Bush puts CIA prisons under Geneva Conventions By David Morgan


Dandelion Salad

By David Morgan
20 Jul 2007 23:11:42 GMT
Source: Reuters


WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) – U.S. President George W. Bush, under fire over the treatment of CIA detainees, on Friday ordered that agency interrogators comply with the Geneva Conventions against torture.

Five years after he exempted al Qaeda and Taliban members from the Geneva provisions, Bush signed an executive order requiring the CIA to comply with prohibitions against “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” as set down in the conventions’ Common Article 3.

Human rights activists criticized Bush’s action, saying it did not go far enough to eliminate dangerous interrogation techniques.

Bush, who insists the United States does not use torture, has faced pressure at home and abroad over interrogation techniques used on suspected militants held at secret CIA prisons and other locations, including the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Critics have complained the CIA has mistreated prisoners during clandestine flights in and out of countries in Europe.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller of West Virginia said intelligence officials should tell the panel how Bush’s order “will translate into actual conduct by the CIA” and the Justice Department must provide a legal analysis.

Amnesty International USA, a human rights group, said that while specific acts including rape and sexual assault were banned, the “deafening silence on other techniques that the CIA may have used, such as waterboarding, the cold room technique and sleep deprivation, speaks volumes.”

Bush’s broad assertions of power in his war on terror have also come under assault from U.S. judges, who have rejected his indefinite imprisonment of enemy combatants and domestic spying program.

The new order comes 10 months after the Bush administration was forced to suspend its secret prison system because of a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that cast doubt on its legality.

CLARITY FOR INTERROGATORS

CIA Director Michael Hayden said on Friday the order provides clarity for CIA interrogators and other agency officials worried about the legal liabilities of their involvement in secret detention operations.

“The executive order resolves any ambiguity by setting specific requirements that, when met, represent full compliance with Article 3. Any CIA terrorist detention and interrogation effort will, of course, meet those requirements.”

Fewer than 100 detainees, including suspected senior al Qaeda members, have been held in secret CIA prisons since the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.

A smaller number has been subjected to what CIA officials describe as “enhanced interrogation measures.” Human rights advocates say those methods have included techniques such as simulated drowning, or waterboarding, that amount to torture.

Senior administration officials declined to say what interrogation techniques would be allowed under the new order, arguing that the disclosure would enable al Qaeda and other militant groups to train members to resist the techniques.

The order prohibits acts including murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentional serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, biological experiments and the taking of hostages.

It bans “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person — considering the circumstances — would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency.”

Acts intended to denigrate a detainee’s religion are also prohibited.

(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan and Jeremy Pelofsky)

h/t: ICH

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

Advertisements

What Comes After The U.S. Empire? By Johan Galtung

Dandelion Salad

Introductory Speech at the TRANSCEND International Meeting – 6-12 June 2007, Vienna, Austria

By Johan Galtung
07/20/07 “ICH

I first want to say a few words about the current G8 meeting, and then talk about major conflicts in the world. This will cover much of the world situation, a reflection on global capitalism, and the US Empire and its imminent demise and what will happen after that.

The G8 meeting is actually an act of sabotage, and in my view a deliberate one. It sabotages and undermines the UN. In 1975, the meeting was established as a small forum for intimate meetings between 3 leaders from each participating country. However, from a purely economic agenda it has become much more, incorporating a lot of UN agenda items (security issues and global warming etc.) and thereby actually hijacking the subjects of global importance to about 8 countries only. Russia, which was invited under Yeltsin, is the black sheep in the community. Also, not inviting Chindia is a guarantee for sabotage, as is talking about Africa without having even one African representative present. The good news is that there were 100’000 demonstrators, and the bad news is that there were some violent idiots.

If the nonviolent majority could practice the technique of 20 nonviolent encircling every violent one in a nonviolent way, incapacitating their capacity for violence, it would be an enormous feat. There is, however another piece of what I would call bad news; the 100’000 without constructive, positive ideas. I’ve gone through the whole rigmarole of the slogans. Personally, I don’t like the slogans against globalization; there is no way in the world to stop globalization because it is driven by things we all love: communication and transportation. We are not going to turn that backwards. A good slogan would be “another globalization is possible” and spelling out that better globalization as opposed to the economically exploitative process we know.

So, having said that, we have dark days in front of us. We have impending climate and economic disaster and on top of that a political military issue, the so-called Shield. There isn’t hardly a person in the world who believes it is against Iran. It is a part of a policy started in 1996, counter-posing against each other, on the one hand NATO and AMPO (the US-JAPAN arrangement), and on the other hand the SCO countries, the biggest alliance in human history: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, with 6 full members and 3 observers. The 6 members are China, Russia and four of the former Central Asian republics, excluding Turkmenistan. The three observers are India, Pakistan and Iran. Together, it’s about 50% of humanity, confronting a relatively small country called the United States of America, with only 300’000’000, not a very impressive size these days.

I have said this, knowing that of the 10 points of the Project for the New American Century–written by people who are still in power, although there is an erosion among them–point number 7 is to change regime in China. I am of the opinion that whatever be the method, that the Chinese will rather do the change of regime themselves, and are not enthusiastic about being encircled. It is the major conflict confrontation of the world today, between NATO/AMPO and SCO, and since it is the major one, it is also the one least talked about. The Shield has to neutralize missiles from Russia and China. I think Putin understood it correctly in Munich, and sees it in the light of the cancellation of the ABM treaty, which was a cornerstone of the peaceful development during the Cold War. It was canceled unilaterally by the United States, The anti-missile capacities in the Czech Republic and Poland come on top of the US and NATO breaking the promises made to Gorbachev at the end of the Cold War: that the Soviet Union would withdraw from Eastern Europe, including Eastern Germany, and the United States would not follow suit, whereupon the United States had filled almost every base opportunity, and enrolled practically speaking all the countries in NATO. That has heightened the tension immensely. Whether it will dominate the Heiligendamm [G8 meeting] meeting, I don’t know, but I would imagine that it could be quite important. The guess is that the US would do anything they can in order to bribe the citizens of the villages selected in Poland and the Czech Republic with high amounts of money in order not to demonstrate against. So, G8 spells only bad news, as introduction to the six conflicts:

1. Economic Contradiction: Global Capitalism

Let me just say a word about global capitalism. The two antidotes to the market mechanism that have been effective have been, on the one hand, a welfare state, and on the other hand, protectionism. Microcredit, you can forget about it, these are small drops in the bucket, giving relief to some small groups. The countries that practice it most, Bangladesh and Bolivia, are still at the bottom, economically speaking. The combination of selective protectionism and welfare state, that is the real stuff. The way Japan did it, the way Taiwan did it, the way South Korea did it, the way Hong Kong did it, the way Singapore did it, the way Malaysia did it, with considerable success. You find in the whole of the East Asia/South East Asia conglomerate countries that have been doing exactly this. That is important, and the neo-liberal free market syndrome is of course against that. They are doing everything they can to eliminate the two factors. That means that the global market place becomes a vertical assembly line for the transportation of capital from the bottom to the top. And this works with three mechanisms: monetization, privatization and globalization, border-free market, of which globalization is the least important. The most important is monetization, setting a monetary price on everything. It is the most important because it means that those who have no money have no chance, and they are about 1’000’000’000. Their option, that is very clear, is to join the ranks of the dying; 125’000 dying every day with 25’000 starving and 100’000 dying from preventable and curable diseases, for which cures exist, but they are monetized. User’s fees in Africa are a disaster. All of this is known today! Adam Smith warned against unmitigated markets; David Ricardo warned against unmitigated labor markets in periods with high labor supply, saying that it would have lasting unemployment as a result, and extreme poverty among the labor.

From global capitalism as it is operating today, we can expect no solution to these problems. So let me then add the kind of approach that I, as one person, would advocate; taming capitalism, by introducing at the same time about 14 other types of economies. In other words, it is a little bit like the thinking about energy: we don’t say an unconditional no to hydrocarbons, but we introduce 6, 7, 8 other methods. The energy profile becomes complex. Time does not permit me to get into all 14, I’ll not do it, some of you have the manuscript and the book A Life-Sustaining Economy is close to completion. The point I am arguing is a pluralistic economy. There is no single formula that covers all the alternatives, and the pluralistic profile must be adjusted to the preconditions in space and time.

[…]

Continued…

How empires end By Patrick J. Buchanan


Dandelion Salad

By Patrick J. Buchanan
ICH

0720/07 “
WorldNetDaily

Responding to the call of Pope Urban II at Claremont in 1095, the Christian knights of the First Crusade set out for the Holy Land. In 1099, Jerusalem was captured. As their port in Palestine, the Crusaders settled on Acre on the Mediterranean.

There they built the great castle that was overrun by Saladin in 1187, but retaken by Richard the Lion-Hearted in 1191. Acre became the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the stronghold of the Crusader state, which fell to the Mameluks in a bloody siege in 1291. The Christians left behind were massacred.

The ruins of Acre are now a tourist attraction.

Any who have visited this last outpost of Christendom in the Holy Land before Gen. Allenby marched into Jerusalem in 1917 cannot – on reading of the massive U.S. embassy rising in Baghdad – but think of Acre.

At a cost of $600 million, with walls able to withstand mortar and rocket fire and space to accommodate 1,000 Americans, this mammoth embassy, largest on earth, will squat on the banks of the Tigris inside the Green Zone.

But, a decade hence, will the U.S. ambassador be occupying this imperial compound? Or will it be like the ruins of Acre?

What raises the question is a sense the United States, this time, is truly about to write off Iraq as a lost cause.

The Republican lines on Capitol Hill are crumbling. Starting with Richard Lugar, one GOP senator after another has risen to urge a drawdown of U.S. forces and a diplomatic solution to the war.

But this is non-credible. How can U.S. diplomats win at a conference table what 150,000 U.S. troops cannot secure on a battlefield?

Though Henry Kissinger was an advocate of this unnecessary war, he is not necessarily wrong when he warns of “geopolitical calamity.” Nor is Ryan Crocker, U.S. envoy in Iraq, necessarily wrong when he says a U.S. withdrawal may be the end of the America war, but it will be the start of bloodier wars in Iraq and across the region.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari also warns of the perils of a rapid withdrawal: “The dangers vary from civil war to dividing the country to regional wars … the danger is huge. Until the Iraqi forces and institutions complete their readiness, there is a responsibility on the U.S. and other countries to stand by the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people to help build up their capabilities.”

In urging a redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq and a new focus on diplomacy, Lugar listed four strategic goals. Prevent creation of a safe haven for terrorists. Prevent sectarian war from spilling out into the broader Middle East. Prevent Iran’s domination of the region. Limit the loss of U.S. credibility through the region and world as a result of a failed mission in Iraq.

But how does shrinking the U.S. military power and presence in Iraq advance any of these goals?

Longtime critics of the war like Gen. William Odom say it is already lost, and fighting on will only further bleed the country and make the ultimate price even higher. The general may be right in saying it is time to cut our losses. But we should take a hard look at what those losses may be.

It is a near certainty the U.S.-backed government will fall and those we leave behind will suffer the fate of our Vietnamese and Cambodian friends in 1975. As U.S. combat brigades move out, contractors, aid workers and diplomats left behind will be more vulnerable to assassination and kidnapping. There could be a stampede for the exit and a Saigon ending in the Green Zone.

The civil and sectarian war will surely escalate when we go, with Iran aiding its Shia allies and Sunni nations aiding the Sunnis. A breakup of the country seems certain. Al-Qaida will claim it has run the U.S. superpower out of Iraq and take the lessons it has learned to Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The Turks, with an army already on the border, will go in to secure their interests in not having the Kurdish PKK operating from Iraq and in guaranteeing there is no independent Kurdistan. What will America do then?

As for this country, the argument over who is responsible for the worst strategic debacle in American history will be poisonous.

With a U.S. defeat in Iraq, U.S. prestige would plummet across the region. Who will rely on a U.S. commitment for its security? Like the British and French before us, we will be heading home from the Middle East.

What we are about to witness is how empires end.

Copyright 1997-2007 – All Rights Reserved. WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

The Invisible Government By John Pilger

Dandelion Salad

In a speech in Chicago, John Pilger describes how propaganda has become such a potent force in our lives and, in the words of one of its founders, represents ‘an invisible government’.

By John Pilger

07/20/07 “ICH

The title of this talk is Freedom Next Time, which is the title of my book, and the book is meant as an antidote to the propaganda that is so often disguised as journalism. So I thought I would talk today about journalism, about war by journalism, propaganda, and silence, and how that silence might be broken. Edward Bernays, the so-called father of public relations, wrote about an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. He was referring to journalism, the media. That was almost 80 years ago, not long after corporate journalism was invented. It is a history few journalist talk about or know about, and it began with the arrival of corporate advertising. As the new corporations began taking over the press, something called “professional journalism” was invented. To attract big advertisers, the new corporate press had to appear respectable, pillars of the establishment—objective, impartial, balanced. The first schools of journalism were set up, and a mythology of liberal neutrality was spun around the professional journalist. The right to freedom of expression was associated with the new media and with the great corporations, and the whole thing was, as Robert McChesney put it so well, “entirely bogus”. Continue reading

The Daily Show – Return of the Jihad

Dandelion Salad

By Manila Ryce
Published Friday, July 20th, 2007, 5:34 am

Thanks to the Iraq War, US intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaeda is back to its pre-9/11 strength. As with global warming, Bush’s response to anything which contradicts his ideology is to simply claim it doesn’t. The thing that astounds me most about the Bush administration is not their corruption. If anything, I’m surprised when a week goes by without a new scandal. No, what astounds me most is that the White House is packed with preposterously stupid half-wits who keep trying to convince us they’re smarter than we are. It’s this brainless defense which has allowed them to get away with every crime imaginable.

Continue reading

Colbert Interviews Michael Moore By Manila Ryce (video link)

Dandelion Salad

By Manila Ryce
Published Friday, July 20th, 2007, 6:08 am

Colbert teams up with the enemy of his enemy, filmmaker Michael Moore, to take CNN down a couple notches. Moore explains why the free market should have no place in our health care system, and how corporations tailor the news to fit their agenda. Of course, Colbert sees nothing wrong with being the mouthpiece for our capitalist masters. Hilarity ensures.

Colbert’s Money Quote: “Ouch! Nothing hurts box office like a thumbs down from Gupta. Of course, he is a doctor, so you really don’t want a thumbs up.”

Vodpod videos no longer available. from www.jwharrison.com posted with vodpod

.

LINK

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

WTC7 – This is an Orange (video; 9/11)

WTC7 – This is an Orange (video; 9/11)

Dandelion Salad

Anthony Lawson

2 min 18 sec – Dec. 8, 2007

A comparison between what we are told and what we can see, with our own eyes. World Trade Center 7 collapsed after having been damaged by fire and falling debris, but the collapse looks very much like a controlled demolition.

Continue reading

Washington’s Consensus Al Qaeda Deception by Larry Chin

Dandelion Salad

by Larry Chin
Global Research, July 19, 2007

The “war on terrorism” is a foreign policy weapon favored by an elite and ironclad Anglo-American consensus, supported equally by Washington’s political factions. The surge of “Al-Qaeda” covert operations and “terrorism” propaganda over the past three weeks, and reports of “renewed Al-Qaeda power”, marks the beginning of intensified false flag deception.

Al-Qaeda: “stronger than ever”— or not?

It is not clear if the new crescendo of “Al-Qaeda” signals intent by the Bush-Cheney covert operations machine to inflict their long-planned “next 9/11” before relinquishing power in 2008, or if this noise is routine political maneuvering by rival Washington factions engaged in election-year posturing. Nevertheless, a most perfect of perfect storms is being whipped up, with major players on all sides regurgitating and reinforcing the same bombastic assertions.

The initial wave of US fear mongering was triggered by the latest National Intelligence Estimate (produced by Bush-Cheney intelligence) declaring that “Al-Qaeda” has regrouped to “pre-9/11 levels”. This was quickly followed by new “terror” tapes of “Al-Qaeda” masterminds Osama bin Laden and il-Zawahiri, each demonstrating, according to Bush-Cheney, that “Al-Qaeda is even more high-tech and sophisticated than ever imagined”.

The initial “Al-Qaeda stronger than ever” blast was then followed by rounds of equivocation and backpedaling. Reports from Washington reporters, such as Rowan Scarborough, quoted “unnamed counterterrorism officials” who say that Al-Qaeda has rebuilt cells in the tribal areas of Pakistan (an old and familiar claim), but “is not at the same strength exhibited in Afghanistan before Sept.11”—and taking issue with how the National Intelligence Estimate was initially spun.

Homeland Security “czar” Michael Chertoff declared that “Al-Qaeda” was not at pre-9/11 strength, boasting about the Bush administration’s success killing or capturing two-thirds of “Al-Qaeda” leaders, then adding that he has a “gut feeling” that “Al-Qaeda” will strike the US again, perhaps this summer.

The most inconvenient truth

Neocons, neoliberals, and “anti-war progressives” continue to enthusiastically embrace and reinforce the myth of the “ever-more powerful, ever-more cunning outside ‘terrorist’ threat to America”—and will continue to do so ad nauseum, as they have for nearly six years since 9/11. Meanwhile, the long-standing and enduring relationship between Islamic “terrorists”, “Al-Qaeda”, Osama bin Laden, etc. and Anglo-American and US-allied intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, MI-6, Pakistani ISI, Mossad, etc.) and their ongoing use and manipulation of these “terrorist” groups on behalf of Anglo-Anerican geostrategy remains completely ignored, and the focus of ongoing cover-up, media silence and academic obfuscation.

Ignorant distortions about “terrorism” are now routine and deeply embedded fixations in news coverage, and in pop culture monstrosities such the television series 24, as well as the film The Mighty Heart, which the Daniel Pearl murder gloss-over starring the Council on Foreign Relation’s newest member, Angelina Jolie. Esquire magazine’s Al-Qaeda:The Global Brand by Thomas Barnett is a perfect example of how the Washington consensus deception is swallowed without question, and reiterated compliantly.

There is no better example of Washington’s consensus than the bipartisan Capitol Hill complicity behind 9/11, including the still-unaddressed meetings between high-level Republicans and Democrats, and Pakistani ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad prior to, and on the morning of, 9/11, and the unanimous and enthusiastic support for the “war on terrorism” lie since the day.

Bush-Cheney’s supposed critics have complained about the administration’s “squandered opportunity” and Iraq blunders, but have never wavered in their support for the “war on terrorism”. Slippery variations on the “war on terrorism” theme include (but are not limited to) the following:

 

  • “The Bush administration has failed to fight the ‘real war on terrorism’ begun after 9/11”

  • “Mismanagement and blunders of the war in Iraq have created radical jihadist insurgencies that wish to destroy the United States”

  • “The Iraq mistake has distracted us from fighting the ‘real’ war on terrorism”

  • “We should declare war on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which harbor the real ‘terrorists’ who attacked us on 9/11”

  • “The Iraq distraction has prevented us from capturing Osama ”

  • “The world was united after 9/11, but Bush squandered it all”

There is obvious disillusion with the Bush administration, but the widespread call for a “change in strategy” does not include any letup of the “war on terrorism”. In fact, the voices most stridently demanding “change” are cementing years of criminal lies under new layers of deception. They want to ramp up Bush’s false flag wars, not end them.

US presidential candidates feast on “Al-Qaeda” propaganda meat

The latest “Al-Qaeda” headlines have prompted each of the 2008 US presidential candidates have fall over each other to push the “tough on terrorism” card.

“Al-Qaeda” war politics blossomed during the Bill Clinton adminstration with the use of Al-Qaeda/militant Islamic mercenaries in Kosovo and Bosnia, and what is arguably the true start of today’s “war on terror”—the identification of Osama bin Laden as “enemy number one” (at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal) in 1998, followed by the bombing of Sudan. The cooperative role that the deeply corrupt Clinton faction played alongside the Bush “crime family”, in virtually all of the major US government crimes from the 1980s to the present, can fill several libraries. It goes without saying that a Hillary Clinton presidency would continue the Bush-Cheney agenda, and return Anglo-American criminality to its 1990s glory.

What about the others? Contrary to his image as a “progressive”, Barack Obama’s foreign policy agenda is virtually identical to that of the Bush administration, including his approach to the “war on terrorism”. Obama has promised a robust US military-intelligence presence in Iraq and the Middle East to “root out Al-Qaeda”. To defeat Al-Qaeda, Obama will build a “twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century alliances” in order to “stay on the offensive everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar”, and “revamp intelligence agencies far beyond post-September 11 reforms”. Another analysis of Obama’s aggressive war policy can be found here.

Obama promotes the false notion of “blowback”. Like other members of Congress, Obama has access to classified material. He and others are complicit in hiding the fact of Anglo-American intelligence connectons behind both the “terrorism” and the “insurgencies”.

The “anti-terror” platform of John Edwards is equally malodorous. It was Edwards who promised on national television, during the 2004 vice presidential debate with Dick Cheney, that he would “kill the terrorists”. So would Joe Biden (one of the many who met with the ISI “money man” before 9/11), Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and other longtime Democratic Party fossils. (Two Democratic Party candidates who are more stridently critical of Bush-Cheney’s agenda, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are routinely shut out by the Democratic Party apparatus, and stand no chance of nomination.)

It goes without saying that the Republican candidates fully support Bush-Cheney’s geostrategy and war policies, from Mitt Romney to Sam Brownback (the lone critic of Bush policy, Ron Paul, stands no chance). Given the fact that these “loyal Bushies” have been instrumental in making the global slaughter possible, and covering up the rampant criminality led by the Bush administration, it is no surprise to find these candidates aggressively peddling the “terrorism” propaganda. Rudy Guiliani, whose active criminal role on 9/11 was exhaustively exposed in Michael Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon, is essentially an extension of Dick Cheney. Mitt Romney promises to “combat radical Islam” with a war agenda identical to Obama’s (which is identical to Bush-Cheney’s). Romney’s provocative speech at the Herzliya Conference speaks for itself.

The bloodthirsty John McCain has routinely fronted for Bush-Cheney. There is no better crystallization of McCain’s depravity than his post-9/11 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “War is Hell. Now Let’s Get On With It”, in which McCain openly calls for “ruthless” murder. The piece is also a perfect presentation of Bush-Cheney’s lie.

What is clear is that the next US president will not only continue but also expand the “war on terrorism” and the “war against radical extremists”. Both Republican and Democratic Party factions stand to gain from false flag terror and propaganda. Anglo-American geostrategy, and the expansion of the war and global resource conquest, would not be possible without them.

Al-Qaeda: perpetual covert operation and cover-up

As previously noted in “Al-Qaeda:the eternal covert operation”, “Islamic terrorism” is a Anglo-American geostrategy, and “Al-Qaeda” is military-intelligence asset and a leading brand of war propaganda.

Official “war on terrorism” disinformation is repeated ad nauseum, accepted as fact by the mass populace, and used as the justification for ever-expanding Anglo-American war and ever-deepening criminality, virtually no attention is paid to the Anglo-American support and management of “Al-Qaeda” and other “terror” groups, or the criminally fabricated nature of modern “terrorism”. Every major “terrorism” event in recent times has been a US or US-allied covert operation, followed by political manipulation and cover-up. No credible proof has been provided to prove any official assertion made about the true nature of “Al-Qaeda”, Osama bin Laden, 9/11, etc.

Whereas it is a documented fact that Washington’s support and management of “Militant Islamic Network”, including “Al-Qaeda”, has been continuous since the Carter administration. A recently declassified French intelligence report details the extent to which “Al-Qaeda” and Osama bin Laden ran operations for the CIA. “Al-Qaeda” as well as Al-Qaeda “foreign fighter hordes” propaganda is a key component of the Pentagon’s Iraq occupation and pacification program. Also see “Who is Osama bin Laden?” and “Al-Qaeda:the database”.

Planned covert operations and false flag operations using “terrorists” in direct and indirect military-intelligence roles are of imperial design. Such operations (exemplified by 9/11), and their predictable propaganda results (“the war on terrorism”) are now routine events.

Even though the notion of false flag terror has more recently been supported by the likes of activist Cindy Sheehan, the vast majority of Americans remains in absolute denial and ignorance, or fully endorse violent “anti-terrorism” agendas.

The idea of “blowback”, the notion that terrorist assets have turned on their sponsors, is embraced by many, but it is bogus: Western intelligence has not severed its ties to “terrorists”, and, in fact, continues to selectively guide these groups. The true “root cause” of “Islamic terrorism” remains Anglo-American control and guidance of “terror”.

As pointed out by Michel Chossudovsky, the “Al-Qaeda” deception is central to Anglo-American foreign policy, which rests squarely on the perpetual threat of a fabricated outside enemy, and fear of a “new 9/11”. This deception provides the ongoing pretext used to justify endless warfare and endless criminality.

“Al-Qaeda” is indeed a “global brand”: the pre-eminent brand of Anglo-American covert operation and propaganda apparatus, created, funded, guided and manipulated by leading government powers and intelligence agencies.

Without an end to the “terrorism” lie, there can be no end to the “war on terrorism”.

Larry Chin is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Larry Chin

 


To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Larry Chin, Global Research, 2007

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6370

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Dandelion Salad

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, July 20, 2007

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war.

In substance, the Executive Order entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq” provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of “certain persons” who oppose the US led war in Iraq:

“I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.”

The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to “blocking property” of US citizens and nationals. It targets those “Certain Persons” in America who oppose the Bush Administration’s “peace and stability” program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

The Executive Order also targets those “Certain Persons” who are “undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction”, or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq’s oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush’s program of “political reform in Iraq”, in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi “government” installed by the occupation forces.

Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated.

The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement.

Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the executive order as “an authority to use financial sanctions”, there has virtually no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution..

Broader implications

The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define “who are the criminals” when in fact they they are the criminals.

This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of “anti-terrorist” legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government in the case of an impending “national emergency”.

The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. The executive order combined with the existing anti terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar groups in America as well as block the property and activities of non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq, seizing the assets of alternative media involved in a critique of the US-led war, etc.

In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a “Catastrophic Emergency” (Second 9/11 terrorist attack.

On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its National Intelligence Estimate which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a second 9/11 which would according to NSPD 51 immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government.

NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement.

The executive order to confiscate the assets of antiwar/peace activists is broadly consistent with NSPD 51. It could be triggered even in the absence of a “Catastrophic emergency” as envisaged under NSPD 51. It goes one step further in “criminalizing” all forms of opposition and dissent. to the US led war and “Homeland Security” agenda.

see:

Message to the Congress of the US Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act + Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq by George Bush

The Legal Pervert’s Parade: Executive Privilege Über Alles + Bringing It All Back Home: New Bush Order Could Criminalize Dissent by Chris Floyd

The Dogs of Connaught by Glitzqueen

National Security & Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51 (2007)

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America’s “War on Terrorism” Second Edition, Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.

To order Chossudovsky’s book America’s “War on Terrorism”, click here

Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6377

The Legal Pervert’s Parade: Executive Privilege Über Alles + Bringing It All Back Home: New Bush Order Could Criminalize Dissent by Chris Floyd

Dandelion Salad

Written by Chris Floyd
Friday, 20 July 2007

Just in case you haven’t noticed before, the United States of America has become a presidential tyranny. We’ve been clanging this bell here (and elsewhere) since late September 2001, and have seen it confirmed over and over through the years — with torture edicts, domestic spying, rendition, secret prisons, indefinite detention of uncharged, untried captives, etc. — and most recently and most baldly with the “Military Commissions Act,” which enshrined the principle of arbitrary presidential power in law and gutted the ancient privilege of habeas corpus. This was rubberstamped by the Republican-led Congress last year — and is still standing strong under the Democratic-led Congress.

But now the Bush Regime has taken an even more brazen step into the light with its frankly fascist doctrine of the “Unitary Executive.” As the Washington Post reports, the Administration’s legal perverts are getting ready to claim — openly, officially — that the president’s arbitrary will transcends every law in the land, every section of the Constitution. All he need do is arbitrarily assert “executive privilege” over any operation of government whatsoever to remove it beyond the reach of any legal action, Congressional inquiry — or criminal investigation. As Atrios notes, Bush has already arrogated to himself the “right” to interpret the law, through the “signing statements” he attaches to the bills he signs, declaring that he will obey only those strictures of the law that he sees fit. Now, the Administration is declaring that Bush need not be bound even by those laws he does deign to acknowledge. As the Post reports:

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege…

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege…

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration’s stance “astonishing.”

“That’s a breathtakingly broad view of the president’s role in this system of separation of powers,” Rozell said. “What this statement is saying is the president’s claim of executive privilege trumps all.”

Continued…

***

Bringing It All Back Home: New Bush Order Could Criminalize Dissent

Written by Chris Floyd
Friday, 20 July 2007

Here’s a quick follow-up to the previous post: The Legal Pervert’s Parade: Executive Privilege Über Alles.

Sara Robinson at Orcinus gives us a glimpse of what could be coming as the unrestrained executive tyranny rolls on in Are We There Yet? She examines the new Executive Order quietly signed by Bush this week, in which he bestows upon himself — and designated minions — the arbitrary power to seize the assets of anyone whom he decides “poses a significant risk” of commiting violence aimed at “undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.” As Robinson notes:

“Undermining the efforts” is a term that can be defined very, very broadly. And since those of us opposing this war have been told repeatedly, from the beginning, that our efforts to change our fellow citizens’ minds were in fact treasonous acts that undermined the war effort, emboldened America’s enemies, and harmed our troops, it’s not unreasonable to believe that those warnings are now being backed up by official action. “At risk of committing significant acts of violence” is more overbroad weasel-speak: How many of us have said things that could be construed (at least by the certifiable paranoids in the White House) as a threat of violence against the Bush Administration?

For more, see Sara’s post in full here, especially her takeout from Milton Mayer’s “They Thought They Were Free.” And Sean O’Neill has more here.

Continued…

see:

Message to the Congress of the US Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act + Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq by George Bush

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

The Dogs of Connaught by Glitzqueen


The Dogs of Connaught by Glitzqueen

glitzqueen

Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad

by The Other Katherine Harris

July 20, 2007

Since posting my first response to Shrub’s new outrage — his Fifth Amendment-busting order to seize the property of all in America who might somehow undermine his prescription for Iraq or discuss doing so or help the dispossessed survive — I’ve been haunted by this question: What does he expect these people to do?

What would you do, if your house or apartment and its contents were suddenly barred to you, your bank accounts and credit cards blocked, your car towed? Knowing the same fate would strike anyone who gave you assistance or seemed to be “conspiring” with you, you probably wouldn’t make calls. So you couldn’t tell your family and friends goodbye. Nor could you defend yourself against wrongful charges, because you haven’t been arrested. Presumably the government’s case wasn’t strong enough for that, but you’ve been left worse off than any prisoner. Convicted murderers and child molesters get food and shelter. You don’t. And you can neither work nor beg, since anyone who provides funds to you will also lose everything.

Picture yourself trying to get along with nothing but the clothes on your back and the cash in your wallet (assuming that Shrub’s Thugs didn’t mug you for the money, too). When you’re hungry, will Shrub let you buy a meal without punishing the server? Say you’ve got enough cash for a hotel room. Will you be permitted to check in? If you need a ride there, what happens? Will a cabbie be allowed to drive you? What about hitching? Is any vehicle you set your butt inside subject to The Big Grab? If by some fluke you happen to have your passport and enough cash to leave the country — unlikely, since you had no warning — will Shrub let you go?

None of this appears possible, since Shrub’s draconian edict says nobody can receive funds from you, either! Maybe you’ll get away with using vending machines, until the coins run out. Because you’re also banned from exchange of unpaid goods and services, you can’t even stay in a homeless shelter or receive medical care at a charity clinic. Unless you somehow cross the border or reach a foreign embassy with sympathy for your plight, eventually you’ll just starve, won’t you? Or you’ll die of untreated disease. Or perhaps you’ll freeze, come winter: a symmetrical end for those whose assets were frozen.

What a crafty end-run around habeas corpus. Perfect for troublesome citizens who aren’t actually dangerous. No legalities involved, beyond issuing a diktat. And the possibilities for reality TV are fantastic.

This scurry of thoughts and images occupies a mere second or two, unless committed to paper, so I’ve been through it loads of times. As the synapses fired, they sparked further visions, some from the Holocaust. The Jews, however, were spirited away, either to Nazi camps or hiding places supplied by helpers brave enough to risk their lives, so there’s no close parallel. We can’t possibly hide today — given the NSA’s power, only bin Laden can manage it — so there’ll be Suffering as Spectacle. Lynchings were one model for that, but those are over too quickly. Even Roman crucifixions took, at most, a few days. The greatest similarity I’ve hit on is with An Gorta Mor: The Great Hunger in Victorian Ireland (no more an actual “famine” than what Stalin stage-managed about 90 years later in the Ukraine). Masses of food and grain whisky continued to be exported, with the laissez-faire blessing of most in Westminster. Only the potatoes kept by sharecroppers to feed themselves suffered blight. Then many landowners took advantage of this calamity to clear entire estates for more lucrative ranching, smashing cottages and forcing their tenants onto the roads.

Observers such as Quakers, who came to bring aid, left us vignettes like these:

Poor people could be seen crawling along the ditches looking for herbs, and their mouths were green from the leaves they were eating.There is no nettle, or a bit of watercress to be found near Dungarvan, as the starving strangers consumed them all.

The poor people were found by the wayside, emaciated corpses, partly green from eating docks and nettles and partly blue from the cholera and dysentery.

And, in a class of its own, there’s this: Six men, beside Mr. Griffith, crossed with me in an open boat, and we landed, not buoyantly, upon a once pretty island. The first that called my attention was the death-like stillness — nothing of life was seen or heard, except occasionally a dog. These looked so unlike all others I had seen among the poor — I unwittingly said, “How can the dogs look so fat and shining here, where there is no food for the people?” The pilot turned to Mr. Griffith, not supposing that I heard him, and said, “Shall I tell her?”When that scene plays through my mind, as it has very often since yesterday, I catch the lead dog smirking.

see:

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Message to the Congress of the US Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act + Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq by George Bush

Could Shrub’s fascist intentions get any clearer? by Glitzqueen

Can’t Find Osama? Attack Iran Instead by Philip Giraldi

Dandelion Salad

by Philip Giraldi
Global Research, July 19, 2007
Antiwar.com

The July 17 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) “On the Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland” [.pdf] warns that al-Qaeda has reconstituted itself in the tribal areas of U.S. ally Pakistan, that it has resumed training of cadres intending to carry out “high impact plots” against the United States, and that the terrorist threat for the next three years continues worldwide and is even growing in places like North Africa and Britain. As always there is a bland euphemism to define the emerging situation, in this case that the United States will be experiencing a “heightened threat environment.” And to make sure that the conflation of terrorism with Iraq is not lost on the reader, the “central front” in Iraq makes an appearance among the report’s “Key Findings.” In a tour-de-force of misinformation disguised as fact, the report states, erroneously, that al-Qaeda in Iraq represents the principal threat for an attack on the U.S. homeland “because it has expressed a desire to attack us here.” The “attack us here” theme has been around for several years, and it has lately been reinforced by the White House’s incessant linkage of Iraq to al-Qaeda, culminating in a July 10 speech in Cleveland in which President Bush named the terrorist organization 30 times during comments that were ostensibly on the war in Iraq. Anyone who follows terrorism even in a pedestrian fashion might politely suggest that the administration’s position on the terrorism problem is nonsense. The main threat to the U.S. comes from the real original unadulterated al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Iraq, though a magnet and training ground for terrorist aspirants, is neither interested in nor capable of exporting its own particular brand of anarchy to America’s shores. Continue reading