pozo oscuro y sangriento al que Blair y Bush nos han empujado.
"¿Fue lo que me pareció que era?", me preguntó. Me temo que sí, repuse, mientras el misil crucero pintado de blanco volaba bajo uno de los puentes del río y desaparecía corriente arriba. Después de terminar mi "toma desde lo alto" -todavía hoy la televisión exige escenas de azotea desde Bagdad, pese a que la mayoría de los reporteros están confinados a sus oficinas y hoteles por equipos de mercenarios- descendí a la sala de prensa de Al Jazeera, donde el jefe de la oficina en Jordania-Palestina, Tareq Ayoub, trataba de preparar su siguiente informe. Tú, le dije, tienes la corresponsalía de televisión más peligrosa en la historia del mundo.
Le hice ver que su oficina en Bagdad sería blanco fácil si los estadunidenses quisieran destruir su cobertura de víctimas civiles en el bombardeo anglo-estadunidense de Bagdad, que se veía en todo el mundo árabe. "No te preocupes, Robert", contestó. "Hemos dado a los estadunidenses la ubicación exacta de nuestra sede para que no nos vayan a dar". Tres días después, Tareq estaba muerto.
Cierto, Al Jazeera había proporcionado el mapa de coordenadas de su corresponsalía al Pentágono. De hecho, el representante de relaciones públicas del Departamento de Estado en Qatar -un hombre de ascendencia libanesa llamado Nabil Khoury- había ido el 6 de abril a la dirección del canal para asegurar que su sede no corría peligro. Luego, el día 7, cuando Ayoub transmitía a las 7:45 desde el mismo lugar de la azotea donde yo había estado, un jet estadunidense cruzó el Tigris y disparó un solo misil a Al Jazeera. La explosión mató a Tareq al instante. No fue un disparo al azar: "El avión volaba tan bajo que creímos que iba a aterrizar en el techo", me dijo después Taiseer Alouni, colega de Tareq.
Y Taisser sabía de lo que hablaba. En 2001 era corresponsal de la televisora en Kabul cuando un misil dio contra su oficina, por fortuna vacía. Al Jazeera había estado transmitiendo las amenazas y sermones de Osama Bin Laden desde Afganistán y nadie dudaba en ese tiempo que el ataque fue deliberado, aunque los estadunidenses lo atribuyeron a un error. Después de la muerte de Tareq Ayoub, en 2003, la escueta carta del Pentágono lamentaba su muerte pero no se molestaba en ofrecer explicación alguna. ¿Por qué habría de hacerlo? Después de todo, ese mismo día un tanque Abrams M-1 A-1 disparó un proyectil contra el hotel Palestina y mató a otros tres periodistas. Desde el edificio se habían disparado armas ligeras, afirmaron los estadunidenses. Era mentira.
No me sorprendió. Allá en Belgrado, en 1998, había yo observado a los estadunidenses bombardear la sede de la televisión serbia, acto que, según escribí la mañana siguiente, permitía a la OTAN (Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte) atacar blancos por las palabras que hombres y mujeres decían, no por los actos que cometían. ¿Qué precedente sentaba para el futuro? Debí haber adivinado.
¿Qué de extraño tenía el deseo de George W. Bush de bombardear Al Jazeera en 2004? Que lord Blair de Kut al-Amara -el hombre que supuestamente convenció al presidente estadunidense de desistir de esa nueva locura- amenace ahora a la prensa británica conforme con la Ley de Secretos Oficiales para que no divulgue la verdad completa va muy a tono con la arrogancia del poder que hoy asociamos con la alianza Bush-Blair. Ministros británicos repetían cobardemente las mentiras estadunidenses cuando los aviones del Pentágono asesinaban a inocentes en Bagdad, en 2003, y sin duda cubrirán con gusto el deseo de Bush de continuar bombardeando a sus supuestos enemigos, por inocentes que sean.
Cuando Al Jazeera comenzó a transmitir a todo el mundo árabe, los estadunidenses elogiaron su aparición como símbolo de libertad entre las dictaduras de Medio Oriente. Tom Friedman, mesiánico columnista del New York Times, la encomió como bastión de libertad -siempre un peligroso precedente, viniendo de Friedman-, en tanto que funcionarios estadunidenses señalaron las transmisiones de la estación como prueba de que los árabes deseaban libertad de expresión. Y algo había de cierto en ello: cuando Al Jazeera emitió una brillante serie de 16 capítulos sobre la guerra civil libanesa -tema que las televisoras de Beirut evadían escrupulosamente-, la playa de Corniche, frente a mi casa en Líbano, que por lo regular estaba atestada, quedó desierta. Los árabes querían ver y oír la verdad que sus gobernantes les habían negado.
Pero cuando la misma televisora empezó a difundir las palabras de Bin Laden, todo el entusiasmo de Friedman y el Departamento de Estado se secó. Ya en 2003 el subsecretario de Defensa Paul Wolfowitz -ese campeón de la democracia que preguntó por qué los generales turcos no tenían "algo que decir" cuando el Parlamento democráticamente electo de su país prohibió a las tropas estadunidenses utilizar su territorio para invadir a Irak- afirmaba en forma fraudulenta que Al Jazeera "amenazaba la vida de los soldados estadunidenses". Su jefe, Donald Rumsfeld, dijo una mentira todavía más grande: que la televisora cooperaba con los insurgentes.
Me pasé días investigando esas acusaciones, y todas resultaron falsas. Las cintas de ataques guerrilleros a fuerzas estadunidenses eran entregadas en forma anónima a las oficinas de la estación, no filmadas por equipos de ésta. Pero la suerte estaba echada: el gobierno iraquí recién electo demostró sus credenciales democráticas expulsando a Al Jazeera del país, cumpliendo la amenaza que Saddam Hussein hizo a principios de 2003.
Desde luego, Al Jazeera no es el niño bueno del periodismo. Sus programas de análisis están a menudo sobrecargados de acérrimos islamitas, y su fiel presentación de los extenuantes sermones de Bin Laden se equilibra con entrevistas a líderes occidentales bastante más duras que cualquier pregunta hecha al barbado liderazgo de la red Al Qaeda. Pero es una voz libre en Medio Oriente, por eso fue atacada por los estadunidenses en Kabul y Bagdad, y por poco en Qatar. Y por eso ahora los periodistas británicos deben ser suprimidos por lord Blair de Kut al-Amara si se atreven a hacer la más reciente revelación desde el pozo oscuro y sangriento al que Blair y Bush nos han empujado.
Inside Chavez's Venezuela
Sharmini Peries
Hear her interview
http://www.truthdig.com/images/avboothuploads/peries_interview.mp3
Background
Sharmini Peries became advisor to President Hugo Chavez after interviewing him and members of the Venezuelan government while she was on assignment for India's magazine Frontline in 2004.
In addition to her work with Frontline, Peries has worked for Democracy Now and other news organizations. She has also been the director of Justice International, a Toronto-based international organization dedicated to human rights and social justice; executive director of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange and the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression; executive director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, an organization defending the rights of immigrants and refugees in Canada; and executive director of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System.
Peries' doctoral research work is "Nationalism, War and Conflict: Representations of Women," in the department of social and political thought at York University in Toronto. She holds a master’s degree in economics (York University in Toronto) and a bachelor of arts degree in economics (University of Prince Edward Island, Canada).
Hear her interview
http://www.truthdig.com/images/avboothuploads/peries_interview.mp3
Background
Sharmini Peries became advisor to President Hugo Chavez after interviewing him and members of the Venezuelan government while she was on assignment for India's magazine Frontline in 2004.
In addition to her work with Frontline, Peries has worked for Democracy Now and other news organizations. She has also been the director of Justice International, a Toronto-based international organization dedicated to human rights and social justice; executive director of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange and the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression; executive director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, an organization defending the rights of immigrants and refugees in Canada; and executive director of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System.
Peries' doctoral research work is "Nationalism, War and Conflict: Representations of Women," in the department of social and political thought at York University in Toronto. She holds a master’s degree in economics (York University in Toronto) and a bachelor of arts degree in economics (University of Prince Edward Island, Canada).
Tim Spicer's License to Kill Iraqi Motorists
It should come as no surprise murderous yahoos working for Aegis Defense Services randomly shoot up innocent Iraqis, as a video currently posted on the Prison Planet site reveals. "The video has sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis," reports the London Telegraph.
Aegis is run by a former British soldier and a one-time member of the Scots Guards, Tim Spicer, who made a sum of money violating a UN arms embargo in Sierra Leone and touching off a coup in Papua New Guinea. Spicer is apparently so good at what he does--apparently including randomly murdering Iraqis--the Pentagon awarded him a $293 million contract to have his hired thugs act as bodyguards (or maybe we should call them what they are--spree killers).
Spicer has a bad habit of rubbing elbows with cutthroat psychopaths. For instance, in Belfast in 1992, two men under Spicer's command killed an unarmed teenager and father of two children, Peter Mc Bride. Mark Wright and James Fisher were charged with the murder and sentenced to life, but thanks to campaign led by the Daily Mail and with help from the British Ministry of Defense, the men were released after serving three years (see Brief introduction to the case of Peter McBride September 1992 - April 2005 and Barry McCaffrey reporting for the Irish News). A British Army review board eventually reinstated Wright and Fisher, probably because they really have no problem with their soldiers killing unarmed Irish civilians.
According to one Dr. Alexander von Paleske, head of the department of oncology at the Princess Marina Hospital in Gaborone, Botswana, Spicer "worked with Anthony Buckingham, one of Britain's wealthiest men, in a company called Sandline," according to Ray O’Hanlon of the Irish Echo. "Buckingham's worldwide business dealings included an oil deal with the now unemployed Saddam Hussein," von Paleske wrote for the Zimbabwe newspaper the Standard last year. As it turns out, Spicer worked with Buckingham in a company called Sandline, a PMC, or "Private Military Company," and Sandline was neck-deep in the coup in Papua New Guinea in 1997.
Aegis is run by a former British soldier and a one-time member of the Scots Guards, Tim Spicer, who made a sum of money violating a UN arms embargo in Sierra Leone and touching off a coup in Papua New Guinea. Spicer is apparently so good at what he does--apparently including randomly murdering Iraqis--the Pentagon awarded him a $293 million contract to have his hired thugs act as bodyguards (or maybe we should call them what they are--spree killers).
Spicer has a bad habit of rubbing elbows with cutthroat psychopaths. For instance, in Belfast in 1992, two men under Spicer's command killed an unarmed teenager and father of two children, Peter Mc Bride. Mark Wright and James Fisher were charged with the murder and sentenced to life, but thanks to campaign led by the Daily Mail and with help from the British Ministry of Defense, the men were released after serving three years (see Brief introduction to the case of Peter McBride September 1992 - April 2005 and Barry McCaffrey reporting for the Irish News). A British Army review board eventually reinstated Wright and Fisher, probably because they really have no problem with their soldiers killing unarmed Irish civilians.
According to one Dr. Alexander von Paleske, head of the department of oncology at the Princess Marina Hospital in Gaborone, Botswana, Spicer "worked with Anthony Buckingham, one of Britain's wealthiest men, in a company called Sandline," according to Ray O’Hanlon of the Irish Echo. "Buckingham's worldwide business dealings included an oil deal with the now unemployed Saddam Hussein," von Paleske wrote for the Zimbabwe newspaper the Standard last year. As it turns out, Spicer worked with Buckingham in a company called Sandline, a PMC, or "Private Military Company," and Sandline was neck-deep in the coup in Papua New Guinea in 1997.
“Dishonest and Reprehensible”?
One of the more depressing phenomena in our time is the frequency with which dominant (so-called "mainstream") U.S. media reports without question the most mendacious imaginable utterances of criminal policymakers.
How many times in recent years have we seen television newscasters dumbly relay the Bush White House's blatantly false claim that its massive and starkly regressive tax cuts for the wealthy few provide serious "tax relief" for "the middle class" and "everyone who pays taxes"?
How many times did the media transmit without question the administration's preposterous claims that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States, that Saddam was linked to al Qaeda and 9/11, and that he possessed significant "weapons of mass destruction"?
How many times in recent years have we seen television newscasters dumbly relay the Bush White House's blatantly false claim that its massive and starkly regressive tax cuts for the wealthy few provide serious "tax relief" for "the middle class" and "everyone who pays taxes"?
How many times did the media transmit without question the administration's preposterous claims that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States, that Saddam was linked to al Qaeda and 9/11, and that he possessed significant "weapons of mass destruction"?
Bush’s Fascist Valhalla
The strategy to militarize the country is moving forward as planned despite apparent setbacks in Iraq. As the Washington Post reported on Nov. 27 the Department of Defense is expanding its domestic surveillance activity to allow Pentagon spies to track down and "investigate crimes within the United States".
An alarmed Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore) said, "We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without a congressional hearing."
Is this the first time that the naïve Wyden realized that the war on terror is actually directed at the American people?
The expanded powers of the Pentagon were presented in a proposal by a presidential commission headed by Lawrence Silberman and former Senator Charles Robb, two members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the 9-11 "whitewash" commission. The CFR, a 4,000-member amalgam of elites from the military, industry and media, was the driving force behind the Iraq war, as well as, enthusiastic advocates of the national security state. Their recommendations will allow the military to assume the traditional role of law enforcement and by giving it the authority to "carry out domestic criminal investigations and clandestine operations against potential threats inside the United States.".
Oh, yeah; and the Pentagon will be involved in the "apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected" of criminal offenses.
This is a giant step for removing dissidents and political enemies while further militarizing the country.
An alarmed Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore) said, "We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without a congressional hearing."
Is this the first time that the naïve Wyden realized that the war on terror is actually directed at the American people?
The expanded powers of the Pentagon were presented in a proposal by a presidential commission headed by Lawrence Silberman and former Senator Charles Robb, two members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the 9-11 "whitewash" commission. The CFR, a 4,000-member amalgam of elites from the military, industry and media, was the driving force behind the Iraq war, as well as, enthusiastic advocates of the national security state. Their recommendations will allow the military to assume the traditional role of law enforcement and by giving it the authority to "carry out domestic criminal investigations and clandestine operations against potential threats inside the United States.".
Oh, yeah; and the Pentagon will be involved in the "apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected" of criminal offenses.
This is a giant step for removing dissidents and political enemies while further militarizing the country.
Mystery Train
The Abu Ghraib images were bad enough.
There they were, fresh-faced American soldiers presiding over the systematic torture and humiliation of Iraqis with big smiles and thumbs up. There was the Iraqi corpse, wrapped in a bag and festooned with blood, and a toothsome female American soldier grinning like a kid at Christmas as she leaned over the body. There was the man menaced by a dog being restrained on a leash by an American soldier, and there was the same man in a subsequent photo with a huge, bloody chunk ripped out of his leg.
Now we have these videos, these so-called Aegis videos, allegedly showing contractors in Iraq driving the road between Baghdad and the airport. In the video, men speaking with Irish or Scottish accents use an assault rifle to indiscriminately blast other cars on the road. The video shows cars peppered with bullets careening to and fro, crashing into each other and rolling into the trees. In the background, Elvis Presley can be heard singing "Mystery Train."
The UK Telegraph, reporting on the video, states, "The video, which first appeared on a website that has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services, contained four separate clips, in which security guards open fire with automatic rifles at civilian cars. All of the shooting incidents apparently took place on 'route Irish', a road that links the airport to Baghdad."
"The video first appeared on the website www.aegisIraq.co.uk," continued the Telegraph. "The website states: 'This site does not belong to Aegis Defence Ltd, it belongs to the men on the ground who are the heart and soul of the company.' The clips have been removed."
There they were, fresh-faced American soldiers presiding over the systematic torture and humiliation of Iraqis with big smiles and thumbs up. There was the Iraqi corpse, wrapped in a bag and festooned with blood, and a toothsome female American soldier grinning like a kid at Christmas as she leaned over the body. There was the man menaced by a dog being restrained on a leash by an American soldier, and there was the same man in a subsequent photo with a huge, bloody chunk ripped out of his leg.
Now we have these videos, these so-called Aegis videos, allegedly showing contractors in Iraq driving the road between Baghdad and the airport. In the video, men speaking with Irish or Scottish accents use an assault rifle to indiscriminately blast other cars on the road. The video shows cars peppered with bullets careening to and fro, crashing into each other and rolling into the trees. In the background, Elvis Presley can be heard singing "Mystery Train."
The UK Telegraph, reporting on the video, states, "The video, which first appeared on a website that has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services, contained four separate clips, in which security guards open fire with automatic rifles at civilian cars. All of the shooting incidents apparently took place on 'route Irish', a road that links the airport to Baghdad."
"The video first appeared on the website www.aegisIraq.co.uk," continued the Telegraph. "The website states: 'This site does not belong to Aegis Defence Ltd, it belongs to the men on the ground who are the heart and soul of the company.' The clips have been removed."
The Bush Administration's Deadly Waltz with Shiite Theocrats in Iraq and Muslim Brotherhood Fanatics in Syria, Egypt, and Elsewhere
During his embattled summer vacation in Crawford, Texas, George Bush managed to launch a new promotional ditty for his war in Iraq: "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." Since then there has been much commentary from the administration, from military officials, and from the media on the question of how successfully the Iraqi military is actually "standing up." (Not especially successfully is the usual answer.) There has, however, been scarcely any serious discussion about what that new Iraqi army, heavily infiltrated by Shiite and Kurdish militiamen from the ruling parties in the Iraqi government, is actually going to stand up for. And yet this is an important question.
The Bush administration has put into operation an utterly paradoxical and self-defeating strategy. First, its policies inflame the region, feeding the growth of political Islam and its extremist as well as terrorist offshoots. Then, as in Iraq -- and as seems to be the case in Syria and Egypt -- it seeks "regime change" in countries where it knows that the chief opposition and likely inheritor of power will be the Muslim Brotherhood or its ilk. This is a formula for endless war in the region.
----
The Bush administration has put into operation an utterly paradoxical and self-defeating strategy. First, its policies inflame the region, feeding the growth of political Islam and its extremist as well as terrorist offshoots. Then, as in Iraq -- and as seems to be the case in Syria and Egypt -- it seeks "regime change" in countries where it knows that the chief opposition and likely inheritor of power will be the Muslim Brotherhood or its ilk. This is a formula for endless war in the region.
Worse than Watergate?: America is facing the mother of all Constitutional crises -- and the media remains silent
On July 31, 1973, while the Vietnam war was still being fought, Representative Robert Drinan, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced the first impeachment resolution against President Richard Nixon. One of the grounds for indictment Drinan proposed was the secret bombing of Cambodia, ordered by the President. To Drinan, this was a crime at least as great as the domestic scandals which had already come to be known as "Watergate." The fourteen months of massive B-52 "carpet bombings," which killed tens of thousands of Cambodian villagers and an unknown number of Vietnamese communist soldiers in border sanctuaries, were run outside the military's chain of command. They were also kept completely secret from Congress and the public (until exposed by New York Times reporter William Beecher). In recently released transcripts of telephone conversations between Nixon and his closest aides, the President ordered "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia [using] anything that flies on anything that moves." (The transcript then records an unintelligible comment that "sounded like [General Alexander] Haig laughing.")
The secret bombing of Cambodia involved the same abuse of power and political manipulation of government agencies as Watergate, but only a few Congressional representatives like John Conyers, Elizabeth Holtzman, and Edward Mezvinsky supported Drinan's Cambodia article, which was soundly defeated by the House impeachment committee 26-12.
John Dean was indeed right. The Bush Administration's excesses are "worse than Watergate," in part because the power that has congealed in presidential hands is much greater than Nixon's imperial presidency held in the early 1970s. As a result, its zealotry, secrecy, deceit, and abuses of power are more akin to the secret bombing of Cambodia or the Iran-Contra affair -- scandals which did not unseat presidents -- than Watergate itself. In both the bombing of Cambodia and Iran-Contragate, a power-hungry White House kept secret foreign policies that it knew neither Congress, the courts, nor the public would be likely to approve -- even though Americans have traditionally been only too eager to give the White House a blank check on national security. No one was indicted for the secret bombing of Cambodia. In Iran-Contragate, eleven top administration officials, including two national security advisers and an undersecretary of state were finally convicted, but the first President George Bush rushed to pardon four of them as well as Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (even before he could be indicted). The specter of this resolution of the Libby case recently prompted Democrats and then a group of CIA officials -- to little media attention -- to write the President demanding that he go on record indicating there will be no pardons in the Plame affair. They received no reply.
The secret bombing of Cambodia involved the same abuse of power and political manipulation of government agencies as Watergate, but only a few Congressional representatives like John Conyers, Elizabeth Holtzman, and Edward Mezvinsky supported Drinan's Cambodia article, which was soundly defeated by the House impeachment committee 26-12.
--------
John Dean was indeed right. The Bush Administration's excesses are "worse than Watergate," in part because the power that has congealed in presidential hands is much greater than Nixon's imperial presidency held in the early 1970s. As a result, its zealotry, secrecy, deceit, and abuses of power are more akin to the secret bombing of Cambodia or the Iran-Contra affair -- scandals which did not unseat presidents -- than Watergate itself. In both the bombing of Cambodia and Iran-Contragate, a power-hungry White House kept secret foreign policies that it knew neither Congress, the courts, nor the public would be likely to approve -- even though Americans have traditionally been only too eager to give the White House a blank check on national security. No one was indicted for the secret bombing of Cambodia. In Iran-Contragate, eleven top administration officials, including two national security advisers and an undersecretary of state were finally convicted, but the first President George Bush rushed to pardon four of them as well as Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (even before he could be indicted). The specter of this resolution of the Libby case recently prompted Democrats and then a group of CIA officials -- to little media attention -- to write the President demanding that he go on record indicating there will be no pardons in the Plame affair. They received no reply.
Hospitals Come Under Siege
RAMADI, Nov 29 (IPS) - Hospital personnel are reporting regular raids and interference by the U.S. military as fighting continues in the volatile Al-Anbar province of Iraq.
The U.S. raids come as the hospitals face increasing lack of vital supplies and equipment.
Two hospitals in Ramadi, about 110 km west of capital Baghdad on the Euphrates river, are being raided regularly by the U.S. military, doctors say.
The U.S. raids come as the hospitals face increasing lack of vital supplies and equipment.
Two hospitals in Ramadi, about 110 km west of capital Baghdad on the Euphrates river, are being raided regularly by the U.S. military, doctors say.
"The maternity hospital and the general hospital in our city are the two biggest hospitals," the official said. "These have both been raided twice a week by the American forces with the excuse that they are searching for militants. They (the U.S. soldiers) break every door which is closed, play with our records and sometimes even detain some of our staff. The Americans are not adhering to any laws."
Did Bush Really Want to Bomb Al Jazeera?
The Bush Administration clearly blamed Al Jazeera for undermining the first siege on Falluja and fueling Iraqi public opinion and resistance against the US occupation. Given Washington's record of attacking Al Jazeera both militarily and verbally, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Bush Administration could have simply decided that it was time to take the network out. What is needed now is for a British newspaper or magazine to publish the memo for all the world to see--and if they face legal action, they should be backed up by every major media organization in the world. If true, Bush's threat is a bold confirmation of what many journalists already believe: that the Bush Administration views us all as enemy combatants.
First Kill the Language, Then the Culture
When a Language Dies
Cuando Muere una Lengua
By JOHN ROSS
"Cuando muere una lengua,
las cosas divinas,
estrellas, sol y luna,
las cosas humanas,
pensar y sentir,
no se reflejan en eso espejo."
"When a language dies,
the divine things,
stars, sun and moon,
the human things.
to think and to feel,
are no longer reflected
in this mirror."
The planet upon which we dwell is no longer the Tower of Babel it once was. Like bio-diversity, linguistic diversity is drying up at an alarming rate. Of 6000 known human languages, half are in imminent danger of disappearing, and 90% could be erased forever within a century, according to dire UNESCO reports. One language system is lost every two weeks, the United Nations cultural agency warns--five Indian subcontinent languages were irretrievably wiped out during the tsunami that obliterated islands in the Bay of Bengal earlier this year.
Because just a few people speak most of the world's languages--4% of the world's people speak 96% of its languages--most linguistic systems are extremely vulnerable to the vicissitudes of life and death.
Linguistic diversity flourishes in the south--half of the world's languages are concentrated in just eight countries: Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Australia, India, Nigeria, Cameroon, Brazil, and Mexico. Mexico's Oaxaca state, smaller than Portugal, is host to 16 distinct ethnic groups and speaks more languages than all of Europe.
"Cuando muere una lengua
todo lo que hay en el mundo,
mares y rios,
animales y plantas,
ni se piensen, ni se pronuncian
con atisbos, con sonidos,
que no existan ya."
"When a language dies,
all that there is in this world,
oceans and rivers,
animals and plants,
do not think of them,
do not pronounce their names,
they do not exist now."
If each language was a room than Mexico would be a great mansion of 62 rooms, linguist/poet/historian Carlos Montemayor reflected at a recent presentation of a newly translated volume of Mexican indigenous poetry. "These languages are not dialects but rather complete linguistic systems. Purepecha is as complete as Greek, Maya as complete as Italian. There are no superior language systems. All have grammar and syntax and vocabulary and etymology. It is an expression of cultural racism to consider indigenous languages to be dialects."
Nahuat (modern Aztec) is spoken by more than 2.000.000 people in 15 contiguous Mexican states. There are a million Mayan speakers in Caribbean Mexico, nearly twice that if you include inland subgroups such as Chol and Tzeltal, Tzotzil, and Tojolabal. Zapotec and Mixteco enjoy robust number of speakers in the sierras and along the coast of Oaxaca. Despite 500 years of cultural imposition during which the European invaders burnt their sacred books on public pyres and prohibited them from speaking their mother tongues under penalty of death, Mexico's indigenous peoples have refused to be silenced.
Indian "flor y canto" ("flower and song") is resurgent. Montemayor, along with Miguel Leon Portilla, the most ardent non-Indian champions of native languages, labels the renaissance in indigenous literature "one of the most significant cultural phenomena's of the late 20th-early 21st centuries." Once strictly "indigenous" writers like the Nahuat poet Neftali Hernandez are crossing over into general literature, and it seems like every bi-lingual teacher in Mexico is writing a novel in his native language, attests Montemayor.
But the downside is that this cultural revitalization has been largely confined to the dominant Indian languages while scores more are in danger of disappearing forever.
"Cuando muere una lengua,
se cierre a todos
los pueblos del mundo,
una puerta, una ventana,
un asomarse,
de modo distinto,
a las cosas divinas y humanas
en cuanto es ser
y vida en la tierra."
"When a language dies,
the window and the door
are closed up
to all the people of the world,
no longer will they be shown
a different way to name
the divine and human things
which is what it means to be
and to live on the earth."
Where the languages are dying, drying up and blowing away like dust in the wind, is up in the northern deserts. Half of Mexico's 20 most endangered languages are rooted in these bone-dry eco-systems, many in Sonora and the arid Baja California peninsula. The most threatened language, Aguacateco, a member of the Mayan family linguistic group that migrated north from Huehuetenango Guatemala millenniums ago according to linguists at the National Indigenous Language Institute (INALI), is still spoken in the mountain badlands of Baja California South--but there are only 22 surviving speakers left.
Equally endangered are a cluster of five Baja California Norte native cultures close to the Tijuana-Mexicali border, with less than 2000 surviving members between them--speakers of Kiliwa, Paipai, Kumiai, Kochemi, and Kukapa number in the dozens for each language group. Homogenized by the global lingo of the U.S.-Mexican border, these languages are the sole surviving shards of the old ways of doing things in these ancient desert lands.
A 17th Century census ordered by the Spanish Crown counted 23,000 Kukapas. But the fate of the Kukupas, "the people of the river", was bound up with the great Colorado river and as thirsty U.S. western states diverted and contaminated its waters, their numbers diminished in kind. Only 400 have survived this diaspora, living in four bands (one in Yuma, Arizona.) 52 Kukapa elders guard the secret of their language.
For 7000 years, the Kukupas have fished the rivers flowing into the Sea of Cortez. Now environmental authorities have declared the region a wildlife sanctuary and barred the Indians from taking their prized "curvinas", displacing the young who now head north to find work in the U.S. and learn "gavacha" (English.) Migration is a killer of language.
"Cuando muere una lengua,
sus palabras de amor,
entonacion de dolor y querencias,
tal vez viejos cantos,
relatos, discursos, plegarias,
nadie, cual fueran,
alcanzara a repetir."
"When a language dies,
its words of love,
intonations of pain and caring,
perhaps the old songs,
the old stories, the speeches, the prayers,
no one no matter whom
will be able to repeat them again."
Other Indian languages with less than a thousand speakers include Kikapu (138), Papago (141), Quiche (246), Tlahuica (466), Lacandon (635), and Pimi (741.) "Those of us in whom is mixed the blood of the Europeans who penetrated these language systems have a moral obligation to their preservation," enjoins Miguel Leon Portillo, Mexico's most dedicated rescuer of Aztec poetry.
Although the constitution has designated Mexico a "multi-cultural, pluri-lingual" nation since the early 1990s, congress has only recently gotten around to ratifying the General Law of the Defense of Indigenous Languages. The law created the National Indigenous Language Institute, which was inaugurated last February 21st, United Nations Mother Language Day, under the direction of the mestizo anthropologist Francisco Nava. Nava, whose appointment was questioned by the National Indigenous Congress, has big plans for the INALI--a socio-linguistic census of Mexico. and bringing elderly native speakers into primary schools to rekindle dying languages --but no money, and the institute is a thin wall between disappearing language systems and total extinction. "We are in a race against time--the old are dying off each year and the young moving on yet there seems to be no urgency (in the Secretary of Public Education under whose aegis the INALI operates) to save these languages" Nava bemoans.
"Cuando muere una lengua,
ya mucho han muerto,
and mucho mas pueden morir,
espejos para siempre quebrados,
sombras de voces
siempre acalladas,
la humanidad se empobreze
Cuando muere una lengua"
"When a language dies,
then many have died,
and many more will die soon,
mirrors forever broken,
shadows of voices
forever silenced,
humanity grows poorer
when a language dies."
- "When a Language Dies", translated from the Aztec by Miguel Leon Portillo (English translation: John Ross)
Cuando Muere una Lengua
By JOHN ROSS
"Cuando muere una lengua,
las cosas divinas,
estrellas, sol y luna,
las cosas humanas,
pensar y sentir,
no se reflejan en eso espejo."
"When a language dies,
the divine things,
stars, sun and moon,
the human things.
to think and to feel,
are no longer reflected
in this mirror."
The planet upon which we dwell is no longer the Tower of Babel it once was. Like bio-diversity, linguistic diversity is drying up at an alarming rate. Of 6000 known human languages, half are in imminent danger of disappearing, and 90% could be erased forever within a century, according to dire UNESCO reports. One language system is lost every two weeks, the United Nations cultural agency warns--five Indian subcontinent languages were irretrievably wiped out during the tsunami that obliterated islands in the Bay of Bengal earlier this year.
Because just a few people speak most of the world's languages--4% of the world's people speak 96% of its languages--most linguistic systems are extremely vulnerable to the vicissitudes of life and death.
Linguistic diversity flourishes in the south--half of the world's languages are concentrated in just eight countries: Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Australia, India, Nigeria, Cameroon, Brazil, and Mexico. Mexico's Oaxaca state, smaller than Portugal, is host to 16 distinct ethnic groups and speaks more languages than all of Europe.
"Cuando muere una lengua
todo lo que hay en el mundo,
mares y rios,
animales y plantas,
ni se piensen, ni se pronuncian
con atisbos, con sonidos,
que no existan ya."
"When a language dies,
all that there is in this world,
oceans and rivers,
animals and plants,
do not think of them,
do not pronounce their names,
they do not exist now."
If each language was a room than Mexico would be a great mansion of 62 rooms, linguist/poet/historian Carlos Montemayor reflected at a recent presentation of a newly translated volume of Mexican indigenous poetry. "These languages are not dialects but rather complete linguistic systems. Purepecha is as complete as Greek, Maya as complete as Italian. There are no superior language systems. All have grammar and syntax and vocabulary and etymology. It is an expression of cultural racism to consider indigenous languages to be dialects."
Nahuat (modern Aztec) is spoken by more than 2.000.000 people in 15 contiguous Mexican states. There are a million Mayan speakers in Caribbean Mexico, nearly twice that if you include inland subgroups such as Chol and Tzeltal, Tzotzil, and Tojolabal. Zapotec and Mixteco enjoy robust number of speakers in the sierras and along the coast of Oaxaca. Despite 500 years of cultural imposition during which the European invaders burnt their sacred books on public pyres and prohibited them from speaking their mother tongues under penalty of death, Mexico's indigenous peoples have refused to be silenced.
Indian "flor y canto" ("flower and song") is resurgent. Montemayor, along with Miguel Leon Portilla, the most ardent non-Indian champions of native languages, labels the renaissance in indigenous literature "one of the most significant cultural phenomena's of the late 20th-early 21st centuries." Once strictly "indigenous" writers like the Nahuat poet Neftali Hernandez are crossing over into general literature, and it seems like every bi-lingual teacher in Mexico is writing a novel in his native language, attests Montemayor.
But the downside is that this cultural revitalization has been largely confined to the dominant Indian languages while scores more are in danger of disappearing forever.
"Cuando muere una lengua,
se cierre a todos
los pueblos del mundo,
una puerta, una ventana,
un asomarse,
de modo distinto,
a las cosas divinas y humanas
en cuanto es ser
y vida en la tierra."
"When a language dies,
the window and the door
are closed up
to all the people of the world,
no longer will they be shown
a different way to name
the divine and human things
which is what it means to be
and to live on the earth."
Where the languages are dying, drying up and blowing away like dust in the wind, is up in the northern deserts. Half of Mexico's 20 most endangered languages are rooted in these bone-dry eco-systems, many in Sonora and the arid Baja California peninsula. The most threatened language, Aguacateco, a member of the Mayan family linguistic group that migrated north from Huehuetenango Guatemala millenniums ago according to linguists at the National Indigenous Language Institute (INALI), is still spoken in the mountain badlands of Baja California South--but there are only 22 surviving speakers left.
Equally endangered are a cluster of five Baja California Norte native cultures close to the Tijuana-Mexicali border, with less than 2000 surviving members between them--speakers of Kiliwa, Paipai, Kumiai, Kochemi, and Kukapa number in the dozens for each language group. Homogenized by the global lingo of the U.S.-Mexican border, these languages are the sole surviving shards of the old ways of doing things in these ancient desert lands.
A 17th Century census ordered by the Spanish Crown counted 23,000 Kukapas. But the fate of the Kukupas, "the people of the river", was bound up with the great Colorado river and as thirsty U.S. western states diverted and contaminated its waters, their numbers diminished in kind. Only 400 have survived this diaspora, living in four bands (one in Yuma, Arizona.) 52 Kukapa elders guard the secret of their language.
For 7000 years, the Kukupas have fished the rivers flowing into the Sea of Cortez. Now environmental authorities have declared the region a wildlife sanctuary and barred the Indians from taking their prized "curvinas", displacing the young who now head north to find work in the U.S. and learn "gavacha" (English.) Migration is a killer of language.
"Cuando muere una lengua,
sus palabras de amor,
entonacion de dolor y querencias,
tal vez viejos cantos,
relatos, discursos, plegarias,
nadie, cual fueran,
alcanzara a repetir."
"When a language dies,
its words of love,
intonations of pain and caring,
perhaps the old songs,
the old stories, the speeches, the prayers,
no one no matter whom
will be able to repeat them again."
Other Indian languages with less than a thousand speakers include Kikapu (138), Papago (141), Quiche (246), Tlahuica (466), Lacandon (635), and Pimi (741.) "Those of us in whom is mixed the blood of the Europeans who penetrated these language systems have a moral obligation to their preservation," enjoins Miguel Leon Portillo, Mexico's most dedicated rescuer of Aztec poetry.
Although the constitution has designated Mexico a "multi-cultural, pluri-lingual" nation since the early 1990s, congress has only recently gotten around to ratifying the General Law of the Defense of Indigenous Languages. The law created the National Indigenous Language Institute, which was inaugurated last February 21st, United Nations Mother Language Day, under the direction of the mestizo anthropologist Francisco Nava. Nava, whose appointment was questioned by the National Indigenous Congress, has big plans for the INALI--a socio-linguistic census of Mexico. and bringing elderly native speakers into primary schools to rekindle dying languages --but no money, and the institute is a thin wall between disappearing language systems and total extinction. "We are in a race against time--the old are dying off each year and the young moving on yet there seems to be no urgency (in the Secretary of Public Education under whose aegis the INALI operates) to save these languages" Nava bemoans.
"Cuando muere una lengua,
ya mucho han muerto,
and mucho mas pueden morir,
espejos para siempre quebrados,
sombras de voces
siempre acalladas,
la humanidad se empobreze
Cuando muere una lengua"
"When a language dies,
then many have died,
and many more will die soon,
mirrors forever broken,
shadows of voices
forever silenced,
humanity grows poorer
when a language dies."
- "When a Language Dies", translated from the Aztec by Miguel Leon Portillo (English translation: John Ross)
Dick Cheney: a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard.
A top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday that wrongheaded ideas for the handling of foreign detainees arose from White House and Pentagon officials who argued that "the President of the United States is all-powerful" and the Geneva Conventions irrelevant.
In an Associated Press interview, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush's detachment and made poor decisions, Wilkerson said.
Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. He said Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."
On the question of detainees picked up in Afghanistan and other fronts in the war on terror, Wilkerson said Bush heard two sides of an impassioned argument within his administration. Abuse of prisoners, and even the deaths of some who had been interrogated in Afghanistan and elsewhere, have bruised the U.S. image abroad and undermined support for the Iraq war.
Cheney's office, Rumsfeld aides and others argued "that the president of the United States is all-powerful, that as commander in chief the president of the United States can do anything he damn well pleases," Wilkerson said.
In an Associated Press interview, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush's detachment and made poor decisions, Wilkerson said.
Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. He said Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."
On the question of detainees picked up in Afghanistan and other fronts in the war on terror, Wilkerson said Bush heard two sides of an impassioned argument within his administration. Abuse of prisoners, and even the deaths of some who had been interrogated in Afghanistan and elsewhere, have bruised the U.S. image abroad and undermined support for the Iraq war.
Cheney's office, Rumsfeld aides and others argued "that the president of the United States is all-powerful, that as commander in chief the president of the United States can do anything he damn well pleases," Wilkerson said.
''Economic Brief: Venezuela's Pipeline Deals''
The recent gas pipeline agreement between Venezuela and Colombia is the latest step in an effort by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to better integrate South America. The pipeline deal was signed by Chavez and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe on November 24, 2005. The agreement puts onto paper the decision to construct a two-way gas pipeline between Colombia and Venezuela.
The pipeline agreement is the beginning of a larger project that will bring crude oil from Venezuela to the Pacific Ocean, where it will then be transported to Asia. It also comes after Chavez and Argentine President Nestor Kirchner discussed building a natural gas pipeline connecting the two countries. Both the Venezuelan and Argentine leader also expressed their optimism that the proposed pipeline will be part of a larger project involving Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador.
Venezuela's Recent Pipeline Deals
According to the Venezuelan-Colombian pipeline agreement, construction will begin in 2006, and the pipeline will cost more than US$230 million. Caracas will pay the entire cost of the pipeline, and will own and operate it. The pipeline will span 215 kilometers (134 miles) from Colombia's La Guajira peninsula to Venezuela's Paraguana Refinery Complex. Paraguana is one of the largest refineries in the world, and can process 940,000 barrels a day.
During the first seven years of service, the pipeline will move Colombian natural gas to the Paraguana Refinery Complex until Colombia's natural gas reserves are depleted. After that point is reached, the flow of the pipeline will be reversed and Venezuela will then feed gas to Colombia.
On November 21, in a separate deal, Chavez met with Argentine President Nestor Kirchner to discuss building a natural gas pipeline between Venezuela and Argentina. The proposed pipeline would connect the two countries by passing through Brazil, and is estimated to be around 6,000 kilometers in length and comes with a projected price of US$10 billion; the pipeline would be constructed by Petrosur.
The pipeline agreement is the beginning of a larger project that will bring crude oil from Venezuela to the Pacific Ocean, where it will then be transported to Asia. It also comes after Chavez and Argentine President Nestor Kirchner discussed building a natural gas pipeline connecting the two countries. Both the Venezuelan and Argentine leader also expressed their optimism that the proposed pipeline will be part of a larger project involving Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador.
Venezuela's Recent Pipeline Deals
According to the Venezuelan-Colombian pipeline agreement, construction will begin in 2006, and the pipeline will cost more than US$230 million. Caracas will pay the entire cost of the pipeline, and will own and operate it. The pipeline will span 215 kilometers (134 miles) from Colombia's La Guajira peninsula to Venezuela's Paraguana Refinery Complex. Paraguana is one of the largest refineries in the world, and can process 940,000 barrels a day.
During the first seven years of service, the pipeline will move Colombian natural gas to the Paraguana Refinery Complex until Colombia's natural gas reserves are depleted. After that point is reached, the flow of the pipeline will be reversed and Venezuela will then feed gas to Colombia.
On November 21, in a separate deal, Chavez met with Argentine President Nestor Kirchner to discuss building a natural gas pipeline between Venezuela and Argentina. The proposed pipeline would connect the two countries by passing through Brazil, and is estimated to be around 6,000 kilometers in length and comes with a projected price of US$10 billion; the pipeline would be constructed by Petrosur.
Syrian witness says Hariri's son forced him to lie
A man has appeared on Syrian state television saying Lebanese officials, including the son of Rafik al-Hariri, had forced him to testify falsely to a U.N. inquiry into the former Lebanese prime minister's assassination.
Hosam Taher Hosam, a Syrian who said he had worked with Syrian and Lebanese intelligence during Syria's military presence in Lebanon, said in a programme aired on Sunday that an elaborate scheme of torture, threats and bribery had forced him to testify to chief U.N. investigator Detlev Mehlis.
His appearance came after Damascus agreed to allow five Syrian officials to be questioned by Mehlis at U.N. offices in Vienna in connection with Hariri's February 14 assassination.
Hariri and other officials accused by Hosam could not immediately be reached for comment.
Hosam Taher Hosam, a Syrian who said he had worked with Syrian and Lebanese intelligence during Syria's military presence in Lebanon, said in a programme aired on Sunday that an elaborate scheme of torture, threats and bribery had forced him to testify to chief U.N. investigator Detlev Mehlis.
His appearance came after Damascus agreed to allow five Syrian officials to be questioned by Mehlis at U.N. offices in Vienna in connection with Hariri's February 14 assassination.
Hariri and other officials accused by Hosam could not immediately be reached for comment.
Beyond Wilkerson's Remark on Cheney as a War Criminal
Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Colin Powell at the State department, is in the news again. He first made headlines several weeks ago by accusing Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld of running a "cabal" that seized control of national security decision-making in the Bush administration prior to the Iraq war. This Tuesday, he's in the news for blasting Cheney for pushing for an anything-goes policy when it comes to detainees held by US forces. Asked during a BBC interview if he believes Cheney is guilty of war crimes for shoving aside the Geneva accords and pushing for harsh treatment (perhaps torture) of detainees, Wilkerson replied,
Well, that's an interesting question. It was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is--for whatever it's worth--an international crime as well.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Army 'ethics' inspector "supposedly" commits suicide while investigating private contractor fraud and human rights abuses in Iraq
November 27, 2005 -- Top US Army officer dealing with ethics issues in Iraq found dead last June in trailer near Baghdad Airport -- a victim of one of the Bush administration's infamous "suicides." According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, Col. Ted Westhusing, a professor at West Point and himself a West Point graduate, and the Army's top expert on military ethics, was found dead from a purported self-inflicted gunshot wound in his trailer near Baghdad Airport last June. At the time of his death, Westhusing was investigating a private military contractor (PMC), US Investigations Services (USIS) of Virginia, for fraud and human rights abuses. USIS is financially linked to The Carlyle Group, the same company that is accused by U.S. Special Forces vets who served in Iraq of shipping deadling binary VX nerve gas to Saddam Hussein in 1988 and 1989.
Westhusing's family and friends are rejecting the Army's determination that Westerlung took his own life. The Army based its decision on a "suicide" note said to be written in Westhusing's handwriting. Westhusing served with Special Forces units in Honduras, South Korea, and Italy.
Col. Ted Westhusing, suddenly commits "suicide" in Iraq while investigating private security contractor linked to The Carlyle Group. The road to the House of Bush is littered with the bodies of "suicide," plane crash, and gunshot victims.
Westhusing's family and friends are rejecting the Army's determination that Westerlung took his own life. The Army based its decision on a "suicide" note said to be written in Westhusing's handwriting. Westhusing served with Special Forces units in Honduras, South Korea, and Italy.
Col. Ted Westhusing, suddenly commits "suicide" in Iraq while investigating private security contractor linked to The Carlyle Group. The road to the House of Bush is littered with the bodies of "suicide," plane crash, and gunshot victims.
Torture flights involve Denmark, Iceland, and Turkey
November 26, 2005 -- CIA plane flew human cargo from Turkey to the United States via Copenhagen and Keflavik. Turkish press reports cite the movements last March of Path Corporation's (a CIA front company) Learjet (N221SG) from Istanbul, where it took on some prisoners handed over to the CIA by Turkish security forces. The plane took off from Istanbul on March 7, 2005 and landed at Copenhagen at 0900 local time, where it remained for 23 hours before departing at 0804 on March 8 for Keflavik, Iceland and onward to Stephenville, Newfoundland and then to an unknown destination in the United States. The revelations have prompted calls from legislators in Denmark, Iceland, and Turkey for a full explanation from the United States.
Keflavik records show the following movements [arrivals and departures] of N221SG:
Keflavik records show the following movements [arrivals and departures] of N221SG:
N221SG LJ35 - Learjet 35 Lending 31.03.2002 12:32 CYYT - ST. Johns
N221SG LJ35 - Learjet 35 Flugtak 31.03.2002 13:36 LFRB - Brest (Guipavas)
N221SG LJ35 - Learjet 35 Lending 20.05.2002 14:58 EGPF - Glasgow
N221SG LJ35 - Learjet 35 Flugtak 21.05.2002 09:07 CYQX - Gander
N221SG LJ35 - Learjet 35 Lending 08.03.2005 11:13 EKCH - Copenhagen
N221SG LJ35 - Learjet 35 Flugtak 09.03.2005 12:19 CYJT - Stephenville
Genocide tied to former South African security forces who are now serving as mercenaries in Iraq
WASHINGTON, PRETORIA, AND WINDHOEK -- November 26, 2005 -- Four mass graves discovered in Namibia -- genocide tied to former South African security forces who are now serving as mercenaries in Iraq. According to Finnish parliamentary sources, four mass graves were discovered beginning early this month near Eenhana, a former South African military base, 850 kilometers north of the national capital, Windhoek and near the Namibian border with Angola. It came as no surprise to the U.S. embassy in Windhoek since the Bush I administration had worked closely with the South African military occupation and closely followed the killing of around 27,000 South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) insurgents over a 30 year period in one of Africa’s longest running guerrilla wars along the Angola-Namibia border. This included the death count among the insurgents’ Far East Detachment deployed around the South African 54 Battalion bases of Eenhana, Elundu and Nkongo.
The U.S. embassy in Windhoek and Pretoria and both Bush administrations have kept the information on the mass graves away from the public for over a decade since Namibian independence in 1990. Many of the perpetrators of the killings are now being used by U.S. companies as security consultants in Iraq and elsewhere as part of the "Global War on Terrorism." Their number is an estimated 5000 strong in Iraq and 1400 elsewhere in south and central Asia. These apartheid contractors are involved in a daily working relationship with U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida and the coalition military bases across Iraq, including intelligence sharing and source development Some contractors are involved in interrogation work and training for the US military and CIA effort in both Iraq and Afghanistan. One company the South Africans reportedly work closely with is CACI, one of the firms implicated by the Taguba Report with the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Indeed, the South African mercenaries' former commanding officer in the South African Defense Forces (SADF), General Roelof ‘Witkop’ Badenhorst, who officiated over much of the military occupation in Namibia, was militarily trained in the United States prior to the Carter administration’s enforced weapons boycott and a ban on apartheid military personnel receiving training in the United States.
The Eenhana gravesites are believed, according to Swedish and Finnish diplomats, to contain as many as 2500 to 4000 dead Namibians. They noted that every South African military (SADF) base in northern Namibia has similar unmarked graveyards and that a systematic investigation and proper and respectful re-interring of the human remains is a necessity. The U.S. embassy in Windhoek and Condoleezza Rice, for their part, have remained silent.
Before retiring to a chicken ranch, Badenhorst commanded an apartheid hit squad called the Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB) that employed retired members of Koevoet and the apartheid security police on the SADF account to kill anti-apartheid activists and academicians in South Africa. Badenhorst falls under an immunity from persecution in Namibia under a general amnesty granted by the United Nations to all perpetrators of human rights and war crimes during the occupation. Badenhorst is entitled to visit the United States and he and his colleagues are regularly feted by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and US military attaches operating out of the US embassy in the Arcadia suburb in Pretoria.
The U.S. embassy in Windhoek and Pretoria and both Bush administrations have kept the information on the mass graves away from the public for over a decade since Namibian independence in 1990. Many of the perpetrators of the killings are now being used by U.S. companies as security consultants in Iraq and elsewhere as part of the "Global War on Terrorism." Their number is an estimated 5000 strong in Iraq and 1400 elsewhere in south and central Asia. These apartheid contractors are involved in a daily working relationship with U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida and the coalition military bases across Iraq, including intelligence sharing and source development Some contractors are involved in interrogation work and training for the US military and CIA effort in both Iraq and Afghanistan. One company the South Africans reportedly work closely with is CACI, one of the firms implicated by the Taguba Report with the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Indeed, the South African mercenaries' former commanding officer in the South African Defense Forces (SADF), General Roelof ‘Witkop’ Badenhorst, who officiated over much of the military occupation in Namibia, was militarily trained in the United States prior to the Carter administration’s enforced weapons boycott and a ban on apartheid military personnel receiving training in the United States.
The Eenhana gravesites are believed, according to Swedish and Finnish diplomats, to contain as many as 2500 to 4000 dead Namibians. They noted that every South African military (SADF) base in northern Namibia has similar unmarked graveyards and that a systematic investigation and proper and respectful re-interring of the human remains is a necessity. The U.S. embassy in Windhoek and Condoleezza Rice, for their part, have remained silent.
Before retiring to a chicken ranch, Badenhorst commanded an apartheid hit squad called the Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB) that employed retired members of Koevoet and the apartheid security police on the SADF account to kill anti-apartheid activists and academicians in South Africa. Badenhorst falls under an immunity from persecution in Namibia under a general amnesty granted by the United Nations to all perpetrators of human rights and war crimes during the occupation. Badenhorst is entitled to visit the United States and he and his colleagues are regularly feted by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and US military attaches operating out of the US embassy in the Arcadia suburb in Pretoria.
UK Media Gagged Over Contents of Bombing Memo - Targeting Al Jazeera
On Tuesday, Britain's Daily Mirror published an explosive story riddled with implications concerning the character and intent of the US president when pursuing his so-called 'war on terror', and perhaps, shedding light on the bombing of Al Jazeera's offices in both Kabul and Baghdad.
Twenty-four later, the Mirror and all other British papers had been subjected to a "gag order" under Section 5 the Official Secrets Act at pain of prosecution.
"The Daily Mirror was yesterday told not to publish further details from a memo marked 'Top Secret', which revealed that President Bush wanted to bomb an Arab TV station," wrote Kevin Maguire in Tuesday's edition of the paper.
"The gag by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith" the same attorney general who changed his pre-Iraq War legal opinion after being badgered by US government lawyers to do so "came nearly 24 hours after the Mirror informed Downing Street of its intention to reveal how Tony Blair talked Bush out of attacking satellite station Al Jazeera's HQ in friendly Qatar" in the spring of 2004.
The White House has characterized the Mirror's reporting as "outlandish", but if that's the case, one wonders why Downing Street has gone into crisis mode not only prosecuting two of its own civil servants David Keogh and Leo O'Connor under the Official Secrets Act but also threatening editors of British newspapers with prosecution an historical first according to Richard Taylor-Norton of the Guardian.
Twenty-four later, the Mirror and all other British papers had been subjected to a "gag order" under Section 5 the Official Secrets Act at pain of prosecution.
"The Daily Mirror was yesterday told not to publish further details from a memo marked 'Top Secret', which revealed that President Bush wanted to bomb an Arab TV station," wrote Kevin Maguire in Tuesday's edition of the paper.
"The gag by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith" the same attorney general who changed his pre-Iraq War legal opinion after being badgered by US government lawyers to do so "came nearly 24 hours after the Mirror informed Downing Street of its intention to reveal how Tony Blair talked Bush out of attacking satellite station Al Jazeera's HQ in friendly Qatar" in the spring of 2004.
The White House has characterized the Mirror's reporting as "outlandish", but if that's the case, one wonders why Downing Street has gone into crisis mode not only prosecuting two of its own civil servants David Keogh and Leo O'Connor under the Official Secrets Act but also threatening editors of British newspapers with prosecution an historical first according to Richard Taylor-Norton of the Guardian.
5 things you should know about Al Jazeera
- Al Jazeera was the first Arab station to ever broadcast interviews with Israeli officials.
- Al Jazeera has never broadcast a beheading.
- George W. Bush has recieved approximately 500 hours of airtime, while Bin Laden has received about 5 hours of airtime.
- Over 50 million people across the world watch Al Jazeera.
- The Al Jazeera websites are http://www.aljazeera.net (Arabic) and http://english.aljazeera.net (English). AlJazeera.com, AlJazeerah.info and all other variations have nothing to do with us.
There are two 'Lets bomb Al-Jazeera' memo's.
We have had our suspicions (argued below) that the Times memo and the Mirror memo citing Bush's plans to bomb al-Jazeera are entirely different documents confirmed by Peter Kilfoyle MP, who has seen both documents.
He was naturally reticent, but when we aked Peter if the source for the Mirror article was related to the 'prosecution' of and Keogh and O'Connor over last years leak to the Times he said:
Wholly different sources.
The Times used 'official' leaks; the current document remains top secret - they are livid it is out.
We have also had it confirmed that Keogh and O'Connor are only facing one set of charges, over one document.
If what was reported by the BBC prior to the Mirror story is correct; That Keogh and O'Connor are being prosecuted over the leak of the document 'Iraq in The Medium Term' as published in the Times [May 2004], and not for leaking the source of the Mirror article then the Bliar and his official spokesman would be leaving themselves wide open by describing the Mirror story as 'sub-judice'.
If the mirror is correct in it's assertion that Keogh and O'Connor are being charged over the source of their story [the transcript], then the story reported by the BBC about them being charged over the leaking of 'Iraq in the Medium Term' memo was a construct, a 'beard' to cover up the existence of the document refered by the Mirror.
This means our government must have pre planned and disseminated the lie [or spin if you prefer]; that Keogh and O'connor were being prosecuted over the leaking of the 'Iraq in the medium term' memo.
To cover up the existance of the 'Lets bomb Al-Jazeera' transcript?
A plan derailed by the Mirror obtaining a copy and publishing it's story.
The BBC ran the story about Keogh and O'Connor's prosecution on the 17th of November.
The Mirror state they approached the Government with their story about Bush wanting to Bomb al-Jazeera 24 hours before publication, on the 22nd of November.
This was four days after we 'learned' via the BBC that Keogh and O'Connor were to be charged with the leak of the 'Iraq in the Medium Term' memo. If this is the case, the Mirror story did not precipitate the lie [spin], it exposed it.
If we accept Peter Killfoyle's word (and I do) that the Times article and the Mirror article are from different sources, then Keogh and O'Connor cannot be facing charges over both leaks.
Either way we are being told lies by our government, and either wittingly or unwittingly by the mainstream media.
We hope to have more on this soon.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/trackback/612
He was naturally reticent, but when we aked Peter if the source for the Mirror article was related to the 'prosecution' of and Keogh and O'Connor over last years leak to the Times he said:
Wholly different sources.
The Times used 'official' leaks; the current document remains top secret - they are livid it is out.
We have also had it confirmed that Keogh and O'Connor are only facing one set of charges, over one document.
If what was reported by the BBC prior to the Mirror story is correct; That Keogh and O'Connor are being prosecuted over the leak of the document 'Iraq in The Medium Term' as published in the Times [May 2004], and not for leaking the source of the Mirror article then the Bliar and his official spokesman would be leaving themselves wide open by describing the Mirror story as 'sub-judice'.
If the mirror is correct in it's assertion that Keogh and O'Connor are being charged over the source of their story [the transcript], then the story reported by the BBC about them being charged over the leaking of 'Iraq in the Medium Term' memo was a construct, a 'beard' to cover up the existence of the document refered by the Mirror.
This means our government must have pre planned and disseminated the lie [or spin if you prefer]; that Keogh and O'connor were being prosecuted over the leaking of the 'Iraq in the medium term' memo.
To cover up the existance of the 'Lets bomb Al-Jazeera' transcript?
A plan derailed by the Mirror obtaining a copy and publishing it's story.
The BBC ran the story about Keogh and O'Connor's prosecution on the 17th of November.
The Mirror state they approached the Government with their story about Bush wanting to Bomb al-Jazeera 24 hours before publication, on the 22nd of November.
This was four days after we 'learned' via the BBC that Keogh and O'Connor were to be charged with the leak of the 'Iraq in the Medium Term' memo. If this is the case, the Mirror story did not precipitate the lie [spin], it exposed it.
If we accept Peter Killfoyle's word (and I do) that the Times article and the Mirror article are from different sources, then Keogh and O'Connor cannot be facing charges over both leaks.
Either way we are being told lies by our government, and either wittingly or unwittingly by the mainstream media.
We hope to have more on this soon.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/trackback/612
Savaging the Law in the Padilla Case
"The world must construe according to its wits; the court must construe according to the law."
-- Sir Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt
Jose Padilla was arrested in June of 2002 at Chicago's O' Hare Airport and taken into custody. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft made a dramatic appearance on national TV to announce the arrest, claiming that Padilla was a terrorist and was plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb" within the country. The fanfare surrounding the incident was intended to divert attention from the testimony of FBI special agent Colleen Rowley, whose damning account of government negligence in the 9-11 investigation threatened to dominate the news. It was later discovered that Padilla had been imprisoned three weeks earlier, but the announcement was delayed by the Justice Department in a cynical ploy to grab the headlines.
The government has never produced a shred of evidence that Padilla is guilty of any of the crimes for which he has been accused. Instead, the administration has used its unchecked power to indefinitely detain Padilla while refusing to charge him with a crime.
The Padilla case has never been about Jose Padilla, domestic terrorism, or any of the other spurious claims made by the government. It is, in fact, about enhancing presidential power, so the executive is no longer required to comply with the law. Padilla pits the language of right-wing think tanks, "enemy combatant", against habeas corpus, the cornerstone of the American justice system. So far, the made-up language of the Bush team has prevailed.
The moniker "enemy combatant" signifies the end of the rule of law. It means that the president can arbitrarily strip American citizens of their inalienable rights and deprive them of any method for challenging their detention. It sweeps away long-honored provisions of due process, equal justice, and the presumption of innocence.
Enemy combatant is the language of tyranny. It bestows of the president the absolute power of a monarch to ignore the law and lock up American citizens according to his own whims.
Iraq, Tony Blair and the truth
Tony Blair once said: "Most people who have dealt with me, think I'm a pretty straight sort of guy and I am." And he insists he played it straight over taking Britain to war with Iraq.
Last Summer the Prime Minister made an impassioned plea to draw a line under the Iraq issue, saying
"No one lied. No one made up the intelligence... Everyone genuinely tried to do their best in good faith for the country in circumstances of acute difficulty. That issue of good faith should now be at an end."
Last Summer the Prime Minister made an impassioned plea to draw a line under the Iraq issue, saying
"No one lied. No one made up the intelligence... Everyone genuinely tried to do their best in good faith for the country in circumstances of acute difficulty. That issue of good faith should now be at an end."
The only WMD in Iraq are US soldiers (updated)
Why does a US military ethicist commit suicide in Iraq? "A note found in his trailer seemed to offer clues. Written in what the Army determined was his handwriting, the colonel appeared to be struggling with a final question.
How is honor possible in a war like the one in Iraq?"
Ponder that as you read on.
In the buildup to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, US media regurgitated the White House promise that once US forces went into Iraq, they would discover stockpiles of WMDs.
When no such stockpiles were found, much to the mudding of America's reputation in the world, reports surfaced that the US military would plant WMDs in Iraq to justify their illegal invasion and occupation.
Indeed, they did do that. The US military is the WMD in Iraq. More than 160,000 US WMDs walk, breathe, murder, pillage, loot and rape among the Iraqi people.
The US military today is the greatest torturer in Iraq. The US military today is the greatest oppressor in Iraq. The US military today is the greatest terrorist in Iraq.
This is the truth as it is emerging day after day, unbearable fact after unbearable fact. No Dr Phil will rid the American people of the crimes for which they stand accused.
Beg forgiveness for the crimes committed in your name, paid for by your tax dollars, supported by your flag-waving brouhaha, and justified by your self-delusional holier-than-thou mediocrity.
How is honor possible in a war like the one in Iraq?"
Ponder that as you read on.
In the buildup to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, US media regurgitated the White House promise that once US forces went into Iraq, they would discover stockpiles of WMDs.
When no such stockpiles were found, much to the mudding of America's reputation in the world, reports surfaced that the US military would plant WMDs in Iraq to justify their illegal invasion and occupation.
Indeed, they did do that. The US military is the WMD in Iraq. More than 160,000 US WMDs walk, breathe, murder, pillage, loot and rape among the Iraqi people.
---
The US military today is the greatest torturer in Iraq. The US military today is the greatest oppressor in Iraq. The US military today is the greatest terrorist in Iraq.
This is the truth as it is emerging day after day, unbearable fact after unbearable fact. No Dr Phil will rid the American people of the crimes for which they stand accused.
Beg forgiveness for the crimes committed in your name, paid for by your tax dollars, supported by your flag-waving brouhaha, and justified by your self-delusional holier-than-thou mediocrity.
Regional Integration After the Collapse of the FTAA
From upsidedownworld.org
Although every Latin American government pays lip service to integration, taking the concrete steps needed to attain it is much more difficult than simply issuing declarations. In the wake of the collapse of the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), Latin America faces the dilemma of remaining divided and at the mercy of the interests of the great powers, or setting out on the road to continental unity. Even if the forces in favor of integration prevail, the type of integration to be constructed remains to be defined.Two centuries after gaining independence, Latin America's republics have been unable to overcome their Balkanization, one of the worst legacies of colonialism. In progressive circles and among social activists, the obstacles to Latin American unity are usually deemed to be the division sown by different forms of imperialism throughout history. But a closer look at what has happened over the past two centuries—from Simón Bolívar's failed attempt to unify the northern part of South America to José Artigas in the Río de la Plata--leads to the conclusion that the difficulties also stem from the conflicting interests of the many players squaring off on the regional chessboard.
Venezuela to Launch $100 Billion Investment Plan
President Hugo Chavez announced last night $100 Billion would be spent by the Venezuelan government in the country over the next 5 years. This $100 Billion will be on top of the governments existing spending. Chavez said, "With this $100 billion, or $20 billion a year, we are going to push special projects."
Speaking in the Venezuelan city of Maracaibo, Chavez outlined the spending proposal. The main aim is to make Venezuela’s infrastructure better, especially in the less developed parts of the country, away from Caracas. Projects suggested by Chavez include a new bridge across Lake Maracaibo, port development, and a railway to connect the city of Maracaibo with Barquisimeto.
Chavez said the money would come from different sources. $10 billion a year will come directly from the state oil firm PDVSA and $2 billion from Pequiven, the state petrochemicals company. Another $5 billion is from National Development Fund, FONDEN. This fund was set up this year with excess foreign currency reserves. The final $3 billion a year will come from the Miranda Fund. Chavez said, "The plan from 2006 to 2010 is for around $100 billion for those five years, and that is apart from the budget."
The $20 billion a year investment plan represents a two-thirds increase over Venezuela’s $30 billion central government budget for 2004.
Speaking in the Venezuelan city of Maracaibo, Chavez outlined the spending proposal. The main aim is to make Venezuela’s infrastructure better, especially in the less developed parts of the country, away from Caracas. Projects suggested by Chavez include a new bridge across Lake Maracaibo, port development, and a railway to connect the city of Maracaibo with Barquisimeto.
Chavez said the money would come from different sources. $10 billion a year will come directly from the state oil firm PDVSA and $2 billion from Pequiven, the state petrochemicals company. Another $5 billion is from National Development Fund, FONDEN. This fund was set up this year with excess foreign currency reserves. The final $3 billion a year will come from the Miranda Fund. Chavez said, "The plan from 2006 to 2010 is for around $100 billion for those five years, and that is apart from the budget."
The $20 billion a year investment plan represents a two-thirds increase over Venezuela’s $30 billion central government budget for 2004.
Corporatist Dems Won't Defeat Corporatist Repubs...and It Won't Change a Thing If They Did
What Do Democrats Stand For?
By RALPH NADER
With the Bush regime reeling from its own derelictions and falling in the national polls, the question most frequently put to the leading Democrats is, "What do the Democrats stand for?"
Last month, the Democratic Party and its political consultants came up with their proposed new slogan: "Together, America Can Do Better." That's reassuring, given the Republican mess of huge deficits, rising job exports, runaway corporate militarism, pounding the poor and re-enriching the rich and generally leaving Americans defenseless against concentrated greed and power.
Why not cast aside this slogan and replace it with a program that signifies that the Democrats "Stand With The People"? Stand with them for full Medicare for all. Stand with them for quality public services from schools to public transit to environmental protection to libraries.
Stand with them for an end to diverting their taxes into huge programs that subsidize, bailout and give away peoples' assets to large corporations.
Stand with them for consumer protection from rip-offs, from shredding traditional consumer rights to take companies who cheat or hurt them to courts, from taking the government cops off the corporate crime, fraud and abuse beats.
Stand with them and their rights vis-à-vis large corporations like Wal-Mart that exploit them and block their right to organize and fight back.
Stand with them in their desire to nurture their children's childhoods in decent, affordable housing, safe neighborhoods and good schools and clinics.
Stand with them with a people's budget directed to necessities of the American people receiving the benefits of tax dollars under a fair system of taxation.
Has the Democratic Party aggressively challenged as a party the notorious Patriot Act and its further abuse by the Bush regime? To the contrary, the Bush people in Congress are making most of the worst provisions permanent and adding a few more erosions of liberty.
Lastly, the Democratic Party is clueless when it comes to a Party's responsibility to continually strengthen the power of the people to direct and hold their government accountable through clean elections and facilities that enhance banding together as workers, consumers and taxpayers.
Come on, Democratic Party, "Stand With The People." Corporatist Democrats cannot defeat corporatist Republicans.
By RALPH NADER
With the Bush regime reeling from its own derelictions and falling in the national polls, the question most frequently put to the leading Democrats is, "What do the Democrats stand for?"
Last month, the Democratic Party and its political consultants came up with their proposed new slogan: "Together, America Can Do Better." That's reassuring, given the Republican mess of huge deficits, rising job exports, runaway corporate militarism, pounding the poor and re-enriching the rich and generally leaving Americans defenseless against concentrated greed and power.
Why not cast aside this slogan and replace it with a program that signifies that the Democrats "Stand With The People"? Stand with them for full Medicare for all. Stand with them for quality public services from schools to public transit to environmental protection to libraries.
Stand with them for an end to diverting their taxes into huge programs that subsidize, bailout and give away peoples' assets to large corporations.
Stand with them for consumer protection from rip-offs, from shredding traditional consumer rights to take companies who cheat or hurt them to courts, from taking the government cops off the corporate crime, fraud and abuse beats.
Stand with them and their rights vis-à-vis large corporations like Wal-Mart that exploit them and block their right to organize and fight back.
Stand with them in their desire to nurture their children's childhoods in decent, affordable housing, safe neighborhoods and good schools and clinics.
Stand with them with a people's budget directed to necessities of the American people receiving the benefits of tax dollars under a fair system of taxation.
Has the Democratic Party aggressively challenged as a party the notorious Patriot Act and its further abuse by the Bush regime? To the contrary, the Bush people in Congress are making most of the worst provisions permanent and adding a few more erosions of liberty.
Lastly, the Democratic Party is clueless when it comes to a Party's responsibility to continually strengthen the power of the people to direct and hold their government accountable through clean elections and facilities that enhance banding together as workers, consumers and taxpayers.
Come on, Democratic Party, "Stand With The People." Corporatist Democrats cannot defeat corporatist Republicans.
Three who see the war clearly
"I will not vote to give one more soldier to the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney war machine. I will not give one more dollar for a war riddled with conspicuous profiteering.
"Tonight I speak as one who has at times been the only Member of this Body at antiwar demonstrations calling for withdrawal. And I won't stop calling for withdrawal.
"I was opposed to this war before there was a war; I was opposed to the war during the war; and I am opposed to this war now - even though it's supposed to be over.
"A vote on war is the single most important vote we can make in this House. I understand the feelings of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who might be severely conflicted by the decision we have to make here tonight. But the facts of US occupation of Iraq are also very clear. The occupation is headed down a dead end because so long as US combat forces patrol Iraq, there will be an Iraqi insurgency against it.
"I urge that we pursue an orderly withdrawal from Iraq and pursue, along with our allies, a diplomatic solution to the situation in Iraq, supporting the aspirations of the Iraqi people through support for democratic processes."
(The full text of Rep. McKinney’s statement appears at the bottom of this page.)
"Tonight I speak as one who has at times been the only Member of this Body at antiwar demonstrations calling for withdrawal. And I won't stop calling for withdrawal.
"I was opposed to this war before there was a war; I was opposed to the war during the war; and I am opposed to this war now - even though it's supposed to be over.
"A vote on war is the single most important vote we can make in this House. I understand the feelings of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who might be severely conflicted by the decision we have to make here tonight. But the facts of US occupation of Iraq are also very clear. The occupation is headed down a dead end because so long as US combat forces patrol Iraq, there will be an Iraqi insurgency against it.
"I urge that we pursue an orderly withdrawal from Iraq and pursue, along with our allies, a diplomatic solution to the situation in Iraq, supporting the aspirations of the Iraqi people through support for democratic processes."
(The full text of Rep. McKinney’s statement appears at the bottom of this page.)
Key witness identify FBI/CIA involved in planning Anderson assassination
A key witness in the trial of those charged over the assassination of Venezuelan state prosecutor Danilo Anderson has identified FBI and CIA agents as being involved in planning his death. Anderson, who was killed by a car bomb on November 18 last year, was leading the investigation into the participants of the April 2002 military coup that briefly overthrew the democratically elected left-wing President Hugo Chavez.
The US government, angered by Chavez' attacks on US foreign policies and his measures that benefit the poor rather than corporate interests, openly supported the coup, and the US ambassador at the time, Charles Shapiro, was seen hugging Pedro Carmona, the head of Venezuela’s main chamber of commerce, who was installed as dictator before being forced out by a popular uprising two days later.
This year the Venezuelan government has repeatedly accused the US government of plotting to kill Chavez, insisting it has evidence of such a plot. The US, which has made repeated verbal attacks on Chavez, has denied the accusation. However, if the evidence provided by Vasquez De Armas is correct, then it reveals that as early as 2003 the US was actively engaged in a plot to carry out terrorist attacks inside Venezuela with the aim of destabilising and bringing down the government, including potentially the assassination of Chavez himself.
Given the US's history of plotting against governments around the world that it sees as a threat to its interests, such a scenario would come as no surprise.
The US government, angered by Chavez' attacks on US foreign policies and his measures that benefit the poor rather than corporate interests, openly supported the coup, and the US ambassador at the time, Charles Shapiro, was seen hugging Pedro Carmona, the head of Venezuela’s main chamber of commerce, who was installed as dictator before being forced out by a popular uprising two days later.
...
This year the Venezuelan government has repeatedly accused the US government of plotting to kill Chavez, insisting it has evidence of such a plot. The US, which has made repeated verbal attacks on Chavez, has denied the accusation. However, if the evidence provided by Vasquez De Armas is correct, then it reveals that as early as 2003 the US was actively engaged in a plot to carry out terrorist attacks inside Venezuela with the aim of destabilising and bringing down the government, including potentially the assassination of Chavez himself.
Given the US's history of plotting against governments around the world that it sees as a threat to its interests, such a scenario would come as no surprise.
US vs. Latin America -- No Neutral Corner
Mediocrity detests talent. On one level, the recent exchange of abuse between Lilliputian Vicente Fox and Hugo Chavez reflects no more than that. Chavez looms large over Fox for many reasons, not least because 80 years ago Mexico under President Calles defied the United States the way Chavez does now. Chavez seems likely to succeed where Calles failed. Fox's hostility to Chavez probably springs as much from Mexico's history and his National Action Party's (PAN) roots as to his collaboration with the Bush regime.
Calles tried to impose Mexico's revolutionary constitution of 1917, expropriating foreign oil companies and dismantling the influence of the Catholic Church. As well as the hostility of foreign petrol interests and the Cristero armed rebellion, he also faced the hostility of aggressive international creditors. PAN was born out of those years, a reactionary, elitist, pro-church political movement hostile to the Mexican revolution. Sharp political antagonism between Hugo Chavez and Vicente Fox is hardly a surprise.
Fox criticized both Argentina's President Kirchner and Venezuela's President Chavez at the recent Summit of the Americas in Argentina's Mar de Plata. Both Kirchner and Chavez responded in kind. But whereas Fox mended fences fast with Kirchner, he and his advisers pushed the spat with Hugo Chavez to the point where ambassadors of both countries were withdrawn, leaving relations between the two governments managed at the level of charge d'affaires.
The agenda at the Mar de Plata summit was supposed to be primarily about employment. Fox wanted to force discussion of the Bush regime's continental trade project, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Summit host Nestor Kirchner refused. Outside the official summit engagements, President Chavez attended a huge rally where he declared the FTAA dead and buried. His speech was enthusiastically received by tens of thousands of people.
Venezuela is addressing in successful and practical ways its problems of poverty and inequality within a continent wide strategy based on sovereign integration. By contrast, like all the other trade-in-your-sovereignty politicians in Latin America, Mexico's current leaders have no idea how to overcome poverty and inequality. They tag along on the shabby coat tails of the grandiose derelict once recognizable as the United States, failing ever more noticeably to meet their people's basic needs.
Calles tried to impose Mexico's revolutionary constitution of 1917, expropriating foreign oil companies and dismantling the influence of the Catholic Church. As well as the hostility of foreign petrol interests and the Cristero armed rebellion, he also faced the hostility of aggressive international creditors. PAN was born out of those years, a reactionary, elitist, pro-church political movement hostile to the Mexican revolution. Sharp political antagonism between Hugo Chavez and Vicente Fox is hardly a surprise.
Fox criticized both Argentina's President Kirchner and Venezuela's President Chavez at the recent Summit of the Americas in Argentina's Mar de Plata. Both Kirchner and Chavez responded in kind. But whereas Fox mended fences fast with Kirchner, he and his advisers pushed the spat with Hugo Chavez to the point where ambassadors of both countries were withdrawn, leaving relations between the two governments managed at the level of charge d'affaires.
The agenda at the Mar de Plata summit was supposed to be primarily about employment. Fox wanted to force discussion of the Bush regime's continental trade project, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Summit host Nestor Kirchner refused. Outside the official summit engagements, President Chavez attended a huge rally where he declared the FTAA dead and buried. His speech was enthusiastically received by tens of thousands of people.
Venezuela is addressing in successful and practical ways its problems of poverty and inequality within a continent wide strategy based on sovereign integration. By contrast, like all the other trade-in-your-sovereignty politicians in Latin America, Mexico's current leaders have no idea how to overcome poverty and inequality. They tag along on the shabby coat tails of the grandiose derelict once recognizable as the United States, failing ever more noticeably to meet their people's basic needs.
With Iraqi resistance winning, War hawks bitterly debate what to do
In March 2003 the Bush administration gave the U.S. military a mission impossible—to colonize Iraq. Almost three years later, under the sustained campaign of Iraqi resistance and the growing opposition at home, that mission has gone from quagmire to crisis.
The steady stream of setbacks is forcing the high command to demand changes of policy. But the commanders in charge of the war are unable to get a hearing from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal. And they have been forced to take their battles to the halls of Congress.
The steady stream of setbacks is forcing the high command to demand changes of policy. But the commanders in charge of the war are unable to get a hearing from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal. And they have been forced to take their battles to the halls of Congress.
Torture and the Empire - Who We Are
George W. Bush returned from a brief but difficult November learning foray in Latin America: "Wow, Brazil is big." Meanwhile, U.S. citizens grew impatient with his performance. CBS polls rated him at 35% approval in early November. Even his supporters acknowledge that Bush's policies have created enormous ill will throughout the world. More ethically worrisome, cried his critics, those policies don't represent who we really are.
Most Americans, for example, abhor torture. So, on November 7, Bush flatly declared: "We don't torture"--just as front page stories appeared with details of how the Pentagon charged five U.S members of an elite Army unit with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq.
Most Americans, for example, abhor torture. So, on November 7, Bush flatly declared: "We don't torture"--just as front page stories appeared with details of how the Pentagon charged five U.S members of an elite Army unit with kicking and punching detainees in Iraq.
They are all Saddam now
Two days ago, I was bewildered at Hazim Shaalan (former defence minister) who lambasted the Iranian government of Iraq for everything imaginable.
He also alluded to Iran's growing run of the affairs in Iraq.
Today, Iyad Allawi (who headed the cabinet Shaalan was a member of), came out and said human rights abuses in Iraq were as rampant, as violent, as vicious and as inhuman as during Saddam Hussein's rule of the country.
Nah, really?
"People are doing the same as (in) Saddam's time and worse," Allawi said in an interview published in Britain on Sunday.
"It is an appropriate comparison," Allawi told The Observer newspaper. "People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things."
You can read more of this remarkable turn of events (huh?) at CNN.
But wait just a fucking minute. While we can easily blame the Badr filth and their Iranian backers (don't forget the murderous Daawa), let's not forget the role of the cavalier Westerner.
Whether it be the valiant US soldier cutting down women and children, or the private military contractors who cut down everyone, Iraqi civilians are being massacred almost en masse by the same capricious outfits who claim to be protecting them.
In a report published in The Telegraph, there is "sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis."
Apparently, these hired mercenaries shoot at Iraqi cars at a maddening pace and regularity.
Could the western armies and their mercenary cohorts be so devoid of care for the people they were meant to liberate?
Oh, that's right, blame Zarqawi for this one. And the next one, and the next one.
After Allawi's outburst, anything is possible. I wonder if the Iraqis who opposed Saddam will one day mourn his ouster.
Foreseeable, yes. We already hear murmurs in Iraq how things were better under Saddam.
By the way, Allawi has flooded Iraq with hundreds of thousands of political posters advertising his coalition (the 187-year old Adnan Pachachi is a member) and calling on Iraqis to vote for him.
A former Baathist hitman who received orders from Saddam and wanted the Baathists back in government against the diaperheads in Qum and the embezzler Chalabi.
Hmm...we are becoming a democracy! It's just like America! Different parties, same manipulative shit.
He also alluded to Iran's growing run of the affairs in Iraq.
Today, Iyad Allawi (who headed the cabinet Shaalan was a member of), came out and said human rights abuses in Iraq were as rampant, as violent, as vicious and as inhuman as during Saddam Hussein's rule of the country.
Nah, really?
"People are doing the same as (in) Saddam's time and worse," Allawi said in an interview published in Britain on Sunday.
"It is an appropriate comparison," Allawi told The Observer newspaper. "People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things."
You can read more of this remarkable turn of events (huh?) at CNN.
But wait just a fucking minute. While we can easily blame the Badr filth and their Iranian backers (don't forget the murderous Daawa), let's not forget the role of the cavalier Westerner.
Whether it be the valiant US soldier cutting down women and children, or the private military contractors who cut down everyone, Iraqi civilians are being massacred almost en masse by the same capricious outfits who claim to be protecting them.
In a report published in The Telegraph, there is "sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis."
Apparently, these hired mercenaries shoot at Iraqi cars at a maddening pace and regularity.
Could the western armies and their mercenary cohorts be so devoid of care for the people they were meant to liberate?
Oh, that's right, blame Zarqawi for this one. And the next one, and the next one.
After Allawi's outburst, anything is possible. I wonder if the Iraqis who opposed Saddam will one day mourn his ouster.
Foreseeable, yes. We already hear murmurs in Iraq how things were better under Saddam.
By the way, Allawi has flooded Iraq with hundreds of thousands of political posters advertising his coalition (the 187-year old Adnan Pachachi is a member) and calling on Iraqis to vote for him.
A former Baathist hitman who received orders from Saddam and wanted the Baathists back in government against the diaperheads in Qum and the embezzler Chalabi.
Hmm...we are becoming a democracy! It's just like America! Different parties, same manipulative shit.
US Moves to Thwart Spain's Military Equipment Sale to Venezuela
In the most recent manifestation of the rift between Washington and Caracas, United States officials reiterated their objection to a Spanish defense contractor's planned sale of at least 10 military transportation aircraft and 8 patrol boats to Venezuela.
"We have not decided yet whether or not to grant our permission for obtaining that technology," the US ambassador to Spain, Eduardo Aguirre, said yesterday in Madrid, according to the Los Angeles Times. "We hope in the end that the transaction will not be carried out."
Because the equipment contains U.S. parts, the U.S. can veto the sale of the boats and aircraft. Venezuela and Spain have suggested they may change the U.S. technology to European components in order to proceed with the deal. However, according to unnamed sources in the Spanish newspaper El Pais, the added cost would make the deal unprofitable. According to Venezuela's ambassador to Spain, Arevalo Mendez Romero, because of available European technology, a U.S. veto "is of no concern."
Saddam on trial: Ten reasons justice may not be served
- DETENTION BEFORE TRIAL
- DEATH PENALTY
- A SHOW TRIAL
- THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE COURT
- THE JUDGES
- DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE
- THE CHARGES
- THE STANDARD OF PROOF
- INTERNATIONAL INPUT
- DEATHS OF LAWYERS
''Forum for the Future Ends in Discord''
Intended to promote Washington's policy of democratizing the Middle East through encouraging economic and political reforms, the Forum for the Future was held in Manama, Bahrain on November 11-12, 2005. The meetings were attended by the foreign ministers of 30 states in the immediate and surrounding regions and the G8 industrial powers, and representatives of international and nongovernmental organizations. Within the immediate region, only Iran boycotted the Forum.
Washington had anticipated confidently that the meetings would produce a joint declaration committing the participating Middle Eastern states to its reform program, but its expectations were dashed when Cairo refused to sign on, objecting to a provision in Washington's package of financial incentives that would have permitted funds to flow to N.G.O.s that were not registered with governments. With Egypt -- which has more than half the population of the Arab world, is a key strategic ally of the U.S. and a major power center in the region, and receives the most foreign aid from the U.S. (US$2 billion per year) after Israel -- bailing out of the bargain, there could be no credible declaration, so the document was shelved.
Washington had anticipated confidently that the meetings would produce a joint declaration committing the participating Middle Eastern states to its reform program, but its expectations were dashed when Cairo refused to sign on, objecting to a provision in Washington's package of financial incentives that would have permitted funds to flow to N.G.O.s that were not registered with governments. With Egypt -- which has more than half the population of the Arab world, is a key strategic ally of the U.S. and a major power center in the region, and receives the most foreign aid from the U.S. (US$2 billion per year) after Israel -- bailing out of the bargain, there could be no credible declaration, so the document was shelved.
World's Growing Thirst for Oil Boosts Global Tensions
Oil is a finite resource coveted not just by the industrial West but by growing economies around the world, most notably China.
China used about 8.2 percent of the world's daily oil production in 2004, but it's going to need considerably more in years to come to power its economic expansion.
And here's the rub: Most of it will have to be imported.
Increased competition has already contributed to price spikes in the United States, where nearly 25 percent of the world's oil is consumed. But the threat of production peaking and then declining in years or decades to come has even broader implications for economic and foreign policy.
The big question is how the world would embrace such a decline. By allowing market forces to peacefully allocate the dwindling resources until they're not needed or not available? Or would countries, particularly the United States and China, go to war over access to oil fields around the globe?
Friction points are already evident.
China used about 8.2 percent of the world's daily oil production in 2004, but it's going to need considerably more in years to come to power its economic expansion.
And here's the rub: Most of it will have to be imported.
Increased competition has already contributed to price spikes in the United States, where nearly 25 percent of the world's oil is consumed. But the threat of production peaking and then declining in years or decades to come has even broader implications for economic and foreign policy.
The big question is how the world would embrace such a decline. By allowing market forces to peacefully allocate the dwindling resources until they're not needed or not available? Or would countries, particularly the United States and China, go to war over access to oil fields around the globe?
Friction points are already evident.
Anticipating a Terrorist Attack on Congress
Will there be a terrorist attack on Congress?
The strategy to militarize the country is moving forward as planned despite apparent setbacks in Iraq. As the Washington Post reported on Nov. 27 the Dept of Defense is expanding its domestic surveillance activity to allow Pentagon spies to track down and "investigate crimes within the United States".
An alarmed Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore) said, "We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without a congressional hearing".
Is this the first time that the naïve Wyden realized that the war on terror is actually directed at the American people?
The strategy to militarize the country is moving forward as planned despite apparent setbacks in Iraq. As the Washington Post reported on Nov. 27 the Dept of Defense is expanding its domestic surveillance activity to allow Pentagon spies to track down and "investigate crimes within the United States".
An alarmed Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore) said, "We are deputizing the military to spy on law-abiding Americans in America. This is a huge leap without a congressional hearing".
Is this the first time that the naïve Wyden realized that the war on terror is actually directed at the American people?
Dumbing Down the Audience by Ralph Nader
The debate between progressives and corporatists over the state of the mass media goes like this-the former say fewer and fewer giant media conglomerates control more of the print and electronic outlets while the latter respond by saying there has never been more choices for listeners (radio), viewers (television) and readers (magazines, newsletters and newspapers combined).
Progressives add that half a dozen big companies, which control so many media, lead to a sameness of entertainment, news and advertisement overload. Corporatists counter by saying that there are more and more specialized media available for just about every taste in the audience.
I want to take a different approach here from my personal experience with the fourth estate and appearing before national audiences. There has been a non-stop decline in access for serious subjects of contemporary importance, especially those topics that challenge corporate power.
Progressives add that half a dozen big companies, which control so many media, lead to a sameness of entertainment, news and advertisement overload. Corporatists counter by saying that there are more and more specialized media available for just about every taste in the audience.
I want to take a different approach here from my personal experience with the fourth estate and appearing before national audiences. There has been a non-stop decline in access for serious subjects of contemporary importance, especially those topics that challenge corporate power.
Fascism then. Fascism now?
When people think of fascism, they imagine Rows of goose-stepping storm troopers and puffy-chested dictators. What they don't see is the economic and political process that leads to the nightmare.
Assassinations...
I hate suicide bombers. I hate the way my heart beats chaotically every time I pass by a suspicious-looking car- and every car looks suspicious these days. I hate the way Sunni mosques and Shia mosques are being targeted right and left. I hate seeing the bodies pile up in hospitals, teeth clenched in pain, wailing men and women...
But I completely understand how people get there.
One victim was holding his daughter. "The gunmen told the girl to move then shot the father," said a relative.
Would anyone be surprised if the abovementioned daughter grew up with a hate so vicious and a need for revenge so large, it dominated everything else in her life?
Or three days ago when American and Iraqi troops fired at a family traveling from one city to another, killing five members of the family.
"They are all children. They are not terrorists," shouted one relative. "Look at the children," he said as a morgue official carried a small dead child into a refrigeration room.
But I completely understand how people get there.
One victim was holding his daughter. "The gunmen told the girl to move then shot the father," said a relative.
Would anyone be surprised if the abovementioned daughter grew up with a hate so vicious and a need for revenge so large, it dominated everything else in her life?
Or three days ago when American and Iraqi troops fired at a family traveling from one city to another, killing five members of the family.
"They are all children. They are not terrorists," shouted one relative. "Look at the children," he said as a morgue official carried a small dead child into a refrigeration room.
Who needs Al-Qaeda to recruit 'terrorists' when you have Da'awa, SCIRI and an American occupation?
Revolution
President Bush was recently criticized for not being forceful enough in denouncing Chinese human rights abuses during a trip there. Excuse me? This is the torture president. How on earth can the United States preach to anyone in the world about human rights or the rule of law, or morality? In even raising the question, has Mr. Bush abandoned any claim to sanity? If it is wrong for China to abuse human rights (and it's true that their record is horrible) how is it acceptable for the US in Iraq to sexually torture imprisoned children as a means to coerce their (probably completely innocent) parents to disclose information they most likely don’t have?
There is within the mythology America finds so indispensable something so sick and downright evil, but so pervasive that even after all the revelations of torture and rape and murder sanctioned at the highest levels of government, even now the numbness persists, and writers still insist on thinking that America is somehow a shining example of decency to a world which needs its sanctimonious preaching. Who in their right mind would want to emulate America in this century? Who on earth would want to be an American in this darkest of times? America is like a born-again Christian fundamentalist--mean, ignorant, full of hate and rage and superstition, but utterly convinced of his own righteousness. In short, insane. Dangerously insane.
In Iraq American sanctioned and trained elements of the Iraqi military are back to using electric drills on 'insurgents', an old Saddam phenomenon. Drill for oil, drill for blood. They'll drill your knee, or your arm, or your head. You are innocent. Doesn't matter. Think George cares? White phosphorous. Depleted uranium. Shock and awe. Cluster bombs. Etcetera. Where are those photographs and videos of children undergoing torture at Abu Grahaib that a judge ordered released months ago? Whatever happened to the rule of law? Where did accountability go? Where the hell is the outrage? Why are Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice and a bunch of others not in jail cells? Where is the outrage?
For those who think that change is coming in '06 or '08, think again—these people cannot relinquish power, whatever further lies and outrages they must commit to retain it. There are simply too many crimes against humanity and war crimes for which to avoid accountability at all costs. Lives depend on it. Many more crimes are yet to be reported. Do not for a moment consider that this bunch would not, if they saw it in their interests, engineer another deadly 911 incident (blamed on Muslims, of course) to once again terrorize the populace into meek submission. It may be pathologically manipulative and barbaric, but that's Straussian politics. To them it's not only acceptable, it's business as usual. It's probably going to happen, as Bush's numbers continue to decline.
America has seen bad times--slavery, the civil war, McCarthyism and communist hysteria, never-ending racism, Nixon and Kissinger, the unheralded horror of Reagan, but Bush has brought disaster on a completely different level. Bush is a dupe, if an evil one, but there are truly ugly, nasty people pulling his strings. Nothing short of a second American revolution is going to rescue your nation. Even now Bush is making plans to violently stop such a thing from happening. We're going to see once and for all if Americans stand for the vaunted values to which they give such eloquent and loud lip service. If so, then I fear they will have to pay in blood. It’s come to that. I’m sorry.
John S. Hatch is a Vancouver writer and film-maker. He can be reached at johnhatch@canada.com www.jhatchfilms.citymax.com
There is within the mythology America finds so indispensable something so sick and downright evil, but so pervasive that even after all the revelations of torture and rape and murder sanctioned at the highest levels of government, even now the numbness persists, and writers still insist on thinking that America is somehow a shining example of decency to a world which needs its sanctimonious preaching. Who in their right mind would want to emulate America in this century? Who on earth would want to be an American in this darkest of times? America is like a born-again Christian fundamentalist--mean, ignorant, full of hate and rage and superstition, but utterly convinced of his own righteousness. In short, insane. Dangerously insane.
In Iraq American sanctioned and trained elements of the Iraqi military are back to using electric drills on 'insurgents', an old Saddam phenomenon. Drill for oil, drill for blood. They'll drill your knee, or your arm, or your head. You are innocent. Doesn't matter. Think George cares? White phosphorous. Depleted uranium. Shock and awe. Cluster bombs. Etcetera. Where are those photographs and videos of children undergoing torture at Abu Grahaib that a judge ordered released months ago? Whatever happened to the rule of law? Where did accountability go? Where the hell is the outrage? Why are Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice and a bunch of others not in jail cells? Where is the outrage?
For those who think that change is coming in '06 or '08, think again—these people cannot relinquish power, whatever further lies and outrages they must commit to retain it. There are simply too many crimes against humanity and war crimes for which to avoid accountability at all costs. Lives depend on it. Many more crimes are yet to be reported. Do not for a moment consider that this bunch would not, if they saw it in their interests, engineer another deadly 911 incident (blamed on Muslims, of course) to once again terrorize the populace into meek submission. It may be pathologically manipulative and barbaric, but that's Straussian politics. To them it's not only acceptable, it's business as usual. It's probably going to happen, as Bush's numbers continue to decline.
America has seen bad times--slavery, the civil war, McCarthyism and communist hysteria, never-ending racism, Nixon and Kissinger, the unheralded horror of Reagan, but Bush has brought disaster on a completely different level. Bush is a dupe, if an evil one, but there are truly ugly, nasty people pulling his strings. Nothing short of a second American revolution is going to rescue your nation. Even now Bush is making plans to violently stop such a thing from happening. We're going to see once and for all if Americans stand for the vaunted values to which they give such eloquent and loud lip service. If so, then I fear they will have to pay in blood. It’s come to that. I’m sorry.
John S. Hatch is a Vancouver writer and film-maker. He can be reached at johnhatch@canada.com www.jhatchfilms.citymax.com
America is caught in a conflict between science and God
It isn't very often that a mere visit to an exhibition counts as a political act, but that's certainly how it feels these days as you mount the steps of the American Museum of Natural History, overlooking Central Park. Admittedly, there wasn't a protester in sight when I visited this week, and staff have not yet faced picket lines or hate mail. This is, after all, New York City not Salt Lake City. But organisers of the museum's terrific new exhibition on the life and work of Charles Darwin acknowledge that theirs is an explicit gesture of defiance towards an anti-scientific Christian fundamentalism that is again running fast and deep in contemporary America.
Reflect on this. Only one out of four Americans believes life on earth today has evolved through natural selection. Three-quarters of Americans, in other words, still do not accept what Darwin established 150 years ago. Just under half of all Americans believe the natural world was created in its present form by God in six days as described in Genesis. They believe, incredibly, that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
A News Revolution Has Begun
The Indian writer Vandana Shiva has called for an "insurrection of subjugated knowledge." The insurrection is well under way. In trying to make sense of a dangerous world, millions of people are turning away from the traditional sources of news and information and toward the world wide web, convinced that mainstream journalism is the voice of rampant power. The great scandal of Iraq has accelerated this. In the United States, several senior broadcasters have confessed that had they challenged and exposed the lies told about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, instead of amplifying and justifying them, the invasion might not have happened.
The evidence is voluminous, provided by refugees, doctors, human rights groups and a few courageous foreigners whose work appears only on the internet. In April last year, Jo Wilding, a young British law student, filed a series of extraordinary eye-witness reports from inside the city. So fine are they that I have included one of her pieces in an anthology of the best investigative journalism.* Her film, "A Letter to the Prime Minister," made inside Fallujah with Julia Guest, has not been shown on British television. In addition, Dahr Jamail, an independent Lebanese-American journalist who has produced some of the best frontline reporting I have read, described all the "things" the BBC failed to "see." His interviews with doctors, local officials and families are on the internet, together with the work of those who have exposed the widespread use of uranium-tipped shells, another banned weapon, and cluster bombs, which Campbell would say are "technically legal." Try these web sites: dahrjamail.com, zmag.org, antiwar.com, truthout.org, indymedia.org.uk, internationalclearinghouse.info, counterpunch.org, voicesuk.org. There are many more.
The evidence is voluminous, provided by refugees, doctors, human rights groups and a few courageous foreigners whose work appears only on the internet. In April last year, Jo Wilding, a young British law student, filed a series of extraordinary eye-witness reports from inside the city. So fine are they that I have included one of her pieces in an anthology of the best investigative journalism.* Her film, "A Letter to the Prime Minister," made inside Fallujah with Julia Guest, has not been shown on British television. In addition, Dahr Jamail, an independent Lebanese-American journalist who has produced some of the best frontline reporting I have read, described all the "things" the BBC failed to "see." His interviews with doctors, local officials and families are on the internet, together with the work of those who have exposed the widespread use of uranium-tipped shells, another banned weapon, and cluster bombs, which Campbell would say are "technically legal." Try these web sites: dahrjamail.com, zmag.org, antiwar.com, truthout.org, indymedia.org.uk, internationalclearinghouse.info, counterpunch.org, voicesuk.org. There are many more.
"Each word," wrote Jean-Paul Sartre, "has an echo. So does each silence."
Life Goes On in Fallujah's Rubble
A year after the U.S.-led "Operation Phantom Fury" damaged or destroyed 36,000 homes, 60 schools and 65 mosques in Fallujah, Iraq, residents inside the city continue to suffer from lack of compensation, slow reconstruction and high rates of illness.
The Study Centre for Human Rights and Democracy based in Fallujah (SCHRD) estimates the number of people killed in the city during the U.S.-led operation in October and November 2004 at 4,000 to 6,000, most of them civilians. Mass graves were dug on the outskirts of the city for thousands of the bodies.
Last week, the Pentagon confirmed that it had used white phosphorus, a chemical that bursts into flame upon contact with air, inside Fallujah as an "incendiary weapon" against insurgents. Washington denies that it is a chemical weapon, as charged by some critics, and that it was used against civilians.
The Study Centre for Human Rights and Democracy based in Fallujah (SCHRD) estimates the number of people killed in the city during the U.S.-led operation in October and November 2004 at 4,000 to 6,000, most of them civilians. Mass graves were dug on the outskirts of the city for thousands of the bodies.
Last week, the Pentagon confirmed that it had used white phosphorus, a chemical that bursts into flame upon contact with air, inside Fallujah as an "incendiary weapon" against insurgents. Washington denies that it is a chemical weapon, as charged by some critics, and that it was used against civilians.
Bush Game on Padilla May Backfire
The legal maneuvering by the Bush administration is "a remarkable game of musical courtrooms," said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute for Military Justice. "The Justice Department cannot continue changing course each time action from the courts is imminent," according to Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Bill Goodman, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, characterizes the charges against Padilla as a "stale conspiracy" and predicts the government will try to have Padilla's petition to the Supreme Court dismissed as moot. "In my judgment," Goodman said on Democracy Now!, "that borders on abuse of process by the Justice Department. What they are doing is manipulating the process in order to sustain an opinion that says the President can virtually shred the Constitution ... and saying someone who had been held in violation of constitutional principles because he was such a danger to the United States because of these allegations, now they're irrelevant. It's shocking. It's an outrage."
Jose Padilla's case may end up being a lose-lose situation for the Bush administration if the Supreme Court decides to go ahead and hear Padilla's petition anyway. Depending on the composition of the high court after Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing, the Court could place some limits on the President's power to indefinitely detain a US citizen arrested on American soil and held as an "enemy combatant." Padilla could refuse a plea bargain and testify about how he was treated - or mistreated - while in custody. And the defense may have a meritorious motion to dismiss the criminal charges because the government denied Padilla due process by its delay in filing the charges against him.
Bill Goodman, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, characterizes the charges against Padilla as a "stale conspiracy" and predicts the government will try to have Padilla's petition to the Supreme Court dismissed as moot. "In my judgment," Goodman said on Democracy Now!, "that borders on abuse of process by the Justice Department. What they are doing is manipulating the process in order to sustain an opinion that says the President can virtually shred the Constitution ... and saying someone who had been held in violation of constitutional principles because he was such a danger to the United States because of these allegations, now they're irrelevant. It's shocking. It's an outrage."
Jose Padilla's case may end up being a lose-lose situation for the Bush administration if the Supreme Court decides to go ahead and hear Padilla's petition anyway. Depending on the composition of the high court after Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing, the Court could place some limits on the President's power to indefinitely detain a US citizen arrested on American soil and held as an "enemy combatant." Padilla could refuse a plea bargain and testify about how he was treated - or mistreated - while in custody. And the defense may have a meritorious motion to dismiss the criminal charges because the government denied Padilla due process by its delay in filing the charges against him.
Bob Woodward is a liar, a liar on behalf of his powerful friends
The Washington Post's Bob Woodward is the most recent example of a reporter who has turned out to be nothing more than a Bush spokesman. Woodward made a name for himself on the Watergate story more than 30 years ago. His reputation as the crusading, hard-hitting journalist may have been deserved in the 1970s but Woodward profited from that image years later than he should have. Despite years of being a Washington insider who long ago lost his journalistic truth seeking inclinations, Woodward's name still gave him credibility.
Now we know that Woodward is a liar, a liar on behalf of his powerful friends. Woodward is one of the journalists who were given the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame in an effort to discredit her husband, a critic of Bush administration policy. He never said so until he was deposed under oath by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
Patrick Fitzgerald has done the public a great service as he looks under rocks and puts the likes of Miller and Woodward on the hot seat. On the previously mentioned segment of Larry King Live, Woodward was asked about a rumor that he had a "bombshell" to report on the Plame case. He responded, "I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker. I'm sorry." Woodward definitely had a bombshell and he saw it every time he looked in the mirror.
It isn't enough to say that the American corporate media are biased. Their first priority is staying in the good graces of the people running this country. Some act out of cynicism, while others, like Sulzburger, clearly feel an affinity with their policies and want to help promote them. It all means that the citizenry come last. If we get the truth it will be because of "junkyard dog" prosecutors, not because the media is doing its job.
Now we know that Woodward is a liar, a liar on behalf of his powerful friends. Woodward is one of the journalists who were given the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame in an effort to discredit her husband, a critic of Bush administration policy. He never said so until he was deposed under oath by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
Patrick Fitzgerald has done the public a great service as he looks under rocks and puts the likes of Miller and Woodward on the hot seat. On the previously mentioned segment of Larry King Live, Woodward was asked about a rumor that he had a "bombshell" to report on the Plame case. He responded, "I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker. I'm sorry." Woodward definitely had a bombshell and he saw it every time he looked in the mirror.
It isn't enough to say that the American corporate media are biased. Their first priority is staying in the good graces of the people running this country. Some act out of cynicism, while others, like Sulzburger, clearly feel an affinity with their policies and want to help promote them. It all means that the citizenry come last. If we get the truth it will be because of "junkyard dog" prosecutors, not because the media is doing its job.
"To Have the Only Option That of Killing 80 Million People is the Height of Immorality"
The nuclear war plans that constitute the Single Integrated Operational Plan have been among the most closely guarded secrets in the U.S. government. The handful of substantive documents on the first SIOP -- SIOP-62 (for fiscal year 1962) -- that have been the source of knowledge about it have been declassified, reclassified, re-released, and then closed again, fortunately not before key items had been copied at the archives.
Welcome to Camp Quagmire - The Fall of the One-Party Empire
A "tour" of the American empire -- the global Pax Americana that wasn't. Let me pose a simple question: Where exactly are the monuments of that empire? If it is now threatened with collapse, what exactly did it build?
Hidden Torture Centers - The CIA's Secret Prisons in Europe
During the last four years, the US has carried out various abductions around the world, put its victims into secret centers and tortured them, as the Washington Post has just revealed. Many such illegal prisons were set up in Eastern European countries, including EU member states – the Romanian daily Ziua offers more details on the issue in an article we reprint today.
As we print this material for the consideration of our readers, we have received confirmation of the existence of a CIA prison airplane at the Serihegy airport in Romania.
During the two days of the Axis for Peace 2005 conference, there was an intervention by former MI5 agent David Shayler, Palestinian authority minister Abu Zeida, ambassador Craig Murray – who handed in his resignation at Whitehall in protest against the setting up of a British torture center in Uzbekistan, Mateusz Piskorski – a Polish lawmaker who recently denounced torture before the parliament of his country – and General René Vargas Pazzos (ex-Chief of Staff of Ecuador's Army and a witness of Plan Condor). The above personalities will analyze the globalization of torture by the governments that make up the coalition that invaded Iraq.
As we print this material for the consideration of our readers, we have received confirmation of the existence of a CIA prison airplane at the Serihegy airport in Romania.
During the two days of the Axis for Peace 2005 conference, there was an intervention by former MI5 agent David Shayler, Palestinian authority minister Abu Zeida, ambassador Craig Murray – who handed in his resignation at Whitehall in protest against the setting up of a British torture center in Uzbekistan, Mateusz Piskorski – a Polish lawmaker who recently denounced torture before the parliament of his country – and General René Vargas Pazzos (ex-Chief of Staff of Ecuador's Army and a witness of Plan Condor). The above personalities will analyze the globalization of torture by the governments that make up the coalition that invaded Iraq.
Just like in Vietnam (when fragging became a serious problem) US may use planes as substitute for troops in Iraq
Greater racist genocidal slaughter, fewer apple pie-fed Amerikkkan losses.
The Bush regime is considering a plan to put America's awesome airpower at the disposal of Iraqi commanders, as a way of reducing the number of US troops on the ground. The plan is causing consternation among commanders in US air force, who say it could lead to increased civilian casualties and lead to airstrikes being used as means of settling old scores.
The Bush regime is considering a plan to put America's awesome airpower at the disposal of Iraqi commanders, as a way of reducing the number of US troops on the ground. The plan is causing consternation among commanders in US air force, who say it could lead to increased civilian casualties and lead to airstrikes being used as means of settling old scores.
Bush's Burgeoning Body Count - Fallen Legion II
About six weeks ago, at the urging of fellow TomDispatch author Rebecca Solnit, I undertook the beginnings of an on-line memorial to the Fallen Legion of the Bush administration. It was, in effect, a proposal for a virtual "wall" made up of the seemingly endless and ever-growing list of top officials as well as beleaguered administrators, managers, and career civil servants who had quit their government posts in protest or were defamed, threatened, fired, forced out, demoted, or driven to retire by administration strong-arm tactics, cronyism, and disastrous policies. As a start, I offered 42 prospective names for a Fallen Legion (and brief descriptions of their fates). These ranged from well-known figures like the President's former chief adviser on terrorism on the National Security Council, Richard Clarke, former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to the archivist of the United States, the state director of the Bureau of Land Management in Idaho, and three members of the White House Cultural Property Advisory Committee (who resigned over the looting of Iraq after Baghdad fell to U.S. troops). I also called upon readers to aid my future efforts and to send suggestions to: fallenlegionwall@yahoo.com. (And I renew that call in this piece.)
Will America self-destruct?
Babylon the Great has fallen; her Hanging Gardens but a shadowy memory. The British Empire, once spanning the globe, is now reduced to an island nation. The grandiose statue of Nike of Samothrace, now in the Louvre, bears mute witness to the former greatness of the Hellenic world. The World Empire of Alexander the Great is but a chapter in history books. The unfathomable greatness of mighty empires of the past has been reduced to a remembrance of almost forgotten ages.
Is America now standing at the door leading to ruin and decay? The brilliant experiment bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers was built upon a system of checks and balances. Our worthy forebears knew that humans could not be trusted with power. They asked themselves what political governance could be designed to keep raptors from destroying the dream that "all men are endowed . . . to have certain unalienable rights . . . Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?"
The brilliance of the system of checks and balances was the keynote theme of my previous article, Ariadne. This one discusses -- rather sketchily -- some of the possible reasons why greatness decays, why might declines, and why power crumbles.
The ultimate self-destruction of nations, eternal warfare, economic injustice, and social degradation, find their genesis in the three pounds of gray matter inside our skulls. Devils and demons, Satan and his satraps are not responsible for the pages of history dripping with human blood and echoing the cries of the innocents. Not only is Lucifer not responsible for the misdeeds of humankind but there is also no messiah waiting in the wings to liberate us from our human bondage. The answer to our war-mongering and saber-rattling, our mendacity and exploitation is found in the stuff inside the human skull.
Is America now standing at the door leading to ruin and decay? The brilliant experiment bequeathed to us by the Founding Fathers was built upon a system of checks and balances. Our worthy forebears knew that humans could not be trusted with power. They asked themselves what political governance could be designed to keep raptors from destroying the dream that "all men are endowed . . . to have certain unalienable rights . . . Life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?"
The brilliance of the system of checks and balances was the keynote theme of my previous article, Ariadne. This one discusses -- rather sketchily -- some of the possible reasons why greatness decays, why might declines, and why power crumbles.
The ultimate self-destruction of nations, eternal warfare, economic injustice, and social degradation, find their genesis in the three pounds of gray matter inside our skulls. Devils and demons, Satan and his satraps are not responsible for the pages of history dripping with human blood and echoing the cries of the innocents. Not only is Lucifer not responsible for the misdeeds of humankind but there is also no messiah waiting in the wings to liberate us from our human bondage. The answer to our war-mongering and saber-rattling, our mendacity and exploitation is found in the stuff inside the human skull.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)