CIA rendition: more than a quarter of countries ‘offered covert support’

February 5, 2013

Report finds at least 54 countries co-operated with global kidnap, detention and torture operation mounted after 9/11 attacks

John Brennan

John Brennan, Barack Obama’s choice to head the CIA. The report’s release appears timed to coincide with his confirmation hearing. Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters

The full extent of the CIA‘s extraordinary rendition programme has been laid bare with the publication of a report showing there is evidence that more than a quarter of the world’s governments covertly offered support.

A 213-page report compiled by the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), a New York-based human rights organisation, says that at least 54 countries co-operated with the global kidnap, detention and torture operation that was mounted after 9/11, many of them in Europe.

So widespread and extensive was the participation of governments across the world that it is now clear the CIA could not have operated its programme without their support, according to the OSJI.

Continues >>

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

February 4, 2013

Translated and edited by Israel Shahak from Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”

Information Clearing House, February 4, 2013

The Association of Arab-American University Graduates finds it compelling to inaugurate its new publication series, Special Documents, with Oded Yinon’s article which appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization. Oded Yinon is an Israeli journalist and was formerly attached to the Foreign Ministry of Israel. To our knowledge, this document is the most explicit, detailed and unambiguous statement to date of the Zionist strategy in the Middle East. Furthermore, it stands as an accurate representation of the “vision” for the entire Middle East of the presently ruling Zionist regime of Begin, Sharon and Eitan. Its importance, hence, lies not in its historical value but in the nightmare which it presents.

The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.

Continues >>

‘Blasphemy, Offence, and Hate Speech’

February 1, 2013
.
A response to Henk Vroom by Professor Oddbjørn Leirvik, University of Oslo
.
 Nasir Khan,  A letter to Prof. Leirvik, Sep. 26, 2012
.
I read with great interest your response to Henk Vroom in ‘Blasphemy, Offence, and Hate Speech’. The historical evolution of blasphemy laws in Norway and Pakistan you present clarifies many points in a scholarly way. (I have been aware of your serious approach to inter-religious discussions and understanding for a number of years, an admirable trait of your outlook and activity that makes a constructive contribution to the notion of peaceful coexistence and social cohesion.) The historical evolution and legislative enactments on blasphemy in the two countries have also a geopolitical and cultural context and the differences we see are enormous. Norway has been a democratic state in the modern times where the state religion did not have an open field but has operated within the confines of the state regulations. But Pakistan had a difficult political history since its inception and the people of Pakistan have been less fortunate because the political and power culture that developed in Pakistan had no substantial democratic traditions or the whole thing in the hands of our rulers after Mr. Jinnah’s death was a tug of war for personal power and prestige.
.
In addition, religion became a power factor in the hands of politicians and religious congregations organised on sectarian lines. The role of Pakistani dictator General Zia and his ‘Hudood Ordinances’ which you mention have been the glaring example of curtailing the religious freedom of all those who did not conform to the dominant Sunni branch of Islam. The victimisation of Ahmadis especially accelerated throughout Pakistan and even the Pakistani immigrant communities living in Europe and North America followed the example of attacks on and propaganda against the Ahmadis. Within Pakistan, blasphemy laws could easily and falsely be used against the Ahmadis and Christians.
.
Your clarification of blasphemy laws and hate speech within the Norwegian context is illuminating. Many people are not clear about the distinction. Your description deals with the issue. I have not read Henk Vroom’s essay but I agree with the views you advance that the distinction he draws between the two categories, the first one for race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, and the second one for religion for individual’s identity may not be so rigid after all. Identities seen on the basis of religion or ethnicity, etc., turn out to be social constructs for most of the people as a general rule, not a matter of choice or predilection. This point stands out clearly in your exposition.
.
What should be the role of the modern legislation in protecting individuals and communities and their ‘religious feelings’? This theme warrants a careful analysis and the balancing of different and differing outlooks. What you write under the subheading ‘A Humanising, Ethical Turn’ is fair. You have given a good overview of Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. I had read only parts and not the whole book. But I was not able to see many gems of wisdom or historical insights in the book. On the contrary he had regurgitated Christian polemical views against Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. I still maintain that an artist and writer should not be restrained from expressing his views on matters that touch or provoke the religious sensitivities of people and Rushdie in this matter is no exception. But respect towards fellow human beings is essential and I see no need to stir social frenzy that bears negative consequences.
.
However, merely because I feel a contrary opinion, view or even another theological outlook as an affront to my ‘religions feelings’ is not a good ground to social and political confrontation. A serious contrary view whether in the matter of religion or outside religion needs a reasoned response and social discourse for the advancement of knowledge and the clarification of epistemological issues. However, there is no need to stir any religious community by any nonsensical utterance or provocation, but nonsensical and provocative utterances should not be magnified out of all proportion as it happens from time to time. The principle of freedom of speech, to question the age-old customs and beliefs should open new vistas of understanding and an inspiration to our ever-growing quest for knowledge.
.
Sincerely yours
.
Nasir Khan
.

Stephen Lendman: Islamofascist Rule in Egypt

January 30, 2013

Morsi established tyranny

by Stephen Lendman, opednews.com, January 30, 2013

.

Washington engineered Mubarak’s ouster. He fell from grace. He became more liability than asset.

For years, State Department and Pentagon officials wanted him out. He opposed Bush’s 2003 Iraq war and other US policies. He had to go.

Washington engineered Egyptian uprisings. Spontaneity was created and manipulated. Arab Spring is Western terminology. It’s yet to bloom.

It was first used in March 2005. It suggested a beneficial Iraq war spinoff. Washington deplores emerging democracies. It prioritizes unchallenged control.

Regional uprisings achieved nothing. Daily life reflects poverty, unemployment, and despotism. Tens of oppressed millions suffer.

Conditions now are worse than earlier. People want jobs, decent pay, better services, ending corruption and repression. They want liberating democratic change.

In February 2011, Mubarak was ousted. At the time, an article said hold the celebration. Egypt’s struggle just began. Everything changed, stayed the same, and worsened.

Junta power and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) interests rule. Mohammed Morsi is their public face. Islamofacist rule is policy.

Continues >>

Francis A. Boyle: The United States Promotes Israeli Genocide Against the Palestinians

January 28, 2013
.
.
israelus

In direct reaction to Israel provoking the Al Aqsa Intifada, on October 19, 2000, the then United Nations Human Rights Commission (now Council) condemned Israel for inflicting “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” upon the Palestinian people, some of whom are Christians, but most of whom are Muslims.[i]

This Special Session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights adopted the Resolution set forth in U.N. Document E/CN.4/S-5/L.2/Rev. 1, “Condemning the provocative visit to Al-Haram Al-Shariff on 28 September 2000 by Ariel Sharon, the Likud party leader, which triggered the tragic events that followed in occupied East Jerusalem and the other occupied Palestinian territories, resulting in a high number of deaths and injuries among Palestinian civilians.” The U.N. Human Rights Commission said it was “[g]ravely concerned” about several different types of atrocities inflicted by Israel upon the Palestinian people, which it denominated “war crimes, flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity.”

In operative paragraph 1 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission then:

“Strongly condemns the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force in violation of international humanitarian law by the Israeli occupying Power against innocent and unarmed Palestinian civilians…including many children, in the occupied territories, which constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity;…”

And in paragraph 5 of its 19 October 2000 Resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Commission:

“Also affirms that the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians and children by the Israeli occupying authorities constitutes a flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and also constitutes a crime against humanity;…”

Article 68 of the United Nations Charter had expressly required the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council to “set up” this U.N. Commission (now Council) “for the promotion of human rights.” This was its U.N.-Charter-mandated job.

Continues >>

Iraq: A Twenty Two Year Genocide

January 20, 2013

By Felicity Arbuthnot, The Palestine Chronicle, Jan 18 2013

A UN team called the devastation 'near-apocalyptic.' (Photo: Zoriah.net)
A UN team called the devastation ‘near-apocalyptic.’ (Photo: Zoriah.net)
.

Incredibly it is twenty two years to the day since the telephone rang in the early hours and a friend said: “They are bombing Baghdad.”

It was not alone Baghdad, of course, Iraq was being systematically destroyed, from ancient southern Basra to haunting, historic Mosul in the north – in the West destruction was such that it was not even noticed by the outside world that about seventy miles of Iraq had been entirely illegally donated to Jordan, the border was simply “moved.” Kuwait, bordering of Iraq’s southern border benefited similarly illegally.

Then Secretary of State James Baker’s vow to: “reduce Iraq to a pre-industrial age” was being minutely executed over what was to become a forty three day blitz, which morphed in to a thirteen year, vicious, murderous, one sided war of attrition and ultimately illegal invasion and occupation.

Continues >>

King: I Have a Dream. Obama: I Have a Drone.

January 16, 2013

Editor’s remarks: What Obama has done or is doing is in line with the American political culture whose basis lies in power and domination. But any lip service by the U.S. power elites to the so-called ‘American values’ and ‘promoting democracy’ abroad (!) is part of that political culture where rhetoric and propaganda have to be used repeatedly before the global audience. In the eyes of American warmongers and the corporate interests that rule America and the global American Empire, this in-itself provides them with a moral basis for their actions and their policies. In a nutshell, the killing of people abroad ranging from individual cases of assassinations to organised slaughter of hundreds, thousands and even millions of people by America in Vietnam and Iraq can all be justified by pointing to a higher cause which USA stands for. During the Cold War, it was  ‘defending the free world’ and after the end of the Cold War, it has become ‘war against terror’. Therefore, Obama and his allies are continuing their global peace mission!

Nasir Khan, Editor

—————————————————–

by Norman Solomon, CommonDreams, January 16, 2013

A simple twist of fate has set President Obama’s second Inaugural Address for January 21, the same day as the Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday.

Obama made no mention of King during the Inauguration four years ago — but since then, in word and deed, the president has done much to distinguish himself from the man who said “I have a dream.”

After his speech at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in August 1963, King went on to take great risks as a passionate advocate for peace.

After his Inaugural speech in January 2009, Obama has pursued policies that epitomize King’s grim warning in 1967: “When scientific power outruns moral power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men.”

Continues >>

America’s Bloody Price for Power

January 11, 2013
.
Consortium News, January 11, 2013

Exclusive: “The Untold History of the United States” shakes up the traditional recounting of the last century, forcing Americans to rethink key assumptions, but director Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick have not written a people’s history, says Jim DiEugenio in part two of his review.

 

By Jim DiEugenio

It’s challenging to review a book like The Untold History of the United States by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick, with its broad sweep covering more than a century – from the late 19th to the early 21st centuries – especially given the authors’ ambition to reorder how Americans see their nation as it evolved into a global empire and force them to confront how that empire has trampled on the lives and dreams of other people.

Without doubt, there is much value in their effort, which you can also watch in a Showtime documentary series by the same name. It is always good when a serious work comes out that shakes the pillars of the historical establishment by challenging cherished conventional wisdoms. Director Stone and historian Kuznick surely do that.

But the inevitable selection process – emphasizing one historical turning point over another and indeed omitting some pivotal moments altogether – invites criticism. And that is true about the second half of this book and series as it was the first half, which I reviewed earlier.

The second half of the 750-page book covers U.S. history from the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama. And much like the first half, this 50-year sweep of history is more a reshuffling of the official top-down history than a people’s history in the vein of Howard Zinn, who focused more on the popular struggles that invigorated American democracy from the bottom up, rather than on the machinations of the political and economic elites.

Continues >>

The four business gangs that run the US

January 9, 2013

.

Ross Gittins

Ross Gittins

The Sydney Morning Herald’s Economics Editor

smh.com.au, Dec 31, 2012

Illustration: Michael Mucci.
Illustration: Michael Mucci.

IF YOU’VE ever suspected politics is increasingly being run in the interests of big business, I have news: Jeffrey Sachs, a highly respected economist from Columbia University, agrees with you – at least in respect of the United States.

In his book, The Price of Civilisation, he says the US economy is caught in a feedback loop. ”Corporate wealth translates into political power through campaign financing, corporate lobbying and the revolving door of jobs between government and industry; and political power translates into further wealth through tax cuts, deregulation and sweetheart contracts between government and industry. Wealth begets power, and power begets wealth,” he says.

Sachs says four key sectors of US business exemplify this feedback loop and the takeover of political power in America by the ”corporatocracy”.

Continues >>

Book Review: The U.S. War Machine

January 3, 2013
by   FFF.org / Explore Freedom, January 1, 2013

The American Way of War: Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in Peril by Eugene Jarecki (New York: Free Press, 2008); 336 pages.

Many supporters of Barack Obama are disappointed that he has not reversed the war policies of his predecessor. He did his best to continue the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The Afghanistan war rages far beyond what was seen under George W. Bush. Obama has also proved militaristic in operations in Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan, and in the sanctions against Iran. The attacks on civil liberties and human rights continue on the same path that Bush forged.

Obama gave indications early on that that would be his trajectory. He always promised to expand the Afghanistan war. He never vowed to cut and run from Iraq any faster than was established policy by the time Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement in late 2008. As a U.S. senator, he voted to legalize Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, foreshadowing his future sellouts as president on the civil-liberties front.

Yet the reason for the continuity of militarism transcends anything that can be found in Obama himself. The sad truth is that Bush’s two terms were never quite the aberration that they were widely characterized as being. His neoconservative advisors were particularly belligerent in some avenues of foreign-policy theory, but they never represented a hard break from American traditions going back several generations.

Continues >>