Peace and Justice Post

By Adrian Blomfield and Mike Smith in Paris | Telegraph, UK, May 7, 2008

Mikhail Gorbachev has accused the United States of mounting an imperialist conspiracy against Russia that could push the world into a new Cold War.

With Dmitry Medvedev due to be inaugurated today as Russian president, the Soviet Union’s last leader said that the White House’s claims of peaceful intentions towards its former superpower rival could no longer be trusted.

Delivering one of his most scathing attacks on the US, Mr Gorbachev told The Daily Telegraph that a US military build-up was under way to contain a resurgent Russia.

From Nato’s expansion plans in the former Soviet Union to Washington’s proposals for a bigger defence budget and a missile shield in central Europe, the US was deliberately quashing hopes for permanent peace with Russia, Mr Gorbachev said.

Continued . . .

Seeing the second world war as a pure struggle to defeat an evil dictator has led us into foreign policy traps ever since

Peter Wilby | The Guardian,  Friday April 25 2008

 Now it is clear that Saddam Hussein had no WMD, that al-Qaida has become stronger in Iraq, and that liberal democracy has failed to spread through the Middle East, one fallback justification for the Iraq invasion remains: it overthrew a murderous, fascist dictator.
Even if it went catastrophically wrong, runs the argument, the invasion had a good, liberal, humanitarian cause embedded in it. In that sense, as Tony Blair often suggested, it was like the second world war. Much of what the allies did between 1939 and 1945 – the blitz on German towns and cities, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – may have been morally questionable, but the ultimate war aim of overthrowing fascist regimes was irreproachable.

But was the second world war quite what we think it was? I have just read Human Smoke, by the American author Nicholson Baker. It has caused controversy in the US, and will probably be the most hotly debated book of the year when it reaches Britain next month.
Essentially, Baker puts the pacifist case against the second world war. I am not a pacifist and, therefore, do not accept it. The historical evidence that Baker adduces is selective and sometimes unreliable: for example, Hugh (later Viscount) Trenchard, the founder of the RAF, is frequently quoted as though he were a figure of some importance which, by the 1940s, he wasn’t.

Baker’s account, however, reminds us that the war was not fought for humanitarian or democratic ends. Britain fought Germany for the same reason it had always fought wars in Europe: to maintain the balance of power and prevent a single state dominating the continent. America fought Japan to stop the growth of a powerful rival in the Pacific.

Continued . . .

Why John Yoo and Other Top Administration Lawyers Should be Investigated for War Crimes

By MARJORIE COHN | Counterpunch, May 6, 2008

What does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? They are all jus cogens. Jus cogens is Latin for “higher law” or “compelling law.” This means that no country can ever pass a law that allows torture. There can be no immunity from criminal liability for violation of a jus cogens prohibition.

The United States has always prohibited the use of torture in our Constitution, laws executive statements and judicial decisions. We have ratified three treaties that all outlaw torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. When the United States ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture.”

Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions. He must be protected against torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment under, Common Article 3.

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration’s argument that Common Article 3 doesn’t cover the prisoners at Guantánamo. Justice Kennedy wrote that violations of Common Article 3 are war crimes.

We have federal laws that criminalize torture.

The War Crimes Act punishes any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, as well as any violation of Common Article 3. That includes torture, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment.

The Torture Statute provides for life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies, for anyone who commits, attempts, or conspires to commit torture outside the United States.

Continued . . .

By PAMELA HESS Associated Press Writer, May 6, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Judiciary Committee voted Tuesday to compel a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney to testify to the committee about the Bush administration’s interrogation practices.

David Addington, Cheney’s chief of staff, refused to testify without a subpoena. No date has been set for his appearance before Congress.

Addington is one of several lawyers believed to have played a key role in crafting the administration’s interrogation policies shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, policies which some say amounted to torture.

John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote a now-repudiated memo allowing the harsh interrogations of military prisoners agreed late Monday to testify to Congress about those practices, averting a subpoena. Yoo is now a law professor at University of California-Berkeley.

Yoo’s memo, dated March 14, 2003, outlines a legal justification for military interrogators to use harsh tactics against al-Qaida and Taliban detainees overseas – so long as they did not specifically intend to torture their captives.

Continued . . .

Israel says it doesn’t mean to kill Palestinian children, yet they keep on dyingB. Michael
Published: 05.04.08, 10:20 / Y News, Israel Opinion

We really didn’t mean to do it. Again we didn’t mean to do it. We have never meant to do it. Yet as usual, even though we didn’t mean it – we hit them. We hit them 1,000 times already without meaning to do it. We have killed a total of 1,000 Palestinian children since the second Intifada broke out on September 29, 2000. A thousand.

We already have a special procedure for cases where a Palestinian child dies as a result of a misfired missile, a misaimed shell, an unfocused helicopter, or a distracted sniper. At first, we deny a child even died. Later we argue that his own people killed him. Later we issue explanations and excuses and scenarios that only become dumber with the passage of time.

Then comes the turn of the “investigating officer” (it will never be an investigating judge, a scrutinizing observer, or an inquisitive civilian. It’s always an officer) who proceeds to issue some nonsense that clears us of any wrongdoing. Ultimately, we declare that the evil Arabs are at fault, because they take cover among civilians.

Yet if the regular “it was a mistake” claim has already become completely ridiculous – because how many times can one say “we didn’t mean it” without making those words empty and hollow and cold – the argument regarding taking cover among civilians is truly infuriating with its chutzpa.

A state whose military high command and the office of its defense minister are located at the heart of a crowded city, and which sends civilians, including their women and children, to “expand the boundaries of the country” and whose bridgehead for occupation and takeover regularly hides being babies and pregnant women, and which refers to its own armed soldiers who died in battle or were captured as “boys” – such state needs a very high level of nerve in order to blame others for hiding behind civilians and children.

Continued . . .

The Jerusalem Post, May 5, 2008

By Khaled Abu Toameh

Palestinian Authority officials said Monday that Israel was offering the Palestinians nothing more than a “mini-state of cantons” in parts of the West Bank.

 The officials told The Jerusalem Post that Israel’s proposals were “completely unacceptable” and “provocative.” They also claimed that the US Administration was supporting the Israeli position.

“Today, it’s clear to us that Israel has no intention of withdrawing from all the territories that were occupied in 1967,” said one official.

“If the Israelis and Americans think that they will ever find a Palestinian leader who would accept less than the 1967 borders, they are living under an illusion.”

The Israeli maps, he said, “turn the Palestinian communities in the West Bank into cantons surrounded by Israeli military bases and large settlement blocs.”

The official added: “We have made it clear to both the Israelis and Americans that they should throw away these maps. No Palestinian will ever agree to the presence of settlements or Israeli soldiers in the West Bank. This is in violation of [US President George W.] Bush’s vision of two states living next to each other in peace.”

The officials said they were unaware of dramatic changes in Israel’s position regarding final status issues, adding that it was “premature” to talk about progress in the negotiations between the two parties.

They said they were surprised to hear reports in the Israeli media about certain progress that was ostensibly achieved during Monday’s summit between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Continued . . .

RINF.Com, May 5, 2008

Inter Press Service Five years since U.S. President George W. Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, critics say the administration has yet to show a credible way to actually “accomplish” the mission that could see a peaceful Iraq and a return home of U.S. troops.
Though the 2007 revamping of the counter-insurgency strategy, known as the “surge,” has markedly reduced violence, political turmoil and ethno-sectarian strife still plague Iraq.
The U.S. surge and its concurrent positive developments did create political space, but meaningful moves toward comprehensive political accords and reconciliation have yet to follow, said a pair of new Iraq reports from the International Crisis Group (ICG).

For example, the Sunni Awakening, or Sahwa movement, that helped to slow violence in much of Baghdad and Anbar province by bringing in former insurgents and incorporating them into U.S.-funded militias, for example, leaves a new Sunni political landscape.

But that landscape, with all of its advantages for bringing stability – and thereby aiding the U.S. occupation – has failed to transition into the politics of the Iraqi central government. Frustration with those failures creates a tense atmosphere that even U.S. officials acknowledge as being “fragile and reversible.”

Continued . . .

WSWS , May 5, 2008

By Patrick Martin

In dueling television appearances Sunday morning, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declared their determination to escalate US military action in the Middle East, disagreeing mainly over which country should be targeted first.

Obama called for a “surge” of US troops into Afghanistan, while Clinton reaffirmed her bloodcurdling rhetoric about the “obliteration” of Iran.

Both candidates demonstrated that their criticism of the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq does not represent opposition to American militarism, but rather a concern—voiced even by significant sections of the military itself—that the war in Iraq has become a diversion from other, even more important, strategic objectives.

Obama was interviewed on the NBC News program “Meet the Press,” while Clinton appeared on ABC’s “This Week.”

Tim Russert, host of “Meet the Press,” cited an NBC News report that the Bush administration is drawing up plans for air strikes against Iranian weapons factories and military training facilities, on the pretext that these sites are helping insurgents kill US soldiers in Iraq. “If it could be demonstrated that was a fact, would you be in support of such limited attacks in Iran?” he asked Obama.

Continued . . .

Al Jazeera, May 6, 2008

Nargis knocked out power and caused widespread flooding and damage [AFP]
The Myanmar government has said that the toll from Saturday’s cyclone has risen to 15,000 and is likely to rise.

Nyan Win, the foreign minister, said on state television that 10,000 people had died in just one town, Bogalay, as he gave the first detailed account of what is emerging as the worst cyclone to hit Asia since 1991, when 143,000 people were killed in Bangladesh.

“In Irrawaddy Division the death toll amounts to more than 10,000,” he said in a state television broadcast.

“The missing is about 3,000. In Bogalay, the death toll is about 10,000.

“Information is still being collected, and there could be more casualties.”

The minister also said the military government welcomed outside assistance, an unprecedented green light to governments and aid agencies who want to help with the recovery.

But Al Jazeera’s Laura Kyle, reporting from Bangkok, said while aid agencies were ready to render assistance, they had not yet been able to get inside the country despite the government’s apparent green light.

Nargis swept through Myanmar on Saturday, knocking out power and causing widespread flooding and damage.

Our correspondent reported aid agencies estimating the toll to be up to 20,000.

Hundreds of thousands have been left homeless.

James East, of the World Vision aid agency which has nearly 500 staff in the country, told Al Jazeera that the agency had been told by government officials that 90 to 95 per cent of the homes in eight townships had been severely damaged.

Continued . . .

by Prof. James Petras
Global Research, May 4, 2008
Email this article to a friend
Print this article

General Petraeus: “President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders promised to end their support for the special groups but the nefarious activities of the Quds Force have continued.”
Senator Joseph Lieberman: “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?”

General Petraeus: “It certainly is…That is correct.”

General Petraeus testimony to the US Senate, April 8-9, 2008.

“The Israeli flag is proudly displayed above the Sacred Ark alongside the American flag…”( in an orthodox synagogue in wealthy Georgetown, Washington DC. The entrance fee to the synagogue is $1000 for a single holiday.) “On each Sabbath the prayers include the benediction for the Israeli Jewish soldiers and the prayer for the welfare of the Israeli government and its officials. Many Jewish American Administration officials pray there. They not only don’t try to conceal their religious affiliation, but go to great lengths to demonstrate their Judaism since it may help their careers greatly. The enormous Jewish influence in Washington is not limited to the government. In the Washingtonian media, a very significant part of the most important personages and of the presenters of the most popular programs on TV are warm Jews … and let us not forget, in this context, the Jewish predominance in the Washingtonian academic institutions.” Avinoam Bar-Yosef, Ma’riv (Israeli daily newspaper), September 2, 1994 (translated by Israel Shahak).

Introduction

When President Bush appointed General David Petraeus Commander (head) of the Multinational Forces in Iraq, his appointment was hailed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post as a brilliant decision: A general of impeccable academic and battlefield credentials and a warrior and counter-insurgency (terrorist) intellectual. The media and the President, the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and Congress, described his appointment as ‘America’s last best hope for salvation in Iraq’. Senator Hilary Clinton joined the chorus of pro-war politicians in praise and support of Petraeus’ ‘professionalism and war record’ in Northern Iraq. In contrast, Admiral William Fallon, his predecessor and former commander, had called Petraeus’ briefings ‘a piece of brown-nosing chicken shit’.

In theory and strategy, in pursuit of defeating the Iraqi resistance, General Petraeus was a disastrous failure, an outcome predictable form the very nature of his appointment and his flawed wartime reputation.

In the first instance Petraeus was a political appointment. He was one of the few high military officials who shared Bush and the Zioncons’ assessment that the ‘war could be won’. Petraeus argued that his experience in Northern Iraq were replicable throughout the rest of the country. Moreover Petraeus, unlike most military analysts, was willing to ignore the heavy costs of multiple prolonged tours of duty on US troops. Petraeus willingness to ignore the larger costs of prolonged military engagement in Iraq has weakened the capacity of the US to sustain its world-wide imperial interests. For Petraeus, sacrificing the overall cohesion and structure of the US military in Iraq, the global interests of the empire and the US domestic budget were worth securing Bush’s appointment as ‘Commander of the Forces in Iraq’. Shortly after taking office and in the face of massive domestic, international and Iraq demands for the withdrawal of US troops, Petraeus took the path dictated by the US and pro Israeli militarists in the Bush Administration and their powerful ‘Lobby’. He escalated the war, by calling up more troops, what he euphemistically referred to as ‘the surge’ – a massive call-up of 40,000 more mission-weary infantry and marines.

Continued . . .