|
Archive: Michael Munk's National Messages:
16 House members back Kucinich's debate on Obama's AfPak war
by Michael Munk
Sun, Mar 7, 2010
|
Note: 3 Republicans on the list
Kucinich Forces Congress to Debate Afghanistan
by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed, March 6, 2010
http://www.truthout.org/kucinich-forces-congress-debate-afghanistan57433
On Thursday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced H. Com Res. 248, a
privileged resolution with 16 original cosponsors that will require the
House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the war in
Afghanistan. Debate on the resolution is expected early next week.
Original cosponsors of the Kucinich resolution include John Conyers, Jr.
(D-Michigan); Ron Paul (R-Texas); José Serrano (D-New York); Bob Filner
(D-California); Lynn Woolsey (D-California); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-North
Carolina); Danny Davis (D-Illinois); Barbara Lee (D-California); Michael
Capuano (D-Massachusetts); Raúl Grijalva (D-Arizona); Tammy Baldwin
(D-Wisconsin); Timothy Johnson (R-Illinois); Yvette Clarke (D-New York);
Eric Massa (D-New York), Alan Grayson (D-Florida) and Chellie Pingree
(D-Maine).
The Pentagon doesn't want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon wants
Congress to fork over $33 billion more to pay for the current military
escalation, no questions asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal
timetable or an exit strategy.
Ideally, from the point of view of the Pentagon, Congress would fork over
that money right away, before the coming Kandahar offensive that the $33
billion is supposed to pay for, because you can expect a lot of bad news out
of Afghanistan in the form of deaths of American soldiers and Afghan
civilians once the Kandahar offensive starts, and it would sure be awkward
if all that bad news reached Washington while the $33 billion was hanging
fire.
So it's a great thing that Kucinich and his 16 allies are forcing Congress
to debate the issue, and it would be even better if more Members of Congress
would be urged by their constituents to support Kucinich's resolution. That
would be a signal to the House leadership that continuation of the
open-ended war and occupation is controversial in the House, and the House
leadership should not try to ram through $33 billion more for the war on a
fast-track without ample opportunity for debate and amendment.
Every day the Afghanistan war continues is another day on which the United
States government plays Russian roulette with the lives of American soldiers
and Afghan civilians.
The British government has more urgency than the US government about ending
the war - and is more supportive than the US of a political solution to end
the conflict - because in Britain there is greater public outcry.
If there were greater public and Congressional outcry in the US, we could be
more like Britain, and get our government on board the train to a political
solution, instead of prolonging the war indefinitely.
The first step towards bringing our troops home is for members of Congress
to hear from their constituents.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Obama to cave on Iraq withdrawal?
by Michael Munk
Sat, Mar 6, 2010
|
Why not? He's "caved" on everything else: health care, GITMO, torture
photos, "state secrets," Honduras, illegal Israeli settlements and now
civilian trials?
(But Juan Cole http://www.juancole.com/ insists he'll draw down to 50,000
occupation troops by August)
He writes: It seems to me extremely unlikely that the post-election scene
will be so violent or unstable as to call for a revision of the current
timetable for US troop withdrawal from Iraq, to which President Obama has
committed the US government. Iraq has actually seen much worse violence in
recent months than anything it has experienced in the run-up to this
election, though it is true that civilian casualties spiked in February.
Iraqi authorities have repeatedly said proudly that the Iraqi military and
other security forces are capable of keeping basic peace now, and they are
in charge of security for the voting stations this time, not the US
military. I do not believe the Iraqi parliament that is about to be elected
will put up with any foot-dragging on troop withdrawals by the US, and I
think the US military officers who speak of slowing down the withdrawal are
doing so to discourage radical guerrillas from making trouble during the
elections (warning them that attacks will backfire by making it harder to
get rid of the Americans.
Obama to Cave on Iraq Withdrawal?
Pressure from the 'longer warriors':
By Tom Hayden / The Rag Blog / March 3, 2010
http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/tom-hayden-obama-to-cave-on-iraq.html
Was it too good to be true? In February at Camp Lejeune, our new President
Barack Obama surprised all observers by pledging to withdraw all U.S. troops
from Iraq by 2012, in accord with a pact secretly negotiated at the end of
the Bush era. Previously, Obama was promising to withdraw all combat troops,
leaving a "residual force" dominating Iraq for years.
Obama has restated his commitment to the full withdrawal on several
occasions. But heavy pressure is building to make the president drop his
commitment.
The most ominous sign of the gathering campaign to make Obama cave in came
in a February 24 op-ed piece in the New York Times by Thomas Ricks, the
pre-eminent mainstream historian of the war. Given the political gridlock
and growing turbulence in Iraq, Ricks says that breaking his campaign
promise is the "best course" for Obama to pursue.
Ricks says "it would be best to let [read: pressure] Iraqi leaders to make
the first public move to re-open the status of forces agreement" under which
U.S. combat troops will soon be departing.
"As a longtime critic of the American invasion of Iraq, I am not happy about
advocating a continued military presence there," Ricks writes. Perhaps he is
forgetting his 2009 book celebrating Gen. David Petraeus, The Gamble, in
which Ricks predicted that Obama would have to break his vow to remove all
combat troops to avoid "abandoning Iraq." Or his prediction in the same book
that the U.S. is only "halfway through" the Iraq War.
Ricks' epilogue was titled "The Long War," making him one of the earliest
warrior-journalists to embrace the notion of a 50-80 year war projected by
top counterinsurgency advisers to Petraeus and the Pentagon.
Everyone including Ricks agrees that the American public is completely
soured on the Iraq War. Just this week a federal agency noted that the $53
billion spent on Iraq reconstruction, the largest aid effort since the
Marshall Plan, has been squandered. [NYT, Feb. 22, 2010]
That doesn't phase our ideological fanatics who believe in permanent war
until all their ideological fanatics are dead.
No matter that both Iraq and Afghanistan are trillion-dollar wars and,
according to the latest federal budget analysis, there is "virtually no room
for domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors." The
neo-conservative stealth strategy of destroying government programs by
"strangling the baby in the bathtub" (the phrase of Grover Norquist) is
working.
The reason U.S. military combat may continue in Iraq is that the Pentagon
has not won the war. On the one hand, the U.S. has installed a brutal
authoritarian Shiite-dominated coalition in power in Baghdad, one closely
aligned with the Pentagon's strategic enemies in Iran. That's not a victory.
That same Shiite coalition has used its power to purge the minority Sunni
candidates from running in the elections scheduled for next month. Gen. Ray
Odierno recently stated the obvious, that the key Iraqi politicians purging
the Sunni candidates "clearly are influenced by Iran." [NYT, Feb. 17, 2010]
Not surprisingly, the top Iraqi blocking Sunni participation, according to
Gen. Odiorno, is the same Ahmed Chalabi who conspired with the neocons to
pass along false information leading to the 2003 invasion.
These events may drive the Sunni community to revive its insurgency, which
was contained by U.S. funding of the "Awakening" movement and promises of
protection. The return of insurgency would mean civil war. The alternative
may be more likely, a demand from the Sunnis that their former enemies, the
Americans, stay in Iraq to protect them from the Shiites. This scenario
would be in accord with the doctrine advocated by Petraeus advisor Stephen
Biddle [see Foreign Affairs, March-April 2006]. Divide and conquer may
succeed.
What are the chances Obama will keep to his commitment? At this point, the
most likely withdrawal we can expect from the President is not from Iraq but
from his previous commitment. How can he politically succeed in withdrawing
against warnings from all sides that chaos and bloodshed will be the result?
The Long War advocates have him where they want him.
The peace movement may protest, and public opinion may be unenthusiastic,
but cannot be counted on to stop this Long War plan for Iraq if Obama caves.
Last month there were only five American deaths in Iraq; for 2009, the count
was 149 [compared to 822 in 2006].
If renewed American intervention cannot be stopped, neither can a reckoning
down the road, however. The cost of occupation is more than a fiscal one. A
permanent American occupation of Iraq will be like a giant breeder reactor
generating deadly and unpredictable opposition from Iraqi nationalism and
Islamic fundamentalism for years to come.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Obama's final debacle: Clinton urges recognition of miliary coup
by Michael Munk
Thu, Mar 4, 2010
|
Remember: Clinton apparatchik Lanny Davis led the lobbying in Washingtion
for the oligrach junta that kidnapped an elected Honduran president.
---------------------
Clinton: US to restore aid to Honduras, urges recognition of new government
MATTHEW LEE
AP News, March 4, 2010
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/03/clinton_urges_recognition_of_honduras_government.php?ref=fpa
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration
will restore aid to Honduras that was suspended after a coup last year.
Clinton is urging Latin America to recognize the new Honduran government.
Speaking Thursday in Costa Rica, Clinton said the post-coup government,
which took office in January, was democratically elected. And she said it
was taking steps to reconcile the population split by last June's coup, as
called for by international mediation.
Clinton said it was time for countries in the region to respond and allow
Honduras back into the Organization of American States. Clinton also said
she had notified Congress that U.S. aid to Honduras would be restored.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Brazil rejects Clinton's pressure on Iran
by Michael Munk
Wed, Mar 3, 2010
|
Clinton fails to win over Brazil on Iran
By Raymond Colitt and Andrew Quinn
Reuters, March 3, 2010
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/03/clinton_fails_to_win_over_brazil_on_iran.php?ref=fpa
BRASILIA (Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to win
Brazil's support on Wednesday for more sanctions against Iran and said
Tehran would not talk seriously about its nuclear program until the United
Nations took new action.
Even before he met with Clinton, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva said "it is not wise to push Iran into a corner. It is wise to
establish negotiations."
Clinton's visit to Brasilia came as U.S. diplomats seek to persuade key U.N.
Security Council members that the time has come for action on Iran, which
has defied U.N. demands that it stop enriching uranium.
"I think it's only after we pass sanctions in the Security Council that Iran
will negotiate in good faith," Clinton said.
"That is my belief, that is our administration's belief: that once the
international community speaks in unison around a resolution then the
Iranians will come and begin to negotiate."
Clinton said the United States believed sanctions are "the best way to avoid
conflict and arms races that could disrupt stability and the peace and the
oil markets of the world."
While most attention is focused on Russia and China, which hold veto power
over any U.N. resolution, Washington had hoped to win over key non-permanent
Security Council members such as Brazil and Turkey to present a united front
on the Iran nuclear stand-off.
Lula, who has upset Washington by pursuing close ties with Tehran, has
repeatedly voiced caution over the drive by the United States, Britain,
France and Germany for new sanctions over Iran's nuclear program, which they
fear is a cover for making atomic weapons.
Tehran has denied the accusation, and says its program is purely for
peaceful purposes.
Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim repeated that Brazil felt there was
room for two or three months more negotiation with Iran.
"We still have some possibility of coming to an agreement ... but that may
require a lot of flexibility on both sides," Amorim said at a news
conference with Clinton in Brasilia.
"We will not simply bow down to the evolving consensus if we do not agree."
Clinton, who is on a tour of Latin America, expressed disappointment with
Brazil's position, and said talks had proved fruitless with Iran.
"The door is open for negotiation, we never slammed it shut. but we don't
see anybody even in the far off distance walking toward it," Clinton said.
She urged countries to be cautious about Iran's assurances that it had only
peaceful intentions.
"We have seen an Iran that runs to Brazil, an Iran that runs to Turkey and
an Iran that runs to China, telling people different things to different
people to avoid international sanctions," she said.
The United States and European Union on Wednesday kept up the hot rhetoric,
accusing Iran of breaking nuclear transparency rules by escalating uranium
enrichment without U.N. surveillance and saying its "provocative" behavior
invited tougher sanctions.
They spoke at a tense meeting in Vienna of governors of the International
Atomic Energy Agency. A diplomat inside the closed-door meeting said China's
ambassador reiterated that Beijing still believed the time was not right for
sanctions against its major trade partner, further complicating the
western-led push for quick moves to sanctions.
Lula told reporters that while Brazil supported more negotiation with Iran
it would "not support any move by Iran to go beyond the peaceful use of
nuclear energy."
He added that he planned to have a "frank discussion" on the subject with
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he visits Tehran in May.
Diplomats told Reuters this week that the western powers had already
prepared a draft proposal for a fourth round of sanctions against Iran for
defying U.N. demands that it stop enriching uranium.
If the four Western powers win the support of Russia and China, negotiations
on the first new U.N. sanctions resolution in two years could begin
immediately.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Reich: Why the Dem base lack enthusiasm
by Michael Munk
Tue, Mar 2, 2010
|
True, that, except that Reich minmizes the impact of Obama's bad decisions
on the Dems base.
The Enthusiasm Gap
28 February 2010
by: Robert Reich | RobertReich.org
http://www.truthout.org/the-enthusiasm-gap57281
I had dinner the other night with a Democratic pollster who told me Dems are
heading toward next fall's mid-term elections with a serious enthusiasm gap:
The Republican base is fired up. The Dem base is packing up.
The Dem base is lethargic because congressional Democrats continue to
compromise on everything the Dem base cares about. For a year now it's been
nothing but compromises, watered-down ideas, weakened provisions, wider
loopholes, softened regulations. Health care went from what the Dem base
wanted - single payer - to a public option, to no public option, to a bunch
of ideas that the President tried to explain last week, and it now hangs by
a string as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid try to round up conservative Dems
and a 51-vote reconciliation package in the Senate. The jobs bill went from
what the base wanted - a second stimulus - to $165 billion of extended
unemployment benefits and aid to states and locales, then to $15 billion of
tax breaks for businesses that make new hires. Financial regulation went
from tough new capital requirements, sharp constraints on derivate trading,
a consumer protection agency, and a resurrection of the Glass-Steagall Act -
all popular with the Dem base - to some limits on derivatives and a
consumer-protection agency inside the Treasury Department and a
rearrangement of oversight boxes, and it's now looking like even less. The
environment went from the base's desire for a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade
carbon auction then to a cap-and-trade with all sorts of exemptions and
offsets for the biggest polluters, and now Senate Dems are talking about
trying to do it industry-by-industry.
These waffles and wiggle rooms have drained the Democratic base of all
passion. "Why should I care?" are words I hear over and over again from
stalwart Democrats who worked their hearts out in the last election.
The Republican base, meanwhile, is on a rampage. It's more and more
energized by its mad-as-hell populists. Tea partiers, libertarians,
Birchers, birthers, and Dick Armey astro-turfers are channeling the economic
anxieties of millions of Americans against "big government."
Technically, the Dems have the majority in Congress and could still make
major reforms. But conservative, "blue-dog" Dems won't go along. They say
the public has grown wary of government. But they must know the public
hasn't grown even more wary of big business and Wall Street, on which
effective government is the only constraint.
Anyone with an ounce of sanity understands government is the only effective
countervailing force against the forces that got us into this mess: Against
Goldman Sachs and the rest of the big banks that plunged the economy into
crisis, got our bailout money, and are now back at their old games,
dispensing huge bonuses to themselves. Against WellPoint and the rest of the
giant health insurers who are at this moment robbing us of the care we need
by raising their rates by double digits. Against giant corporations that are
showing big profits by continuing to lay off millions of Americans and
cutting the wages of millions of more, by shifting jobs abroad and
substituting software. Against big oil and big utilities that are raising
prices and rates, and continue to ravage the atmosphere.
If there was ever a time to connect the dots and make the case for
government as the singular means of protecting the public from these forces
it is now. Yet the White House and the congressional Dem's ongoing refusal
to blame big business and Wall Street has created the biggest irony in
modern political history. A growing portion of the public, fed by the right,
blames our problems on "big government."
Much of the reason for the Democrats' astonishing reluctance to place blame
where it belongs rests with big business's and Wall Street's generous flows
of campaign donations to Dems, coupled with their implicit promise of
high-paying jobs once Democratic officials retire from government. This is
the rot at the center of the system. And unless or until it's remedied, it
will be difficult for the President to achieve any "change you can believe
in."
To his credit, Obama himself has not scaled back his health-care ambitions
all that much, and he appears, intermittently, to want to push conservative
blue-dog Dems to join him on a bigger jobs bill, tougher financial reform,
and a more effective approach to global warming. (His overtures to
Republicans seem ever more transparently designed to give blue-dog Dems
cover to vote with him.)
But our President is not comfortable wielding blame. He will not give the
public the larger narrative of private-sector greed, its nefarious effect on
the American public at this dangerous juncture, and the private sector's
corruption of the democratic process. He has so far eschewed any major plan
to get corporate and Wall Street money out of politics. He can be indignant-
as when he lashed out at the "fat cats" on Wall Street - but his indignance
is fleeting, and it is no match for the faux indignance of the right that
blames government for all that ails us.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
German parliament expells (temporarily) 76 elected leftists
by Michael Munk
Mon, Mar 1, 2010
|
Note: The Greens abtained on sending more troops to the Afghan war.
German Left Party Protests Afghan War, Expelled from Parliament
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0227/1224265276499.html VIA
mdriscollrj@charter.net
GERMANY’S LEFT Party was expelled from the Bundestag yesterday after its
members held up signs bearing the names of Afghan civilians killed in a
German-ordered airstrike last September.
The protest came in the middle of a parliamentary debate on extending
Germany’s nine-year military mission to Afghanistan by a further year.
Some 429 MPs voted for and 111 against the new mandate – 16 fewer votes in
favour than last time – allowing troop numbers to be increased by 850 to
5,350.
The opposition Green Party abstained and, after being re-admitted, the
Left Party MPs contributed to the 111 votes against the mandate.
“This was no routine vote, we reject the war in Afghanistan,” said Gesine
Lötzsch, the Left Party’s designate co-leader, after MPs held up about 70
signs with names of victims. One read: “Ali Mohammad, farmer, 35 years
old, nine children.
“This was a dignified way of remembering individual people with names and
biographies who have died, deaths that have brought calamity on their
families.”
The expulsion of the entire 76-member Left parliamentary party, a first
for the Bundestag, underlined the controversy that still surrounds Germany’s
first post-war military deployment outside Europe. The revised mandate
will increase from five to 1,400 the number of Germans training Afghan
soldiers.
Underlying public scepticism towards the mission has hardened into deeper
cynicism since September’s bombing of two petrol tankers near Kunduz that
killed about 140 people, including dozens of civilians. Full details are
still scarce, with a parliamentary inquiry into the incident meeting often
in closed-door session.
Some 69 per cent of Germans want soldiers to pull out, according to a
December poll for ARD public television, up 12 per cent in three months.
Green Party MP Hans-Christian Ströbele, a veteran of Germany’s pacifist
scene, said that, after the bombing, yesterday’s parliamentary expulsion
sent “completely the wrong signal to Afghanistan”.
Bundestag president Norbert Lammert defended his actions, pointing out
that protests in the chamber breach parliamentary guidelines.
Parliamentary expulsions are a rare but not unheard of phenomenon in
German politics. In 1949 then Social Democrat (SPD) leader Kurt Schumacher
became the first person to be thrown out for calling Konrad Adenauer the
“Allied Chancellor”. The most celebrated expulsion came in 1984 during a
row between the then Bundestag president and Green Party MP Joschka
Fischer.
“With permission, Mr President, you’re an asshole,” said Mr Fischer, who
was then expelled for two days.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Who are the torture docs in CIA's Office of Medical Services?
by Michael Munk
Mon, Mar 1, 2010
|
Op-Ed
Doctors Without Morals
By LEONARD S. RUBENSTEIN and STEPHEN N. XENAKIS
New Yoerk Times: March 1, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/opinion/01xenakis.html?ref=opinion
AFTER five years of investigation, the Justice Department has released its
findings regarding the government lawyers who authorized waterboarding and
other forms of torture during the interrogation of suspected terrorists at
Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere. The report's conclusion, that the lawyers
exercised poor judgment but were not guilty of professional misconduct, is
questionable at best. Still, the review reflects a commitment to a
transparent investigation of professional behavior.
In contrast, the government doctors and psychologists who participated in
and authorized the torture of detainees have escaped discipline,
accountability or even internal investigation.
It is hardly news that medical staff at the C.I.A. and the Pentagon played a
critical role in developing and carrying out torture procedures.
Psychologists and at least one doctor designed or recommended coercive
interrogation methods including sleep deprivation, stress positions,
isolation and waterboarding. The military's Behavioral Science Consultation
Teams evaluated detainees, consulted their medical records to ascertain
vulnerabilities and advised interrogators when to push harder for
intelligence information.
Psychologists designed a program for new arrivals at Guantánamo that kept
them in isolation to "enhance and exploit" their "disorientation and
disorganization." Medical officials monitored interrogations and ordered
medical interventions so they could continue even when the detainee was in
obvious distress. In one case, an interrogation log obtained by Time
magazine shows, a medical corpsman ordered intravenous fluids to be
administered to a dehydrated detainee even as loud music was played to
deprive him of sleep.
When the C.I.A.'s inspector general challenged these "enhanced
interrogation" methods, the agency's Office of Medical Services was brought
in to determine, in consultation with the Justice Department, whether the
techniques inflicted severe mental pain or suffering, the legal definition
of torture. Once again, doctors played a critical role, providing
professional opinions that no severe pain or suffering was being inflicted.
According to Justice Department memos released last year, the medical
service opined that sleep deprivation up to 180 hours didn't qualify as
torture. It determined that confinement in a dark, small space for 18 hours
a day was acceptable. It said detainees could be exposed to cold air or
hosed down with cold water for up to two-thirds of the time it takes for
hypothermia to set in. And it advised that placing a detainee in handcuffs
attached by a chain to a ceiling, then forcing him to stand with his feet
shackled to a bolt in the floor, "does not result in significant pain for
the subject."
The service did allow that waterboarding could be dangerous, and that the
experience of feeling unable to breathe is extremely frightening. But it
noted that the C.I.A. had limited its use to 12 applications over two
sessions within 24 hours, and to five days in any 30-day period. As a
result, the lawyers noted the office's "professional judgment that the use
of the waterboard on a healthy individual subject to these limitations would
be 'medically acceptable.'"
The medical basis for these opinions was nonexistent. The Office of Medical
Services cited no studies of individuals who had been subjected to these
techniques. Its sources included a wilderness medical manual, the National
Institute of Mental Health Web site and guidelines from the World Health
Organization.
The only medical source cited by the service was a book by Dr. James Horne,
a sleep expert at Loughborough University in Britain; when Dr. Horne learned
that his book had been used as a reference, he said the C.I.A. had distorted
his findings and misrepresented his research, and that its conclusions on
sleep deprivation were nonsense.
Dr. Horne had used healthy volunteers who were subject to no other stresses
and could withdraw at any time, while C.I.A. and Pentagon interrogators used
a broad array of stresses in combination on the detainees. Sleep
deprivation, he said, mixed with pain-inducing positioning, intimidation and
a host of other stresses, would probably exhaust the body's defense
mechanisms, cause physical collapse and worsen existing illness. And that
doesn't begin to acknowledge the dire psychological consequences.
The shabbiness of the medical judgments, though, pales in comparison to the
ethical breaches by the doctors and psychologists involved. Health
professionals have a responsibility extending well beyond nonparticipation
in torture; the historic maxim is, after all, "First do no harm." These
health professionals did the polar opposite.
Nevertheless, no agency - not the Pentagon, the C.I.A., state licensing
boards or professional medical societies - has initiated any action to
investigate, much less discipline, these individuals. They have ignored the
gross and appalling violations by medical personnel. This is an
unconscionable disservice to the thousands of ethical doctors and
psychologists in the country's service. It is not too late to begin
investigations. They should start now.
-----------------------
Leonard S. Rubenstein is a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health. Stephen N. Xenakis is a psychiatrist and a retired
Army brigadier general.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Who is the UK's notorious Master of the Rolls?
by Michael Munk
Sun, Feb 28, 2010
|
The Brits Labor government is furious at the decision by three senior judges
for ordering that the description of tortures suffered by a British subject
in US custody be made public. It is especially upset with public remarks by
one them-- Lord Neuberger, "Master of the Rolls." See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/26/binyam-mohamed-torture-ruling-government
for the story.
But if you're wondering what "The Master of the Rolls" is, read on and
especially check out his Court Dress.
At
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about_judiciary/roles_types_jurisdiction/judicial_profiles/heads_of_division/master_rolls.htm,
it says:
The Master of the Rolls is one of the Heads of Division. He or she is also
the leading judge dealing with the civil work of the Court of Appeal,
presiding over the most difficult and sensitive cases.
The Master of the Rolls also officially authorises solicitors to practice.
As a Head of Division and Member of the Privy Council, the Master of the
Rolls is given the prefix 'Right Honourable'.
The Master of the Rolls was originally responsible for the safe-keeping of
charters, patents and records of important court judgments written on
parchment rolls. He still has responsibility for documents of national
importance, being Chairman of the Advisory Council on Public Records and
Chairman of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts.
The Master of the Rolls is, by virtue of his office, a judge of the Court of
Appeal and acts as the president of its Civil Division - which he also
organises. He is responsible for the deployment and organisation of the work
of the judges of the division as well as presiding in one of its courts.
He normally sits with two Lords Justices of Appeal and there is occasionally
a third member such as a retired Lord Justice. The most complex cases
traditionally come before the Master of the Rolls.
The Master of the Rolls is regarded as second in judicial importance to the
Lord Chief Justice. He is consulted on matters such as the civil justice
system and rights of audience. He also deals with professional rules and
regulations dealing with solicitors and appeals against rulings of the
Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal.
Appointment
The Master of the Rolls is appointed by The Queen on the recommendation of
the Prime Minister, advised by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with
senior members of the judiciary.
Heads of Division are generally appointed from amongst the Lords Justices.
Court Dress
The Master of the Rolls wears a court coat and waistcoat or a sleeved
waistcoat, with skirt or trousers and bands, a black silk gown and a short
wig.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
At Vancouver: Single payer 3, for-profit health insurance 2
by Michael Munk
Sun, Feb 28, 2010
|
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Learn radical politics, media and organizing skills
by Michael Munk
Sun, Feb 28, 2010
|
|
Coverage of prisoner deaths: Cuba and GITMO
by Michael Munk
Sat, Feb 27, 2010
|
|
NYTimes: Repoters are citizens
by Michael Munk
Sat, Feb 27, 2010
|
|
Did Yoo erase his criminal emails?
by Michael Munk
Fri, Feb 26, 2010
|
TPMMuckraker
Former DOJ-ers Doubtful On Missing Yoo Emails Story
Zachary Roth | February 26, 2010
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/former_doj-ers_doubtful_on_missing_yoo_emails_stor.php?ref=fpblg
:
An internal Justice Department report on the Torture Memos noted that
investigators were told that key emails from John Yoo had been deleted and
could not be retrieved. But several former DOJ staffers expressed intense
skepticism that the emails could in fact have been rendered unrecoverable --
at least without a deliberate effort to destroy them.
"It's hard for me to believe that those emails weren't kept -- unless
somebody didn't want them kept," one career Justice Department lawyer, who
left in 2005, told TPMmuckraker.
Another former DOJ lawyer echoed that notion: "When I heard the emails were
not recoverable from Yoo, I was surprised," he said.
The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility wrote in a
report, released last week: "We were told that most of Yoo's records had
been deleted and were not recoverable," and said that their probe was
"hampered" by not having access to the emails. That has sparked calls from
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the National Archives, the New York Times, and
CREW for an investigation into the missing emails.
Anne Weismann, a top Justice Department lawyer during the Clinton
administration who now is with CREW, told TPMmuckraker that the emails of
Janet Reno were printed out every week when she was Attorney General, in
order to ensure that they were preserved. "There was no question that people
understood," the need to preserve emails, said Weismann, who worked
specifically, in part, on statutes governing federal and presidential
records, and who last year led a largely successful legal effort by CREW to
have email records from the Bush White House retrieved, after they were said
to have been deleted.
The need for lawyers in Yoo's department -- who were effectively
interpreting the law on behalf of the US government -- to preserve emails
would have been particularly clear, said the former DOJ-er. "When you're at
the Office of Legal Counsel, and you're working with the White House, given
previous areas of sensitivity, I would have thought there would have been a
particular sensitivity toward keeping good records," he said.
"It's incomprehensible that [Yoo] could have concluded it didn't need
preserving," said Weismann, referring to his correspondence on the subject
of the Torture Memos.
OPR has not said how hard it pushed for Yoo's emails. If the emails were
genuinely unrecoverable, the Justice Department would likely face questions
about its record-keeping systems, since federal law requires that such
records be maintained.
Jeanette Plante, the director of the department's record keeping office,
declined to comment to TPMmuckraker, referring us to the public affairs
office, which has not responded to our inquiries on the subject.
There would also be questions about the lengths to which the department, or
members of its staff, went to render the emails unrecoverable -- since it's
almost certain that simply deleting them from Yoo's inbox would not do so.
None of the former DOJ-ers who spoke to TPMmuckraker said they would have
known how to delete emails permanently.
Asked by TPMmuckraker what Yoo knew about the deletions, his lawyer, Miguel
Estrada, said via email: "No reason why [Yoo] would know about whether they
are missing or why, since he was long gone (by several years) when OPR
investigated the matter. So there is no statement he can make about it."
A department official told Congress this morning that he would look into the
department's technical and record keeping processes, and the question of
whether the emails are recoverable, and report back
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Yoo's torture memo assistant exposed
by Michael Munk
Mon, Feb 22, 2010
|
|
NYT publishes oped by a monster
by Michael Munk
Mon, Feb 22, 2010
|
|
Iraq WMDs all over again in Iran
by Michael Munk
Sun, Feb 21, 2010
|
|
Emanuel intimidates beltway reporters
by Michael Munk
Sat, Feb 20, 2010
|
|
Ignoring Harper's scoop in Gitmo another NTY scandal
by Michael Munk
Fri, Feb 19, 2010
|
|
Court backs Obama stonewall of GITMO murders
by Michael Munk
Thu, Feb 18, 2010
|
|
Obama caves to Hillary on Iran
by Michael Munk
Wed, Feb 17, 2010
|
|
Correction: China dumped those US bonds now!
by Michael Munk
Wed, Feb 17, 2010
|
|
China dumps US bonds
by Michael Munk
Wed, Feb 17, 2010
|
|
Obama orders call for regime change in Iran
by Michael Munk
Tue, Feb 16, 2010
|
|
NYT bias on demos
by Michael Munk
Tue, Feb 16, 2010
|
|
Obama deplores Brits publish torture docs
by Michael Munk
Sun, Feb 14, 2010
|
|
Law profs ask court to sanction Yoo
by Michael Munk
Fri, Feb 12, 2010
|
|
Was the Oregon prof's suspension another provocation?
by Michael Munk
Sun, Feb 7, 2010
|
|
Oregon prof who charged student was FBI spy suspended
by Michael Munk
Wed, Feb 3, 2010
|
Portland State University (OR) Daily Vanguard Feb 3, 2010
Professor banned from teaching following verbal confrontation
PSU econ professor accused student of trying to incite violence and of =
spying
By Virginia Vickery and Theodora Karatzas
Vanguard staff
=20
Photo courtesy of PSU
John Hall
=20
Zachary Bucharest
Adam Wickham/Portland State Vanguard
A tenured Portland State economics professor is currently suspended from =
teaching after he publicly accused a student during a class lecture of =
being an FBI informant and of trying to sell guns to students.
Professor John Hall, during his 2 p.m. "Economics 445/545: Comparative =
Economic Systems" class on Jan. 14th, verbally harangued student Zachary =
Bucharest for nearly half an hour, according to students in the class.
Hall, who has taught at PSU for 24 years, began the class with a lecture =
relevant to the course material but about halfway through the two-hour =
long class, he began to describe his experiences with law enforcement in =
places including Eastern Europe, according to a student who wished to =
remain anonymous.
Hall claimed to have been surveilled at times throughout his life and =
then told the class that an FBI informant and agent provocateur was in =
their midst. Hall said this person served as a sniper in the Israeli =
army and called him a killer with access to a personal arsenal.
He then pointed at Bucharest and identified him as the informant in =
question, according to the unnamed student.
Bucharest, a student at PSU since the fall of 2006 and the current chief =
of staff for ASPSU, sat silently throughout the ordeal, according to =
students in the class.=20
Hall accused Bucharest of trying to organize students to participate in =
violent acts against the university, according to the unnamed student.=20
Hall also said he believed that Bucharest is at times armed while on =
campus. He then put a letter on the document projector that he wrote to =
the FBI's Portland Field Office. In the letter, Hall claims to know =
Bucharest's identity as an agent. He then handed Bucharest a copy of the =
letter and told him to give it to his superiors.
After a time of silence, Bucharest got up and said that some of Hall's =
claims about his military background were true, but that other claims =
the professor made were not. Bucharest left the classroom after being =
told by Hall to leave and not to come back to PSU, according to =
students.
In an e-mail to students in the class on Jan. 17, economics department =
chair Randall A. Bluffstone said that he was aware of Thursday's =
incident.
"I would especially like to assure you that this incident is being taken =
seriously and that the appropriate university administrators are fully =
involved," he said.
On Tuesday, Jan. 19-the next day the class was scheduled to =
meet-Bluffstone, Mary Beth Collins, director of Student Health and =
Counseling, and Carol Mack, vice provost for Academic Administration and =
Planning, met with the class. Hall was not present.
According to students in the class, many asked administrators why Hall =
was not there and what the administration would do to keep students =
safe. They were told that if they feel unsafe, they should contact the =
Campus Public Safety Office.
Students were encouraged by Bluffstone during the class and later via =
e-mail to meet with himself, Mack or Dr. Marvin Kaiser, Dean of the =
College Of Liberal Arts and Sciences, for private 30-minute meetings to =
discuss the incident.
Bluffstone reportedly said that the FBI informed the university that =
Bucharest does not work for them.
A formal complaint has been filed against Hall since the incident, =
according to PSU Communications Director Scott Gallagher.
"Hall has been relieved of teaching duties but he has not been =
suspended," Gallagher said.=20
EC 445/545 is now taught by Dr. Charles Grant, according to Bluffstone =
in an e-mail to students on Jan. 25.
"There are no sanctions out on [Hall] as of yet because the situation is =
under investigation," Gallagher said. =20
Hall is still classified as a paid employee while the incident is under =
investigation, though he is not allowed on campus. He is still working =
on university-related projects, said Phil Lesch, executive director of =
PSU's chapter of American Association of University Professors.=20
According to Hall, he has been verbally banned from campus.
Lesch said it's not uncommon for someone to be barred from coming to =
campus during an investigation so that the outcome is not influenced by =
the person's presence.
"He had his reasons for doing what he did and I can't speculate or put =
words in his mouth," said Lesch, who identified himself as Hall's union =
spokesperson. "The investigation will determine if he acted =
appropriately."
Students were told that they could drop EC 445/545 for a full-tuition =
refund or register for another class without penalty. According to =
students still enrolled in the class, only a handful of the nearly 40 =
original students remain.
No determination has been made whether or not Hall will be back to teach =
in the spring, Lesch said.
"Based upon my students' reports, I cannot help but to think that the =
process currently is being shaped in order to end my tenure at PSU," =
said Hall in a statement delivered to the Vanguard by Allison Faris, a =
student enrolled in one of Hall's classed.
"I decided to take a stand. I observed the situation becoming extremely =
dangerous, not only for me but for about eight of my very finest =
students," Hall said in the statement. "I felt that what I had to do =
should not have been my responsibility."
Faris said Hall is one of the best professors she has had in her five =
years at PSU and that "any allegations [against Hall] of instability are =
absolutely ludicrous."
"I understand the students' privacy is to be respected, as defined by =
the codes governing PSU," Hall said in the statement. "I felt the level =
of danger had grown to such an acute level that I felt it fully in order =
to engage in an 'emergency exemption' of student privacy."
The unnamed student said Hall was just trying to protect his students.
"Zaki seemed normal," said Brett Condron, EC 445/545 student. He =
believed Bucharest posed no threat.
Bucharest made a statement made through his attorney, Elden Rosenthal.
"I have never been affiliated with the FBI in any way, and I have never =
been an informant," the statement reads. "I have never in any way done =
anything to incite violence at PSU. I have admired Professor Hall since =
I first took a class from him, and cannot imagine what I did or said to =
cause him to treat me the way he did. I truly hope that the university =
will take steps to clear my name, and I also hope that something like =
this will never again happen to a PSU student."=20
|
Why does US defend countries whose people don't want us to?
by Michael Munk
Tue, Feb 2, 2010
|
|
Who was executed in Iran?
by Michael Munk
Tue, Feb 2, 2010
|
The US media keeps referring to the two executed Iranians as merely =
among the many "street protesters" against the national elections. But =
they are described in Iran as members of "Tondar" which, according to =
its website=20
http://aryamehr11.blogspot.com/2007/02/anjomane-padeshahi-iran-kobande-to=
ndar.html
wants to restore the despised Shah's family dictatorship, thrown out by =
a popular revolt many years ago.
=20
For the establishment of a Democratic, Secular, and Nationalistic =
government in Iran to replace the illegal, terrorist, inhumane, =
anti-Iranian, occupational, Islamic Republic.=20
=20
=20
=20
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Howard Zinn on Marxism
by Michael Munk
Sun, Jan 31, 2010
|
|
Was Zinn a radical?
by Michael Munk
Sat, Jan 30, 2010
|
|
Scandal: Obama's DOJ clears Yoo, ByBee
by Michael Munk
Sat, Jan 30, 2010
|
Justice Department Clears Torture Memo Authors John Yoo, Jay Bybee of
Misconduct
Jan 29, 2010
by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report
http://www.truthout.org/obamas-doj-clears-torture-memo-authors-john-yoo-jay-bybee-professional-misconduct56531
A long-awaited Department of Justice watchdog report that probed whether
John Yoo and his former boss Jay Bybee violated professional standards when
they provided the Bush White House with legal advice on torture has cleared
both men of misconduct, according to Newsweek, citing unnamed sources who
have seen the document.
An earlier version of the report was prepared by H, Marshall Jarrett, head
of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and completed in
December 2008. It concluded that Yoo, a Berkeley law professor, and Bybee,
now a federal appeals court judge on the 9th Circuit, violated professional
standards when they drafted an August 2002 legal opinion that authorized CIA
officers to use brutal methods when interrogating suspected terrorist
detainees and recommeded a referral to their state bar associations for
further review, which could have resulted in their law licenses being
revoked.
But as I reported last April, Obama's Justice Department appointees began to
water down those previous conclusions in early 2009 after OPR received
responses on the report's conclusions from Yoo and Bybee, who both worked in
the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC):
Legal sources familiar with the internal debate about the draft report say
OPR is in the process of "watering"- down the criticism of legal opinions by
[OLC] lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee in 2002 and 2003 and by [OLC acting
head Steven Bradbury], who in 2005 reinstated some of the Yoo-Bybee opinions
after they had been withdrawn by Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith
when he headed the OLC in 2003 and 2004.
Shortly after taking charge of the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric
Holder assigned Mary Patrice Brown, a veteran DC prosecutor and the new head
of OPR, the task of reviewing the final report. Brown spent months
scrutinizing the lengthy document and made revisions. Her conclusions were
then sent to senior prosecutor at the DOJ for a final review.
The person tasked with reviewing the final version is David Margolis, the
34-year career prosecutor at the DOJ. It was Margolis who softened OPR's
earlier finding of professional misconduct and instead determined that Yoo
and Bybee "showed poor judgment" when they drafted an August 1, 2002 legal
opinion authorizing the CIA to employ methods such as waterboarding against
detainees during interrogations, according to Newsweek.
That means neither Yoo nor Bybee will be referred to state bar associations
where they could have faced disciplinary action since poor judgment does not
constitute professional misconduct, according to OPR's post-investigation
procedures. For Bybee, such a referral could have also led to an impeachment
inquiry before Congress.
It's unknown why Margolis downgraded the report's initial findings. Newsweek
reported that he did so without any input from Holder.
Yoo and Bybee, however, are still under scrutiny. Legal advocacy groups have
filed complaints against them, and others who worked on the Bush
administration's so-called "enhanced interrogation" program, with state bar
associations in hopes that their law licenses will be revoked.
When the report is released and if its conclusions match Newsweek's story,
particularly the key finding that Yoo and Bybee did not violate professional
standards and won't face disciplinary action, the Obama administration will
face a swift backlash from those who say the president and his appointees
have gone above and beyond to cover-up war crimes committed by the Bush
administration.
Newsweek noted that the OPR report is "sharply critical" of the "legal
reasoning used to justify waterboarding" and other methods of torture CIA
interrogators used against detainees after 9/11, a critical conclusion that
raises questions about the Obama Justice Department's reasons for not
holding Yoo and Bybee accountable.
Moreover, the report, which is still under a declassification review "will
provide many new details about how waterboarding was adopted and the role
that top White House officials played in the process, say two sources who
have read the report but asked for anonymity to describe a sensitive
document," Newsweek reported.
Two of the most controversial sections of the 2002 memo-including one
contending that the president, as commander in chief, can override a federal
law banning torture-were not in the original draft of the memo, say the
sources. But when Michael Chertoff, then-chief of Justice's criminal
division, refused the CIA's request for a blanket pledge not to prosecute
its officers for torture, Yoo met at the White House with David Addington,
Dick Cheney's chief counsel, and then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales.
After that, Yoo inserted a section about the commander in chief's wartime
powers and another saying that agency officers accused of torturing Qaeda
suspects could claim they were acting in "self-defense" to prevent future
terror attacks, the sources say. Both legal claims have long since been
rejected by Justice officials as overly broad and unsupported by legal
precedent.
The OPR probe was launched in mid-2004 after a meeting in which Jack
Goldsmith, then head of the OLC, got into a tense debate with White House
lawyers, including Vice President Dick Cheney's legal counsel David
Addington.
That back-and-forth over the OLC's judgments regarding President Bush's
powers rest at the heart of the Bush administration's defense of its
"enhanced interrogation" techniques that have been widely denounced as
torture, such as waterboarding which subjects a person to the panicked gag
reflex of drowning and which was used on at least three "high-value"
detainees.
Bush officials insist that they were acting under the guidance of the
Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which advises Presidents on
the scope of their constitutional powers. For the OPR report to conclude
that Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury violated their professional duties as lawyers
and, in effect, gave Bush pre-cooked legal opinions to do what he already
wanted to do would have shattered that line of defense.
Goldsmith ended up withdrawing some of the Yoo-Bybee opinions because he
felt they were "legally flawed" and "sloppily written."
He resigned shortly thereafter and was subsequently replaced on an acting
basis by Bradbury, who restored some of the controversial Yoo-Bybee opinions
in May 2005, again granting George W. Bush broad powers to inflict painful
interrogations on detainees. Bradbury was also a subject of OPR's probe.
As Truthout reported last week, an original draft of the report determined
that professional misconduct was warranted because Yoo, when writing the
August 2002 torture memo, failed to cite the key precedent relating to a
president's war powers, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a 1952
Supreme Court case that addressed President Harry Truman's order to seize
steel mills that had been shut down in a labor dispute during the Korean
War, according to DOJ officials who were knowledgeable about the contents of
the draft version.
Truman said the strike threatened national defense and thus justified his
actions under his Article II powers in the Constitution.
But the Supreme Court overturned Truman's order, saying, "the President's
power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress
or from the Constitution itself." Since Congress hadn't delegated such
authority to Truman, the Supreme Court ruled that Truman's actions were
unconstitutional, with an influential concurring opinion written by Justice
Robert Jackson.
Yoo's memoranda concluded that the laws governing torture violated President
Bush's commander-in-chief powers under the Constitution because it prevented
him "from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks
upon the United States."
Yoo's lengthy response to the OPR expanded upon a defense he first cited in
his 2006 book, "War by Other Means," in explaining why he didn't cite
Youngstown.
Yoo wrote: "we didn't cite [Justice Robert] Jackson's individual views in
Youngstown because earlier OLC opinions, reaching across several
administrations, had concluded that it had no application to the president's
conduct of foreign affairs and national security.
"Youngstown reached the outcome it did because the Constitution clearly
gives Congress, not the President, the exclusive power to make law
concerning labor disputes. It does not address the scope of
Commander-in-Chief power involving military strategy or intelligence tactics
in war ...
"Far from inventing some novel interpretation of the Constitution, [Office
of Legal Counsel] was really doing little more than following in the
footsteps of the Clinton Justice Department and all prior Justice
Departments."
It now appears that Yoo made a convincing argument to OPR in defending his
reasons for not citing the landmark ruling and that likely impacted
Margolis's decision to water down earlier conclusions that found Yoo and
Bybee in violation of professional standards.
A July 10, 2009, report by the inspectors general of the CIA, National
Security Agency, DOJ and Defense Department into the Bush administration's
warrantless wiretapping program, which were based on legal opinions written
by Yoo, previously took Yoo to task for failing to cite Youngstown.
Yoo "omitted any discussion of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a
leading case on the distribution of government powers between the Executive
and Legislative Branches," the report said.
"Justice [Robert] Jackson's analysis of President Truman's Article II
Commander-in-Chief authority during wartime in the Youngstown case was an
important factor in OLC's subsequent reevaluation of Yoo's opinions," the
report said.
Additionally, the early draft of the OPR report also concluded, legal
sources said, that Yoo misinterpreted an obscure 2000 health benefits
statute and wrongly applied it to August 2002 and March 2003 interrogation
opinions he wrote, according to the DOJ officials.
Again, expanding upon a defense that first appeared in his book, Yoo placed
some of the responsibility on Congress for forcing him to rely upon the
statute to narrow the definition of torture in a way that permitted
techniques such as waterboarding.
In passing an anti-torture law, Congress only prohibited "severe physical or
mental pain or suffering," Yoo wrote. "The ban on torture does not prohibit
any pain or suffering whether physical or mental, only severe acts. Congress
did not define severe ... OLC interpreted 'severe' as a level of pain
'equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury,
such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions.
"OLC's first 2002 definition did not make up this definition out of thin
air. It applied a standard technique used to interpret ambiguous phrases in
law. When Congress does not define its terms, courts commonly look in the
United States Code for the use of similar language. The only other place
where similar words appear is in a law defining health benefits for
emergency medical conditions, which are defined as severe symptoms,
including 'severe pain' where an individual's health is placed 'in serious
jeopardy,' 'serious impairment to bodily functions,' or 'serious dysfunction
of any bodily organ or part.'"
In his book, The Terror Presidency, Goldsmith wrote that "the health
benefits statute's use of 'severe pain' had no relationship whatsoever to
the torture statute. And even if it did, the health benefit statute did not
define 'severe pain.' Rather it used the term 'severe pain' as a sign of an
emergency medical condition that, if not treated, might cause organ failure
and the like.... OLC's clumsily definitional arbitrage didn't seem even in
the ballpark."
Last March, the Justice Department revealed that the OPR report underwent
revisions after the initial draft was rejected by former Attorney General
Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, both of who insisted that Yoo,
Bybee and Bradbury be given an opportunity to respond to its conclusions.
"Attorney General Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Filip and OLC provided
comments [after the first draft was completed in December], and OPR revised
the draft report to the extent it deemed appropriate based on those
comments," said acting Assistant Attorney General Faith Burton in a March
25, 2009 letter to Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) and Richard
Durbin (D-Illinois) members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Burton also said at the time that the final OPR would likely undergo more
revisions based on responses from the former OLC lawyers. Several months
later, Durbin and Whitehouse received a letter from Assistant Attorney
General Ronald Weich who disclosed the post investigation process.
Several months later, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote to the
senators and noted that if the appeals filed by Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury
resulted in a rejection of OPR's findings by the "career official" reviewing
the document then no such referral would occur.
"Department policy usually requires referral of OPR's misconduct findings to
the subject's state bar disciplinary authority, but if the appeal resulted
in a rejection of OPR's misconduct findings, then no referral was made,"
said Weich's May 4, 2009 letter to Durbin and Whitehouse. "This process
afforded former employees roughly the same opportunity to contest OPR's
findings that current employees were afforded through the disciplinary
process."
Weich's letter to Durbin and Whitehouse was sent in response to queries by
the senators last March about revelations that Bradbury oversaw OLC's review
of the report in late 2008, despite the fact that he was a subject of OPR's
investigation and was also acting head of OLC at the time.
Three months before Bush exited the White House, Bradbury, in a "memorandum
for the files," renounced several legal opinions drafted by Yoo and Bybee.
Bradbury attempted to justify or forgive Yoo's controversial opinion by
explaining that it was "the product of an extraordinary period in the
history of the Nation: the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11."
Bradbury wrote another memo five days before Bush left office last January,
in which he once again repudiated Yoo's legal opinions. It would appear that
this memo was in response to the OPR report. Bradbury said in the Jan. 15
memo that the flawed theories by Yoo in no way should be interpreted to mean
that Justice Department lawyers did not "satisfy" professional standards.
Rather, Bradbury wrote, "In the wake of the atrocities of 9/11, when policy
makers, fearing that additional catastrophic terrorist attacks were
imminent, strived to employ all lawful means to protect the Nation."
Durbin and Whitehouse said they believed Bradbury's "memorandum for the
files" made it a "conflict-of-interest" for him to participate in the formal
review process.
But Weich said, "Because Mr. Bradbury's participation in that process was
transparent, OPR advised that it can evaluate the OLC response with the
knowledge of Mr. Bradbury's participation just as it would evaluate a
response from anyone whose actions were within the scope of OPR's
investigation.
"Therefore, OPR does not believe that Mr. Bradbury's participation in the
OLC response was improper," Weich said
Weich added that the initial draft of the report was also shared with the
CIA for a "classification review," and the agency, having reviewed the
findings, "requested an opportunity to provide substantive comment on the
report."
Durbin and Whitehouse, in a statement last May, said they "will be
interested in the scope of the 'substantive comment' the CIA is providing,
and the reasons why an outside agency would have such comment on an internal
disciplinary matter."
As Truthout previously reported, Holder testified before Congress last year
that the OPR report was expected be released by the end of November. In
interviews over the past month, two senior aides to Democratic lawmakers
claimed the report was being held up in lieu of the passage of a health care
bill.
But Tracy Schmaler, a DOJ spokeswoman, disputed the allegations.
"That is absolutely untrue," Schmaler said. "One thing has nothing to do
with another."
Schmaler said the review "process is ongoing and we hope to have [the
report] complete and released soon."
Two DOJ officials familiar with details of the report said a delay in
releasing it in the time frame Holder had promised was due, in part, to the
fact that Margolis was hospitalized in December for pneumonia.
In his testimony last November, Holder said the report had not been released
sooner due to "the amount of time we gave to the lawyers who represented the
people who are the subject of the report an opportunity to respond. And then
[OPR] had to react to those responses."
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Zinn on Obama: his final words
by Michael Munk
Fri, Jan 29, 2010
|
|
Obama escalates China bashing
by Michael Munk
Fri, Jan 29, 2010
|
|
Obama endorses illegal Honduran inaguration
by Michael Munk
Thu, Jan 28, 2010
|
Since almost all of Latin America considers the military gorilla coup that
ousted elected president Zeleya illegal, only two heads of state--Panama's
Ricardo Martinelli and Leonel Fernandez of the Dominican Republic(who was
there to escort Zeleya out of Honduras after his term officially
ended)--showed up for the ceremony. But in a disgraceful endorsement of the
coup, Obama and Hillary Clinton sent Clintonite Arturo Valenzuela, the
assistant U.S. secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs to be
present as their representative. Valenzuela told the press: "We're please to
see that the new president of Honduras is taking the country in the right
direction.".
Honduran Coup d'Etat a "Win" for the US?
by: Tom Loudon, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis
January 28, 2010
http://www.truthout.org/honduran-coup-detat-a-win-us56471
)
Today, Pepe Lobo will be inaugurated as the new president of Honduras in
what many consider to be an institutionalization of the coup d'état, which
took place seven months ago. Lobo comes to the presidency as a result of a
highly disputed election process carried out by the coup regime. The
elections, which have been widely condemned as illegitimate, were boycotted
by a large percentage of the Honduran population.
US Undersecretary Thomas Shannon, in a maneuver that totally subverted an
extended negotiation process, announced that the US would recognize the
election, even if there was not a return to constitutional order. The US
celebrates today's inauguration as the "way forward" for Honduras and has
aggressively pressured other Latin American countries to recognize Lobo's
government.
While the United States is eager to normalize the situation and to get on
with business as usual, the June 28 coup d'état has yielded unexpected
consequences for Washington, both inside and outside of Honduras. Unforeseen
by the coup plotters and the United States, the military takeover of
Honduras unleashed a broad based, sustained resistance movement inside the
country. A spirit long dormant in Honduras was awakened, transforming the
country into a hub of political activity previously unimaginable.
The resistance movement has brought together people from many sectors of
Honduran society, including large numbers of disaffected Liberal Party
members. The unifying theme is that they no longer accept the status quo for
their country. Events of the last seven months have accelerated and deepened
a process demanding deep structural change. Organizations such as "Los
Necios," a small, left-wing organization of students and young people
struggled to maintain a membership of around 100. In these few months, their
membership has swelled to over 1,000.
Currently, 57 local expressions of the national resistance organization
operate in cities and towns around Honduras. Confounding the coup leader's
strategy, the movement is gaining strength despite brutal repression, state
terror and the attempt to institutionalize the coup via elections. The
resistance movement held large protest marches Wednesday and is working to
implement a four-year plan for movement building in preparation for the next
national elections.
In Latin America, the coup in Honduras is widely understood to be a test
case for US policy toward Latin America. By attacking the weakest and most
vulnerable of the ALBA countries, the US hoped to strike a blow to this
alternative economic block, which the US counts as enemy. However, in the
wake of the coup, the US found itself in a historically unprecedented
position at the OAS. Viewed by Latin American governments from both the
right and the left as a potential direct threat to each of them, the OAS
took a unanimous position denouncing the coup and ejecting Honduras from the
OAS. The US was forced to accept this decision. Most countries in Latin
America continue to refuse to recognize the results of the coup
regime-sponsored "elections" on November 29, despite heavy pressure and arm
twisting on the part of the Unites States to do so.
Disappointment stemming from the contradiction between statements of a
recently inaugurated President Obama to Latin American heads of state at the
Summit of the Americas in April of 2009, and a virtually unchanged US policy
has been articulated by leaders throughout Latin America. Three recent
"moments" have contributed to a rapid readjustment of expectations. First
was the coup in Honduras and refusal of the US to take proactive policy
measures against it. Second was the announcement of seven new US military
bases in Colombia. And the third was Secretary of State Clinton's
declaration that Latin America countries should "think twice about flirting
with Iran."
The willingness of Latin American countries to challenge US positions
indicates a slowly changing balance of power in the hemisphere. Soon after
Arturo Valenzuela was confirmed as assistant secretary of state for the
Western Hemisphere, he paid a visit to the Mercosur countries. Far from the
diplomatic protocol to which the US is accustomed, in Brazil and Argentina,
the first two countries which he visited, Mr. Valenzuela was not received by
the president or the foreign minister in either country. In a press
statement near the time of Valenzuela's visit, Brazil's Foreign Minister
Celso Amorim criticized the US for being "extremely tolerant" of the coup
and the de facto regime.
What seems most clear is that the US State Department remains mired in an
outdated cold war mentality, failing to recognize and adapt to the profound
and complex changes that have occurred in Latin America during the last
decade. Unfortunately, there seems to be few signs that this will change
anytime soon.
Today's inauguration in Honduras is happening in a context in which the old
ghosts from the worst decades of US policy toward Latin America have been
conjured in an attempt to silence opposition. The sharp escalation of human
rights violations and use of state terror in an attempt to destroy the
resistance movement have now entered a phase which human rights defenders
describe as "silent, selective and systematic." Death squads and
paramilitaries relentlessly pursue those resisting the coup. Many have been
executed, and others have fled in order to save their lives.
The repression continues in the context of a people who are empowered,
determined and who are not afraid. The resistance movement has declared that
it will not recognize Porfirio Lobo as president, but rather consider him to
be the continuation of the dictatorship imposed though the June 28 military
coup. Their nonviolent struggle for deep structural change via a constituent
assembly will continue. What has happened in Honduras serves as a marker for
change in Latin America. It signals that attempts by the United States to
rule the hemisphere through coercion and force will be met with new and
unexpected challenges and forms of resistance.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
54 members of Congress ask Obama to help Gaza
by Michael Munk
Tue, Jan 26, 2010
|
This letter was iniated by Reps Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Keith Ellison
(D-Minn) and endorsed by J Street and Americans for Peace Now
Jan 26, 2010
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama,
Thank you for your ongoing work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
and for your commitment of $300 million in U.S. aid to rebuild the Gaza
Strip. We write to you with great concern about the ongoing crisis in Gaza.
The people of Gaza have suffered enormously since the blockade imposed by
Israel and Egypt following Hamas' coup, and particularly following Operation
Cast Lead. We also sympathize deeply with the people of southern Israel who
have suffered from abhorrent rocket and mortar attacks. We recognize that
the Israeli government has imposed restrictions on Gaza out of a legitimate
and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other
militant groups. This concern must be addressed without resulting in the de
facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip.
Truly, fulfilling the needs of civilians in Israel and Gaza are mutually
reinforcing goals.
The unabated suffering of Gazan civilians highlights the urgency of reaching
a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we ask you to press
for immediate relief for the citizens of Gaza as an urgent component of your
broader Middle East peace efforts. The current blockade has severely impeded
the ability of aid agencies to do their work to relieve suffering, and we
ask that you advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following
areas:
* Movement of people, especially students, the ill, aid workers,
journalists, and those with family concerns, into and out of Gaza;
* Access to clean water, including water infrastructure materials,
* Access to plentiful and varied food and agricultural materials;
* Access to medicine and health care products and suppliers;
* Access to sanitation supplies, including sanitation infrastructure
materials;
* Access to construction materials for repairs and rebuilding;
* Access to fuel;
* Access to spare parts;
* Prompt passage into and out of Gaza for commercial and agricultural goods;
and
* Publication and review of the list of items prohibited to the people of
Gaza.
Winter is arriving and the needs of the people grow ever more pressing. For
example, the ban on building materials is preventing the reconstruction of
thousands of innocent families' damaged homes. There is also a concern that
unrepaired sewage treatment plants will overflow and damage surrounding
property and water resources.
Despite ad hoc easing of the blockade, there has been no significant
improvement in the quantity and scope of goods allowed into Gaza. Both the
number of trucks entering Gaza per month and the number of days the
crossings have been open have declined since March. This crisis has
devastated livelihoods, entrenched a poverty rate of over 70%, increased
dependence on erratic international aid, allowed the deterioration of public
infrastructure, and led to the marked decline of the accessibility of
essential services.
The humanitarian and political consequences of a continued near-blockade
would be disastrous. Easing the blockade on Gaza will not only improve the
conditions on the ground for Gaza's civilian population, but will also
undermine the tunnel economy which has strengthened Hamas. Under current
conditions, our aid remains little more than an unrealized pledge. Most
importantly, lifting these restrictions will give civilians in Gaza a
tangible sense that diplomacy can be an effective tool for bettering their
conditions.
Your Administration's overarching Middle East peace efforts will benefit
Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region. The people of Gaza, along
with all the peoples of the region, must see that the United States is
dedicated to addressing the legitimate security needs of the State of Israel
and to ensuring that the legitimate needs of the Palestinian population are
met.
Sincerely,
Members of Congress
Arizona
Raul Grijalva
California
Lois Capps
Sam Farr
Bob Filner
Barbara Lee
Loretta Sanchez
Pete Stark
Michael Honda
Lynn Woolsey
Jackie Speier
Diane Watson
George Miller
Connecticut
Jim Himes
Indiana
Andre Carson
Iowa
Bruce Braley
Kentucky
John Yarmuth
Maryland
Elijah Cummings
Donna Edwards
Massachusetts
Michael Capuano
William Delahunt
Jim McGovern
John Tierney
John Olver
Stephen Lynch
Michigan
John Conyers
John Dingell
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Minnesota
Keith Ellison
Betty McCollum
James Oberstar
New Jersey
Donald Payne
Rush Holt
Bill Pascrell
New York
Yvette Clarke
Maurice Hinchey
Paul Tonko
Eric Massa
North Carolina
David Price
Ohio
Mary Jo Kilroy
Marcy Kaptur
Oregon
Earl Blumenauer
Peter DeFazio
Pennsylvania
Chaka Fattah
Joe Sestak
Vermont
Peter Welch
Virginia
Jim Moran
Washington
Jim McDermott
Adam Smith
Jay Inslee
Brian Baird
West Virginia
Nick Rahall
Wisconsin
Tammy Baldwin
Gwen Moore
Virginia
Glenn Nye
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
How much blood for....?
by Michael Munk
Tue, Jan 26, 2010
|
|
Obama lawyers discuss death squad hit
by Michael Munk
Mon, Jan 25, 2010
|
U.S. Mulls Legality of Killing American al Qaeda "Turncoat"
Opportunities to "Take Out" Radical Cleric Anwar Awlaki In Yemen "May Have
Been Missed"
By MATTHEW COLE, RICHARD ESPOSITO and BRIAN ROSS
ABC News Jan. 25, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/anwar-awlaki-us-mulls-legality-killing-american-al-qaeda-turncoat/story?id=9651830
VIA http://www.legitgov.org
White House lawyers are mulling the legality of proposed attempts to kill an
American citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who is believed to be part of the
leadership of the al Qaeda group in Yemen behind a series of terror strikes,
according to two people briefed by U.S. intelligence officials.
Women may be connected to al Qaeda and may have Western passports.One of the
people briefed said opportunities to "take out" Awlaki "may have been
missed" because of the legal questions surrounding a lethal attack which
would specifically target an American citizen.
A spokesperson said the White House declined to comment.
While Awlaki has not been charged with any crimes under U.S. law,
intelligence officials say recent intelligence reports and electronic
intercepts show he played an important role in recruiting the accused
"underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Awlaki also carried on
extensive e-mail communication with the accused Fort Hood shooter, Major
Nidal Hasan, prior to the attack that killed 12 soldiers and one civilian.
According to the people who were briefed on the issue, American officials
fear the possibility of criminal prosecution without approval in advance
from the White House for a targeted strike against Awlaki.
An American citizen with suspected al Qaeda ties was killed in Nov. 2002 in
Yemen in a CIA predator strike that was aimed at non-American leaders of al
Qaeda. The death of the American citizen, Ahmed Hijazi of Lackawanna, NY,
was justified as "collateral damage" at the time because he "was just in the
wrong place at the wrong time," said a former U.S. official familiar with
the case.
In the case of Awlaki, born in New Mexico and a college student in Colorado
and California, a strike aimed to kill him would stretch current
Presidential authority given to the CIA and the Pentagon to pursue
terrorists anywhere in the world.
Awlaki's father told reporters in Yemen last week that his son had gone into
hiding in the mountains of Yemen and was being protected by al Qaeda, even
though, the father claimed, his son was not part of al Qaeda.
He told reporters he was pleading with the United States, "Please don't kill
my son."
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
World Social Forum hits capitalism
by Michael Munk
Mon, Jan 25, 2010
|
Leftists slam capitalism at Social Forum in Brazil
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100125/ap_on_bi_ge/lt_brazil_social_forum
AP - People gather to march during the World Social Forum in Porto =
Alegre, Brazil on Monday.=20
By ALAN CLENDENNING, Associated Press Writer Alan Clendenning Jan 25, =
2010
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil - Thousands of leftists massed Monday to kick off =
five days of railing against unfettered capitalism at the World Social =
Forum, a gathering that protests the bankers and other leaders who =
attend the World Economic Forum at a Swiss ski resort.
Accompanied by thundering drumbeats and samba blaring from sound trucks, =
a crowd of exuberant activists estimated by police to number 25,000 =
marched through Porto Alegre waving communist flags and shouting =
socialist slogans. They assailed corporate greed as the main reason the =
world plunged into an economic slump.
Organizers hope to attract as many as 15,000 people to the 10th annual =
version of the event in this city near southern Brazil's border with =
Uruguay.
Participants said the forum is especially important this year now that =
governments from the United States to Europe are moving to play bigger =
roles in managing the global economy.
In contrast, the World Economic Forum that starts Wednesday in Davos is =
expected to see fewer leaders than in years past, and U.S. President =
Barack Obama's plan to clamp down on the size and activity of banks is =
sure to be on the minds of many of the rich and powerful heading to =
Switzerland.
"They have driven the capitalist system into chaos," said Sergio =
Bernardo, a Brazilian human rights activist sporting a bright red shirt =
emblazoned with the words "Bourgeoisie Stinks!" "We're letting them know =
we can create a world free of exploitation that will help the poor."
Lingering fallout from the financial crisis is proof that the world =
economy must be retooled to benefit people, not big companies, said =
Francisco Whitaker, a Roman Catholic activist and co-founder of the =
World Social Forum who was exiled from Brazil during its 1964-1985 =
dictatorship.
He said that last year's Davos conference was similar to a "wake" and =
that the lackluster turnout expected this year "gives the impression =
that capitalism is on the downfall and hitting its limits."
Leftists are increasingly energized by the prospect of persuading =
governments to tackle corporate excess and spread more wealth to the =
needy, he said.
"We're in the midst of true enthusiasm," Whitaker said. "We may not =
change the world completely and all at once, but the change now can come =
from the bottom and spread. It's surging and getting toward a critical =
mass."
The World Social Forum serves as a platform for leftists to exchange =
ideas, though no proposals are formed following days of debate. Instead, =
participants are expected to take strategies back to their home =
countries and push for change locally.
While the economic crisis provided a perfect platform for advancing =
leftist movements, many failed to grasp the opportunity when the slump =
was at its worst, said Nandita Shah, co-director of India's Akshara =
Centre, which supports women's rights.
"I think there's a crisis in the left and in our voice," she said. "I =
hope these five days will bring us out of this visionless tunnel."
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Media ignore socialist aid to haiti
by Michael Munk
Sun, Jan 24, 2010
|
|
WaPo, NYT ignore GITMO expose
by Michael Munk
Sat, Jan 23, 2010
|
|
How China dealt with its earthquake
by Michael Munk
Fri, Jan 22, 2010
|
.Haiti and China: A Tale of Two Earthquakes
By AUSTIN RAMZY / BEIJING
TIME, Jan 21, 2010
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100121/wl_time/08599195464400
Looking for parallels to Haiti's catastrophe, many point to China. In May
2008, a magnitude 7.9 earthquake struck the southwestern province of
Sichuan, pancaking schoolhouses, buildings and homes and killing at least
68,000 people. But the ferocity of the tremor and a huge death toll may be
the only parallels between the two quake-stricken nations.
I went back to Sichuan six months after the catastrophe and was amazed at
the speed of physical and economic recovery. In Dujiangyan, the largest city
in the quake zone, the rubble and the tent cities had disappeared. The
jumble of debris was replaced by piles of new bricks, lumber and other
construction materials. There was a building boom across the region, and
dozens of temporary villages were erected to house the five million people
rendered homeless by the quake. The prefab housing was made out of blue
aluminum siding lined with styrofoam insulation. They had cement floors and
were arranged in neat rows in flat spots at the bases of the mountains.
Conditions weren't luxurious, but the camps were clean and the housing dry
and fairly warm. (See history's top 10 deadliest earthquakes.)
I found no evidence of homelessness, though there were reports of people in
the mountains who refused to spend their rebuilding funds and chose to
remain in tents. "When you compare this to the tsunami and other major
disasters, it's rare to see something so efficient take place. It was
well-organized and well-planned. All the international people that came in
spoke very highly of this," says Ramsey Rayyis, regional representative for
the American Red Cross in China.
China has several advantages over Haiti when it comes to reconstruction.
While China's disaster affected millions, the destruction was concentrated
in rural areas and smaller towns, not a dense city. The mountainous parts of
Sichuan and surrounding provinces hit by the 2008 quake are poor, they are
not destitute; and they all had a basic standard of food and water supplies,
access to medicine and health care, transportation and communications
infrastructure. When much of that was wiped out by the quake, China's
central government responded quickly, sending tens of thousands of soldiers
and paramilitary troops to the region. They freed trapped survivors,
delivered food and water, rebuilt roads and ensured stability. I witnessed
no incidents of looting or other lawlessness when I was there in the days
immediately following the quake. While there were safety concerns due to
landslides and aftershocks, there was no danger of violence. "You do have a
strong central government, a government that's able to support the people,
and I think that makes a difference," says Rayyis. "Whereas in a place like
Haiti, that's going to be a struggle. You're going to need a lot more
external intervention." (See pictures of Sichuan six months after the
quake.)
With such speedy reconstruction, there are obviously questions about the
quality of building. At the same time, there has been an intense focus on
controlling graft. Despite allegations that corruption led to the
construction of shoddy schools in the first place, China hasn't punished
anyone for any wrongdoing that occurred before the earthquake. Grieving
parents who protested over the deaths of their children in collapsed schools
were silenced through payments and threats of punishment if they continued
their agitation. Officials have declared that the extent of the destruction
was due to the intensity of the temblor, not substandard buildings. But the
government has taken a hard line on misuse of rebuilding funds, and a
handful of people have been punished. While the size of rebuilding efforts
means that there will inevitably be some graft, the extent of official and
unofficial scrutiny means it is one of the riskier places in China to skim
funds.
In 2008 the government said it would spend $176 billion on reconstruction by
2011. (The total recovery cost is estimated at $250 billion). As of last
June it had already spent more than $50 billion. Some of the expenses have
been shouldered by other part of China. Twenty provinces have set aside 1%
of fiscal revenues for two years to help rebuild Sichuan. That's another
advantage that China has over Haiti. As a large nation with a rapidly
growing economy, it can divert money from more prosperous areas to aid one
devastated region.
Likewise, the economy of the quake zone has done well. Much of the region
was agricultural, and farmers were able to get back to work fairly soon
after the disaster. The massive rebuilding effort also provided direct
investment and job opportunities. Several of the dislocated people I met in
the temporary camps had family members working on reconstruction. Overall
the quake region produced less than 1% of China's GDP, so it did little to
slow the national growth engine. A chief concern was that rebuilding would
contribute to inflation. That was largely forgotten over the past year
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
A million stayed home in MA
by Michael Munk
Wed, Jan 20, 2010
|
Almost a million MA voters who came out in November '08 stayed home this
time, ignoring the frantic efforts of Obama, the Kennedys et al to
persuade them that electing Coakley was so important. Then consider why
that argument was unconvincing--despite claims that the pathetic 46% of
eligible voters (53% of registered) was a "historic" turnout
Other than briefly being the topic of panicky gassbag commentary in the
media, what actual political difference would a Coakley election have
made? She would probably have looked to Kerry for advice and rubber
stamped Obama's war budgets, foreign occupations, for-profit insurance
health "reform" and protection for war criminals (see
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368 for the latest
scandal).
Maybe those million voters had voted for change, were disappointed in the
outcome and didn't want any part in perpetuating it.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Helen Thomas: Can the economy afford peace?
by Michael Munk
Tue, Jan 19, 2010
|
|
Obama: $33 B more for AfPak war, only $1.3 B for education
by Michael Munk
Tue, Jan 19, 2010
|
Obama to seek $1.35 billion more for education (AP)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100119/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_schools
AP - President Barack Obama will ask Congress for $1.35 billion in his 2011
budget proposal to extend an education grant program for states, although
the Education Department remains months away from announcing its first round
of awards, senior administration officials said.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
France accuses US of occupying Haiti
by Michael Munk
Mon, Jan 18, 2010
|
|
Budget hawks? Congress spent $1 trillion for wars
by Michael Munk
Sun, Jan 17, 2010
|
|
US-deposed President would return to Haiti
by Michael Munk
Sat, Jan 16, 2010
|
May Day 2004: Bush sent US troops to kidnapp the (twice) elected
president. Aristide accused the US of the coup d'etat
Aristide wants to return
Al-Jazeera, Jan 15, 2010
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/01/201011513247850356.html
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the former Haitian president ousted in a rebellion
five years ago, has said he wants to return to his quake-devastated country
and is prepared to leave immediately.
In a rare public appearance on Friday, Aristide told reporters at a hotel
next to South Africa's Johannesburg airport that he and his family are ready
to return to Haiti to help the victims.
He said he believed his supporters would help him secure a plane to fly him
to Haiti with medical supplies and other emergency equipment.
"As far as we are concerned, we are ready to leave today, tomorrow, at any
time to join the people of Haiti, share in their suffering, help rebuild the
country, moving from misery to poverty with dignity," Aristide said.
The former president spoke in a hotel meeting room reserved by the South
African foreign affairs ministry.
Hugely popular
Aristide became popular in his homeland as a priest in the Haitian slum of
La Saline. He was first elected president in 1990 but was ousted in a
military coup the following year.
US troops sent by then US Pesident Bill Clinton, currently a United Nations
special envoy to Haiti, restored Aristide to power in 1994. After stepping
down, Aristide was re-elected in 2000 but was ousted again in the bloody
2004 rebellion.
However, during riots in Haiti in 2008 over soaring food prices, there was a
popular call by Haitians for Aristide's return - showing that he remains
hugely popular.
If Aristide does return, political instability in an impoverished nation
struggling to dig itself out from the massive 7.0-magnitude earthquake could
result.
Aristide has previously hinted at returning, saying he merely wants to be a
teacher. But his enduring popularity and ability to galvanize Haitians would
likely propel him into the political spotlight.
"We feel deeply and profoundly that we should be there, in Haiti, with them,
trying our best to prevent death," Aristide told reporters.
Academic life
Saul Kgomotso Molobi, a South African foreign affairs ministry official who
accompanied Aristide to the briefing, said South Africa knows of no plans
for Aristide to return to Haiti.
Molobi said he could not answer questions about what arrangement would have
to be made.
Aristide and his wife live with their two daughters in a government villa in
Pretoria, South Africa's capital, just north of Johannesburg.
The couple has embraced an academic life, with Aristide writing on the
linguistics of Zulu and Haitian Creole, as well as on the theology of love.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
War Dems challenged in Ill, PA and CA primaries
by Michael Munk
Thu, Jan 14, 2010
|
|
What the spilled blood buys in Iraq
by Michael Munk
Thu, Jan 14, 2010
|
U.S. Companies Join Race on Iraqi Oil Bonanza
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
New York Times: January 14, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/world/middleeast/14rebuild.html?hp
BAGHDAD - A wave of American companies have been arriving in Iraq in
recent
months to pursue what is expected to be a multibillion-dollar bonanza of
projects to revive the country's stagnant petroleum industry, as Iraq
seeks
to establish itself as a rival to Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil
producer.
Since the 2003 American-led invasion, nearly all of the biggest
reconstruction projects in Iraq have been controlled by the United States.
But many rebuilding contracts are expected to be awarded as soon as this
month for drilling hundreds of new wells, repairing thousands of miles of
pipeline and building several giant floating oil terminals in the Persian
Gulf, and possibly a new port.
The contracts will be administered either directly by the Iraqi government
or as part of Baghdad's oversight of international oil companies that have
signed agreements during the past few months to develop the country's most
promising oil fields.
There are misgivings, however, about Iraq's ability to adequately monitor
contracts that could total $10 billion over the next five years. The
concerns have been heightened by the prominent role expected to be played
by
American companies that have been criticized in the past by United States
government auditors and inspectors for overcharging by hundreds of
millions
of dollars, performing shoddy work and failing to finish hundreds of
crucial
projects while under contract in Iraq.
Among the companies that have started sending workers and equipment to the
country or have plans to are Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford
International and Schlumberger, all Houston-based oil-services companies,
and several construction and engineering giants, including KBR, Bechtel,
Parsons, Fluor and Foster Wheeler.
Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR, as well as Bechtel and Parsons,
have been singled out for criticism by the Special Inspector General for
Iraq Reconstruction for their previous work in Iraq.
The new contracts will put the companies into direct contact with an Iraqi
government that has frequently acknowledged its own challenges in dealing
with corruption and cronyism, and that has a lack of experienced managers,
adequate enforcement and efficient auditing systems.
The companies deny intentional wrongdoing in their dealings in Iraq and
say
that their experience there and in other oil-producing countries in
Central
Asia gives them an advantage.
"KBR has historic experience on previous oil and gas production projects
ranging from Azerbaijan to Kazakhstan," Heather Browne, KBR's director of
corporate communications, wrote in an e-mail response to questions. "Our
pursuit of additional contracts in the region is based on this experience
in
addition to KBR's work on Project RIO (Restore Iraq Oil)."
During a conference call with industry analysts in October, David J.
Lesar,
Halliburton's chief executive, said that he had visited Iraq and that the
company was already doing a limited amount of work on oil wells there.
"I think you see everybody trying to establish a base there, and we're no
exception," Mr. Lesar said. "Clearly, a great future there and one we will
participate in - in a big way."
But others questioned the Iraqi government's capacity to police the
companies. "These are for-profit concerns and they are trying to make as
much money as they can," said Pratap Chatterjee, former executive director
of an anticorruption group, CorpWatch, and author of a recent book about
Halliburton. "What the Iraq government needs is a good system of
transparency and accountability, and for someone who knows what they're
doing to oversee the work. Otherwise, they are going to be taken for a
ride."
During the past several months, Iraq has signed 10 production contracts
with
international oil companies as it tries to increase its oil output from a
relatively static 2.4 million barrels a day to as much as 12 million
barrels
a day within six years. Officials said they hoped to drill at least 430
oil
wells during the next two years.
The planned work will require new pipelines, including as many as three
undersea lines, floating terminals, water treatment facilities, pump
stations, oil storage tanks, power plants and possibly a new Persian Gulf
port that might be needed to handle the increased oil exports.
There will also be a need for new housing, roads and schools, and workers
will need to remove unexploded ordnance from oil fields and shipping
lanes,
transport massive oil rigs and use extraordinary amounts of concrete and
steel to reinforce the wells.
While American oil companies have enjoyed only modest success in winning
oil
development deals in Iraq, the numerous contracts signed in recent months
have created an enormous backlog of work that leaves Baghdad with limited
alternatives to Halliburton and the other American companies that dominate
the oil industry services sector.
"Iraq has little choice," said Joost R. Hiltermann, deputy program
director
for the Middle East and North Africa with the International Crisis Group,
a
nonprofit organization that aims to prevent deadly conflicts. "It is
desperate to increase its revenues, almost all of which derive from the
sale
of oil. But the government has little capacity to monitor the many
companies
that will be involved in rehabilitating its ailing oil industry, or indeed
its own operations. This is a recipe for massive corruption, but for Iraqi
policy makers the cost will be worth it, given the expected massive
returns."
Government officials maintain, however, that Iraq's system of checks and
balances will help it avoid the mistakes made by the United States.
"There are procedures where if a company breaches a contract or makes
errors, they will be blacklisted from working in Iraq," said Dr. Sabah A.
Shibeeb al-Saidi, chief of the Ministry of Oil's legal and commercial
department in the petroleum contracts and licensing directorate. "But if
they are not blacklisted we will deal with them. We expect oil services
companies to do many things in Iraq."
Neither Halliburton nor KBR is on the Iraqi government blacklist, and Mr.
Saidi and other senior Iraqi government officials interviewed said they
had
never heard of either those companies or of other American ones that have
become household names in the United States because of their work in Iraq.
Halliburton's former subsidiary, KBR, which was once run by former Vice
President Dick Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $24 billion since
the start of the war, giving it vast responsibility for reinvigorating
Iraq's
oil sector. Among many other criticisms of the company's performance in
Iraq, Pentagon auditors found that KBR had overcharged the government by
more than $200 million.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Obama wants $33 B more for AfPak war
by Michael Munk
Tue, Jan 12, 2010
|
Where are those budget hawks?
Obama wants $33B more for war
By ANNE GEARAN and ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writers
Jan 12, 2010
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_war_funding
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration plans to ask Congress for an
additional $33 billion to fight unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, on
top of a record request for $708 billion for the Defense Department next
year, The Associated Press has learned.
The administration also plans to tell Congress next month that its central
military objectives for the next four years will include winning the current
wars while preventing new ones and that its core missions will include both
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations.
The administration's Quadrennial Defense Review, the main articulation of
U.S. military doctrine, is due to Congress on Feb. 1. Top military
commanders were briefed on the document at the Pentagon on Monday and
Tuesday. They also received a preview of the administration's budget plans
through 2015.
The four-year review outlines six key mission areas and spells out
capabilities and goals the Pentagon wants to develop. The pilotless drones
used for surveillance and attack missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are a
priority, with a goal of speeding up the purchase of new Reaper drones and
expansion of Predator and Reaper drone flights through 2013.
The extra $33 billion in 2010 would mostly go toward the expansion of the
war in Afghanistan. Obama ordered an extra 30,000 troops for that war as
part of an overhaul of the war strategy late last year.
The request for that additional funding will be sent to Congress at the same
time as the record spending request for next year, making war funding an
especially difficult pill for some of Obama's Democratic allies.
Military officials have suggested that the 2011 request would top $700
billion for the first time, but the precise figure has not been made public.
U.S. officials outlined the coming requests on condition of anonymity
because the budget request will not be sent to Congress until later this
month.
Obama's request for more war spending is likely to receive support on
Capitol Hill, where Republicans will join moderate Democrats to pass the
bill.
But the budget debate is also likely to expose a widening rift between
Obama's administration - it sees more troops and money as necessary to
winning the war - and Democratic leaders, who have watched public opinion
turn against the military campaign.
"The president's going to have to make his case," House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters last month at her year-end briefing.
The 2010 budget contains about $128 billion for military operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
That figure would rise to $159 billion next year under the proposals
prepared for Congress.
The Pentagon projects that war funding would drop sharply in 2012, to $50
billion, and remain there through 2015. That is a calculation that the
United States will save money from the withdrawal of forces in Iraq, as well
as a prediction that the Afghanistan war will begin to wind down in the
middle of 2011.
Obama has promised that U.S. forces will begin to withdraw from Afghanistan
in July 2011, but his defense advisers have set no time limit for the war.
The Pentagon projects that overall defense spending would be $616 billion in
2012; $632 billion in 2013; $648 billion in 2014; and $666 billion in 2015.
Congress sets little store by such predictions, which typically have fallen
short of actual requests and spending.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, are expected to testify to Congress about the budget and
the policy review in February.
The four-year policy statement is a more important statement of
administration goals. For the current wars, the policy statement focuses on
efforts to refocus money and talent on beefing up special operations forces,
countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism threats and on cyber
security and warfare.
For example, the Pentagon would like to expand special operations forces'
aviation by expanding the gunship fleet from 25 to 33.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
What thecatatonic media ignored at Obama's intelligence rollout
by Michael Munk
Sat, Jan 9, 2010
|
Answering Helen Thomas on Why They Want to Harm Us
by: Ray McGovern, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
This piece is too long to post. For the rest of it go to
http://www.truthout.org/1091012McGovern
Thank God for Helen Thomas, the only person to show any courage at the White
House press briefing after President Barack Obama gave a flaccid account of
the intelligence screw-up that almost downed an airliner on Christmas Day.
After Obama briefly addressed L'Affaire Abdulmutallab and wrote "must do
better" on the report cards of the national security schoolboys responsible
for the near catastrophe, the President turned the stage over to
counter-terrorism guru John Brennan and Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Janet Napolitano.
It took 89-year old veteran correspondent Helen Thomas to break through the
vapid remarks about channeling "intelligence streams," fixing "no-fly"
lists, deploying "behavior detection officers," and buying more body-imaging
scanners.
Thomas recognized the John & Janet filibuster for what it was, as her
catatonic press colleagues took their customary dictation and asked their
predictable questions. Instead, Thomas posed an adult query that spotlighted
the futility of government plans to counter terrorism with more high-tech
gizmos and more intrusions on the liberties and privacy of the traveling
public.
She asked why Abdulmutallab did what he did.
Thomas: "Why do they want to do us harm? And what is the motivation? We
never hear what you find out on why."
Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton
slaughter of innocents. They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and
use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of
religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and
has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's (sic) able to attract these
individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death."
Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?"
Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that used the
banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way."
Thomas: "Why?"
Brennan: "I think this is a - long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to
carry out attacks here against the homeland."
Thomas: "But you haven't explained why."
Neither did President Obama, nor anyone else in the U.S. political/media
hierarchy. All the American public gets is the boilerplate about how evil al
Qaeda continues to pervert a religion and entice and exploit impressionable
young men.
There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world
object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist
violently and even resort to suicide attacks.
Obama's Non-Answer
I had been hoping Obama would say something intelligent about what drove
Abdulmutallab to do what he did, but the President limited himself to a few
vacuous comments before sending in the clowns. This is what he said before
he walked away from the podium:
"It is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without
known terrorist affiliations . to do their bidding. . And that's why we must
communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing
except a bankrupt vision of misery and death . while the United States
stands with those who seek justice and progress. . That's the vision that is
far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists."
But why it is so hard for Muslims to "get" that message? Why can't they end
their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Yemen, and Gaza long enough to reflect on how we are only trying to save
them from terrorists while simultaneously demonstrating our commitment to
"justice and progress"?
Does a smart fellow like Obama expect us to believe that all we need to do
is "communicate clearly to Muslims" that it is al Qaeda, not the U.S. and
its allies, that brings "misery and death"? Does any informed person not
know that the unprovoked U.S.-led invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis and displaced 4.5 million from their homes? How is that
for "misery and death"?
Rather than a failure to communicate, U.S. officials are trying to rewrite
recent history, which seems to be much easier to accomplish with the
Washington press corps and large segments of the American population than
with the Muslim world.
But why isn't there a frank discussion by America's leaders and media about
the real motivation of Muslim anger toward the United States? Why was Helen
Thomas the only journalist to raise the touchy but central question of
motive?
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
How to prevent attacks--II
by Michael Munk
Fri, Jan 8, 2010
|
|
Iran bans western foundations
by Michael Munk
Tue, Jan 5, 2010
|
Iran has declared that it is illegal for its citizens to cooperate, sign
contracts with or receive materials from about 60 US and European
insitutions and foundations on a list published by its Intelligence
Ministry. They include The Soros Foundation, the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Smith
Richardson Foundation, and the United States' National Defense University
in the US and the East European Democratic Centre (Poland) and Wilton
Park(UK).
We know that several of these, financed by taxpayers and private
fortunes,actively support political opponents of governments the US regards
as unfriendly. Curious what, if anything, they have been doing in Iran.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Iran bans western foundations
by Michael Munk
Tue, Jan 5, 2010
|
Iran has declared that it is illegal for its citizens to cooperate, sign
contracts with or receive materials from about 60 US and European
insitutions and foundations on a list published by its Intelligence
Ministry. They include The Soros Foundation, the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Smith
Richardson Foundation, and the United States' National Defense University
in the US and the East European Democratic Centre (Poland) and Wilton
Park(UK).
We know that several of these, financed by taxpayers and private
fortunes,actively support political opponents of governments the US regards
as unfriendly. Curious what, if anything, they have been doing in Iran.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
How to reduce attacks on the homeland
by Michael Munk
Tue, Jan 5, 2010
|
The political/media complex has framed the Detroit incident as a
intelligence failure that requires bureacratic and technological fixes.
While it's surely true that the $75 billion we waste on pathetically
ineffective "intelligence" (mainly fancy technology and big salaries for
Langley desk riders and NSA technocrats), no one cares why the "heimat" is
attacked in the first place. Almost every attack is attempted as retaliation
for
US foreign policy. 9/11 and earlier attacks on New York were declared by
their perps to be "punishment" for US support for Israeli supression of
Palestinians. Later attacks were retaliation or resistence to the US
occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Detroit bomber is said to have been
trying to avenge US cruise missile attacks on Yemen.
I predict that if Obama would stop implementing neocon foreign adventures
through military occupations, subsidies to Israel and CIA death squads, its
victims would soon experience reduced motiovation to retaliate and would
receive little support from the people they claim to be retaliating the name
of. There would still remain a small group of genuine nutcakes, but they
could be controlled by their own people and the improved human intelligence
generated from them.
9/11 and Christmas 2009: Two Examples of a Failure of Intelligence
by: Melvin A. Goodman, t r u t h o u t | Report
January 4, 2010 http://www.truthout.org/104094
One week after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told the press corps, "This isn't
Pearl Harbor." No, it was worse.
In 1941, the United States didn't have a director of central intelligence,
14 intelligence agencies and an overall intelligence budget of more than $50
billion to provide early warning of enemy attack. One day after a Nigerian
man nearly blew an airliner out of the sky, Director of Homeland Security
Janet Napolitano and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told the media that
the system had worked. No, the system was dysfunctional.
In 2009, we had two additional intelligence agencies, a czar for national
intelligence and an intelligence budget of more than $75 billion. In all
three cases, there was sufficient intelligence available to prevent the
attacks. In all three cases, however, our intelligence efforts were
unimaginative, divided and diffuse.
A blizzard of warnings went unheeded in all three cases. The United States
had broken the Japanese military code, which provided many warnings of a
decision to attack the United States. In the case of 9/11, the Central
Intelligence Agency received warnings from foreign liaison intelligence
services, including the French, German, Israeli and Russian services.
The German intelligence service warned both the CIA and Mossad, the Israeli
service, in the summer of 2001 that terrorists were planning to hijack
commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack US targets. The
Israelis issued their own warnings to the FBI and the CIA in August 2001
that al-Qaeda was planning to attack US targets. The State Department and
the CIA even possessed information that al-Qaeda had decided on targeting
American Airlines and United Airlines, prompting some Foreign Service
officers to change travel plans.
As early as August 2009, the CIA and the National Security Agency had
sensitive information on a person of interest dubbed the "Nigerian," who was
suspected of meeting with terrorist elements in Yemen. The mainstream media
are treating Yemen as a new concern, but Yemen has been a problem for
terrorism for the past ten years.
Adm. Tony Zinni had been warned in 2000 not to refuel ships off the Yemeni
coast, but chose to ignore these warnings. The USS Cole was attacked in
October 2000. A prominent Nigerian banker and former senior government
official, well known to the international community, relayed suspicions
about his son to the US Embassy and the CIA station in Lagos, but there was
no effort to approach Yemeni officials to gather information on the banker's
son, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
The son was a poster child for the "no fly" list, buying his ticket with
cash, checking no luggage, lying to British authorities about his student
visa and spending several months in Yemen. The British denied Abdulmutallab
reentry, but the US State Department didn't even bother to check whether he
had an entry visa for the United States.
In fact, he had a multiple entry visa and, since all intelligence and law
enforcement agencies have access to State's consular database listing visa
holders, this fact was available throughout the community. It's one thing to
worry about due process in dealing with a US citizen; it makes no sense to
wait for additional derogatory information in the case of a foreigner who
has traveled to Yemen and whose father has provided a warning about his
son's extremism.
The simple fact is that the intelligence community is not a "community"; it
does not share intelligence effectively and it fails to make corporate
decisions. The NSA had transcripts of al-Qaeda phone conversations in 2001
and sensitive intercepts on the "Nigerian" in 2009 that it didn't share with
the CIA, the FBI or the National Security Council. The FBI accumulated
intelligence on al-Qaeda that it hoped to use in a criminal case against
Osama bin Laden; therefore, most of this intelligence never left the
compartmented areas of FBI headquarters. The CIA withheld information on two
9/11 terrorists, presumably because it hoped to recruit these suspects as
sources.
We were led to believe the intelligence situation had improved in the wake
of 9/11, but in view of the traditional cultural and professional jealousies
of the military and civilian intelligence agencies, we have no evidence of
significant change. Various departments and agencies have their own watch
lists for limiting travel of terrorist suspects, but apply their own
parochial concerns to operational activities and often ignore the
intelligence products of rival agencies.
The master list at the National Counter Terrorist Center is too large and
unwieldy (more than 550,000 names) to be useful, and the State Department
computer network lacks an automatic feedback loop that would link a suspect
to a US visa. The Department of Homeland Security never should have been
created and should have been abolished in the wake of Hurricane Katrina
(remember "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie"). If we must have such a
superfluous organization, then it should possess a centralized depository of
terrorist suspects containing all relevant information.
The analytical capabilities of the CIA, the FBI and the DHS have not been
enhanced by the creation of the intelligence czar. Moreover, it is revealing
that President Barack Obama made his decision last month to increase troops
in Afghanistan without requesting a National Intelligence Estimate from the
so-called intelligence community. Perhaps, he understands that there are too
many instances where assumptions drive facts in the intelligence process.
Former members of the 9/11 Commission are claiming that their
recommendations have not been fully implemented, but it was the 9/11
Commission that helped to create the crazy-quilt intelligence organization
that we now have, with too many working parts and a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The Commission is responsible for the creation of the Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), a sclerotic and bloated bureaucracy that has done little
to improve strategic intelligence, and the National Counterterrorism Center
(NCTC), which is at the center of the Nigerian intelligence failure.
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 demonstrated DHS is dysfunctional; the Nigerian
failure teaches us that the DNI and the NCTC need reform.
The 9/11 Commission's creation of an intelligence czar has ensured that
diversity and competition in collection and analysis of intelligence will be
given short shrift. Truth is elusive within the intelligence process, and
there is rarely a single answer to a controversial question or problem. The
best intelligence analysis often comes from contrarian thinkers, but the
militarized intelligence process rewards consensus and not competition.
In the one area where we need centralization, watch lists for terrorist
suspects, we have a redundancy of collections. Homeland Security keeps one
list for border crossings; the State Department has a list for visas; the
Transportation Security Administration has a no-fly list and a selectee list
with 4,000 and 14,000 listings, respectively; and the National Counter
Terrorism Center has an unwieldy database of 550,000 names. The criteria for
each list differ, and it takes an interagency group to determine whether to
place an individual on a specific list.
There is at least one thing we have to be thankful for. In view of the
failed efforts of Robert Reid in 2001 and Abdulmutallab, we can be thankful
al-Qaeda still has not perfected an effective detonator. We should also
applaud the post-9/11 reforms that limited the amounts of liquid that can be
taken on commercial aircraft.
The United States may not be so lucky the next time around, so President
Obama must take a hard look at his entire national security team,
particularly CIA Director Leon Panetta, DNI Dennis Blair, and NSC Deputy
Director John Brennan, to make sure they are taking the necessary actions to
reform the process. The failure points seem obvious, with bad decisions
being made at a relatively low level in the process. The president has not
demonstrated an interest in reforming the intelligence community, however,
despite his campaign rhetoric.
Ironically, the president has left the CIA without its most effective
component for investigating failure because he hasn't named a statutory
inspector general for the CIA to replace John Helgerson, who announced his
retirement ten months ago. Helgerson was responsible for the most
authoritative investigation of the 9/11 failure, which the Bush
administration and the CIA managed to cover up.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
DAI subversive contractor in AfPak, Cuba, Venezula
by Michael Munk
Fri, Jan 1, 2010
|
|
Study says US Afghan occupation different from Russia's
by Michael Munk
Fri, Jan 1, 2010
|
The NYTimes got hold of a draft military historuy of The US invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan The story's at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/asia/31history.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=afghan%20military%20history&st=cse
An interesting part of the study argues that the US, unlike the Soviet Union
and other invaders, is not an "occupier":
Military planners were concerned about Afghanistan's long history of
resisting foreign invaders and
wanted to avoid the appearance of being occupiers. But the historians argue
that this concern was
based partly on an "incomplete" understanding of the Soviet experience in
Afghanistan/
The draft study explains why they think that: It disagrees with the" the
belief that a large "footprint"
of Western forces inside Afghanistan would alienate the population and lead
to disaffection and violence. Senior US political and Inilitary
officials came to this view partly
through an understanding of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan that
was at best incomplete.
This interpretation of that decade-long conflict explained the Soviet
failure as stemming from
the deployment of large mechanized forinations that appeared and acted
as an anny of occupa-
tion. The presence of this large alien force, so the interpretation
suggested, bred the insurgency
that ultimately forced the Soviets to leave in disgrace a decade after
they arrived.
Often overlooked in this version of the Soviet-Afghan War was the
ways in which the
Soviet military used its power in Afghanistan. Early in the conflict, for
example~ the Soviet Air
Force directly attacked civilian populations to deny insurgents safe
havens. Large-scale casual-
ties and refugee populations resulted, generating a high level of support
for the Mujahideen.
Moreover, when the Soviet Union sent its military forces across the Afghan
border in 1979 to
support the Afghan Communist government, Afghanistan was already in the
midst of a civil
war. Thus, much of the resistance the Soviets encountered was not generated
by the size of their
footprint, but that they had intervened in support of one side in the
preexisting conflict.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Obama's dirty war exposed
by Michael Munk
Fri, Jan 1, 2010
|
|
Afghans burn Obama in effigy
by Michael Munk
Wed, Dec 30, 2009
|
=20
=20
(AP Photo/Rahmat Gul) =20
Dec 30, 2009
=
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/US-President-Barack-Obama/photo//091230/481=
/11782de2b6dd4cfb9c656fa22d67ead2//s:/ap/20091230/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanis=
tan
=20
People chant anti-American slogans and burn an effigy of U.S. President =
Barack Obama in Jalalabad, south Afghanistan Wednesday., during a =
protest against the recent killings of 10 civilians allegedly by the =
coalition forces in Kunar province, eight of them boys aged between 12 =
and 14. A NATO official said initial reports from troops involved in the =
fighting on Sunday indicated that the victims were insurgents.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Death to Obama: Afghans protest children's deaths
by Michael Munk
Wed, Dec 30, 2009
|
Afghans burn Obama effigy over civilian deaths
By Samoon Miakhail (Agence France-Presse) Dec. 30, 2009
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hieVzBP8C6Tv6Yn-ozkipSLmvA_Qhttp://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hieVzBP8C6Tv6Yn-ozkipSLmvA_Q
JALALABAD, Afghanistan - Protesters took to the streets in Afghanistan on
Wednesday, burning an effigy of the US president and shouting "death to
Obama" to slam civilian deaths during Western military operations.
Hundreds of university students blocked main roads in Jalalabad, capital of
eastern Nangahar province, to protest the alleged deaths of 10 civilians,
mostly school children, in a Western military operation on Saturday.
"The government must prevent such unilateral operations otherwise we will
take guns instead of pens and fight against them (foreign forces)," students
from the University of Nangahar's education faculty said in a statement.
Marching through the main street of Jalalabad, the students chanted "death
to Obama" and "death to foreign forces", witnesses said.
The protesters torched a US flag and an effigy of US President Barack Obama
in a public square in central Jalalabad, before dispersing.
"Our demonstration is against those foreigners who have come to our
country," Safiullah Aminzai, a student organiser, told AFP.
"They have not brought democracy to Afghanistan but they are killing our
religious scholars and children," he added.
Civilian deaths in the eight-year war to eradicate a Taliban-led insurgency
are a sensitive issue for the Afghan public, and fan tensions between
President Hamid Karzai and the 113,000 foreign troops supporting his
government.
A similar protest was planned in Kabul against the "killing of civilians,
especially the recent killing of students in Kunar by foreign forces," said
organisers from the youth wing of Jamiat Eslah, or the Afghan Society for
Social Reform and Development.
"The demonstration is to show our hatred, anger and sorrow about the current
situation," said Sayed Khalid Rashid.
"Our main request is that the American and NATO forces must leave the
country and Afghan people must have political autonomy," he said, adding
that he expected hundreds of people to turn out for the march through
western Kabul.
Karzai "strongly condemned" the Kunar deaths, which have not been confirmed
by either NATO or the US military, and ordered an immediate investigation.
"Initial reports indicate that in a series of operations by international
forces in Kunar province... 10 civilians, eight of them school students,
have been killed," his office said.
The operations in Kunar, which borders Pakistan, are being led by US Special
Forces, a senior Western military official told AFP on condition of
anonymity.
"They have been killing a lot of Taliban and capturing a lot of Taliban,"
the official said.
The operations were conducted independently of the more than 110,000 NATO
and coalition forces fighting to eradicate the Taliban, he said.
NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), asked to comment on
reports of the Kunar deaths, said it had no activities in the region at the
time. US Special Forces operate separately from ISAF.
The head of the investigation team dispatched by Karzai to Kunar, Asadullah
Wafa, said he met officials and residents of Narang district, south of the
provincial capital of Asad Abad, but had no further details.
The United Nations released figures this week showing that civilian deaths
rose 10.8 percent in the first 10 months of 2009 to 2,038, up from 1,838 for
the same period of 2008.
The UN calculations show the vast majority, or 1,404 civilians, were killed
by insurgents fighting to overthrow Karzai's government and eject Western
troops.
But extremists rarely claim responsibility for attacks that kill large
numbers of civilians, instead blaming foreign forces in an increasingly
effective propaganda campaign.
The Taliban rely increasingly on homemade bombs, which exact a horrific toll
on civilians and military alike, with foreign troop deaths at a record 508
this year.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Iran nuke document' another forgery?
by Michael Munk
Tue, Dec 29, 2009
|
|
Reply to Rothstein: Yip Harburg's politics
by Michael Munk
Sat, Dec 26, 2009
|
|
NYT oped demands Obama start a 3rd war
by Michael Munk
Thu, Dec 24, 2009
|
For the Christmas Eve oped in question:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html
RE: "There's Only One Way to Stop Iran" (Oped, Dec 24)
In what other civilized nation would its leading newspaper give
respectability
to a demand it go to war against a member nation of the UN which does not
threaten it?
Alan Kuperman's tortured reading of Iran's behavior regarding its nuclear
program
is based on the same kind of evidence produced to justify our aggression
against Iraq. Just as
Iran is probably insisting today, Iraq turned out to be telling the truth
when it declared it had no WMDs. If President Obama is foolish enough to
act on Kuperman's warmongering, the consequences will be even worse.
Michael Munk
|
Feingold alone is opposing war spending
by Michael Munk
Sat, Dec 19, 2009
|
|
34 votes against the war budget (395 warmongers)
by Michael Munk
Fri, Dec 18, 2009
|
|
12 join Kucinich's effort to end AfPak war
by Michael Munk
Fri, Dec 18, 2009
|
|
West on Obama: Is he the firecist critic?
by Michael Munk
Fri, Dec 18, 2009
|
From an interview with West on publicaztion of his new book. Read the full
text at
http://www.alternet.org/rights/144569/always_controversial_cornel_west_disses_obama,_survives_cancer_and_almost_spent_his_life_in_prison/?page=entire
I draw a radical distinction between the symbolic and the substantial. As a
critical supporter of Barack Obama, engaged in over 50 events for him from
Iowa to Ohio, I knew that at a symbolic level something could happen that
was unprecedented. And it did happen. At that symbolic level, I can
understand the tears, I can understand the jubilation, I can understand the
euphoria. But I always knew there was a sense in which he, now heading the
American empire, was tied to the shadow government, tied to CIA, FBI, tied
to the establishment waiting to embrace him. It was clear when he chose his
economic team, when he chose his foreign policy team, he was choosing, of
course, the recycled neo-liberals and recycled neo-Clintonites that
substantially you're going to end up with these technocratic policies that
consider poor people and working people as afterthoughts. Beginning with
bankers, beginning with elites.
Symbolically, black man breaks through makes you want to break dance. So,
yes, we have to be able to relate to both of these. So I resonate with your
dear fiancee, because the hopes that were generated and the call for change,
and then we end up with this recycled neo-liberalism. There's no fundamental
change at all.
That's very real, but I think we do have to understand we had to bring the
age of Reagan to a close. We had to bring the era of conservatism to a
close. And then you try to unleash new possibilities. Of course, the
question now is, how do we keep our fellow citizens awakened so it goes
beyond the campaign for a candidate and really begin engaging in grassroots
organizing and mobilizing.
I think even my dear brother Michael Moore tends to put too much confidence
in Barack Obama. In his film you get the sense that here comes Barack Obama
speaking the language of deep democracy. No, no, no, he's been a liberal all
his life. He uses that language to mobilize, but in the end he's going to
capitulate and defer to the neo-liberal establishment, which is what he has
done so far. Now granted, there's still some possibilities there, even when
you talk about just extending unemployment benefits. This is nothing
revolutionary at all, but it does alleviate some of the suffering. But if we
don't get some restructuring going on, if we don't get some Marshall Plan
activity of massive investments in infrastructure here, in this
country....You've got four billion dollars every month in Afghanistan. You
can come up with that all the time.
: I think even my dear brother Michael Moore tends to put too much
confidence in Barack Obama. In his film you get the sense that here comes
Barack Obama speaking the language of deep democracy. No, no, no, he's been
a liberal all his life. He uses that language to mobilize, but in the end
he's going to capitulate and defer to the neo-liberal establishment, which
is what he has done so far. Now granted, there's still some possibilities
there, even when you talk about just extending unemployment benefits. This
is nothing revolutionary at all, but it does alleviate some of the
suffering. But if we don't get some restructuring going on, if we don't get
some Marshall Plan activity of massive investments in infrastructure here,
in this country....You've got four billion dollars every month in
Afghanistan. You can come up with that all the time.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Obama to sign Compromise Health Care Plan
by Michael Munk
Thu, Dec 17, 2009
|
|
Only 12 stand up against more Iran sanctions
by Michael Munk
Wed, Dec 16, 2009
|
|
Obama defends Prof. Yoo
by Michael Munk
Sun, Dec 13, 2009
|
Nuremberg Revisited: Obama Administration Files To Dismiss Case Against =
John Yoo
by JONATHAN TURLEY
December 9, 2009
=20
John Yoo is being defended in court this month by the Administration. =
Not the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration. As with the =
lawsuits over electronic surveillance and torture, the Obama =
administration wants the lawsuit against Yoo dismissed and is defending =
the right of Justice Department officials to help establish a torture =
program - an established war crime. I will be discussing the issue on =
this segment of MSNBC Countdown.
=20
The Obama Administration has filed a brief that brushes over the war =
crimes aspects of Yoo's work at the Justice Department. Instead, it =
insists that attorneys must be free to give advice - even if it is to =
establish a torture program.
=20
In its filing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice =
Department insists that there is "the risk of deterring full and frank =
advice regarding the military's detention and treatment of those =
determined to be enemies during an armed conflict." Instead it argues =
that the Justice Department has other means to punish lawyers like the =
Office of Professional Responsibility. Of course, the Bush =
Administration effectively blocked such investigations and Yoo is no =
longer with the Justice Department. The OPR has been dismissed as =
ineffectual, including in an ABA Journal, as the Justice Department's =
"roach motel"-"the cases go in, but nothing ever comes out."
=20
The Justice Department first defended Yoo as counsel and then paid for =
private counsel to represent him (here). His public-funded private =
counsel is Miguel Estrada, who was forced to withdraw his nomination by =
George Bush for the Court of Appeals after strong opposition from the =
Democrats.=20
=20
Yoo is being sued by Jose Padilla, who was effectively blocked in =
contesting his abusive confinement and mistreatment as part of this =
criminal case and in a habeas action. The Bush Administration brought =
new charges to moot a case before the Supreme Court could rule. The =
Court previously sent his case back on a technicality.=20
It is important to note that the Administration did not have to file =
this brief since it had withdrawn as counsel and paid for Yoo's private =
counsel. It has decided that it wants to establish the law claimed by =
the Bush Administration protecting Justice officials who support alleged =
war crimes. They are effectively doubling down by withdrawing as counsel =
and then reappearing as a non-party amicus.=20
=20
The Obama Administration has gutted the hard-fought victories in =
Nuremberg where lawyers and judges were often guilty of war crimes in =
their legal advice and opinions. The third of the twelve trials for war =
crimes involved 16 German jurists and lawyers. Nine had been officials =
of the Reich Ministry of Justice, the others were prosecutors and judges =
of the Special Courts and People's Courts of Nazi Germany. It would have =
been a larger group but two lawyers committed suicide before trial: =
Adolf Georg Thierack, former minister of justice, and Carl Westphal, a =
ministerial counsellor.
=20
=20
They included Herbert Klemm, who was sentenced to life imprisonment and =
served as minister of justice, director of the Ministry's Legal =
Education and Training Division, and deputy director of the National =
Socialist Lawyer's League.
=20
Oswald Rothaug received life imprisonment for his role as a prosecutor =
and later a judge.
=20
Wilhelm von Ammon received ten years for his work as a justice official =
in occupied areas.=20
=20
Guenther Joel received ten years for being an adviser (like Yoo) to the =
Ministry of Justice and later a judge.=20
=20
Curt Rothenberger was also a legal adviser and was given seven years for =
his writings at the Ministry of Justice and as the deputy president of =
the Academy of German Law
=20
Wolfgang Mettgenberg received ten years as representative of the =
Criminal Legislation Administration Division of the Ministry of Justice,
Ernst Lautz (10 years) had been chief public prosecutor of the People's =
Court.
=20
Franz Schlegelberger, a former Ministry of Justice official, was =
convicted and sentenced to life for conspiracy and other war crimes. The =
court found:=20
=20
'.that Schlegelberger supported the pretension of Hitler in his =
assumption of power to deal with life and death in disregard of even the =
pretense of judicial process. By his exhortations and directives, =
Schlegelberger contributed to the destruction of judicial independence. =
It was his signature on the decree of 7 February 1942 which imposed upon =
the Ministry of Justice and the courts the burden of the prosecution, =
trial, and disposal of the victims of Hitler's Night and Fog. For this =
he must be charged with primary responsibility.
=20
'He was guilty of instituting and supporting procedures for the =
wholesale persecution of Jews and Poles. Concerning Jews, his ideas were =
less brutal than those of his associates, but they can scarcely be =
called humane. When the "final solution of the Jewish question" was =
under discussion, the question arose as to the disposition of half-Jews. =
The deportation of full Jews to the East was then in full swing =
throughout Germany. Schlegelberger was unwilling to extend the system to =
half-Jews.'
=20
=20
It was the "ideas" that these lawyers advanced that made the war crimes =
possible. Other officials were tried but acquitted. All of these =
officials used arguments similar to those in the Obama Administration's =
brief of why lawyers are not responsible for war crimes that they defend =
and justify. Bush selected people like Yoo to justify the war crime of =
torture. If they had written against it, the Administration might have =
abandoned the effort. The CIA director and others were already concerned =
about the prospect of prosecution. The Obama Administration's brief =
revisits Nuremberg and sweeps away such quaint notions. Indeed, the =
brief for Yoo could have been used directly to support legal advisers =
Wolfgang Mettgenberg, Guenther Joel, and Wilhelm von Ammon.=20
=20
If successful in this case, the Obama Administration will succeed in =
returning the world to the rules leading to the war crimes at Nuremberg. =
Quite a legacy for the world's newest Nobel Peace Prize winner.=20
=20
Defenders of the Administration insist that the brief does not =
expressly gut Nuremberg or reference war crimes. Of course, that is the =
point. The brief does not make any exception for liability for legal =
advice when it is part of a torture program or war crime. When combined =
with the Administration's refusal to appoint a special prosecutor for =
the torture program (and the President's promise that no CIA employees =
would be prosecuted), the brief closes the circle: there will be no =
criminal or civil liability for the war crimes committed by the Bush =
Administration.=20
The only reference to substantive criminal prosecution is in the =
following abstract statement:
=20
That is not to say that the actions of a Department of Justice attorney =
providing advice should go unchecked. Department of Justice attorneys, =
if they abuse their authority, are subject to possible state and federal =
bar sanctions, see 28 U.S.C. =A7 530B, investigation by both the Office =
of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General, =
as well as criminal investigation and prosecution, where appropriate. If =
Congress believes that additional avenues of recourse are necessary in =
cases where Department of Justice attorneys provide legal advice =
regarding matters relating to war powers and national security, it could =
enact appropriate legislation. Given the sensitivities of such claims, =
and the risk of deterring full and frank advice regarding matters of =
national security, however, this is a clear case where "special factors" =
strongly counsel against the recognition of a Bivens action.
=20
"[W]here appropriate" are the key words. The Administration has already =
blocked criminal prosecution for torture. More importantly, this case is =
about Yoo's involvement in creating that program. However, even in =
assisting in the establishment of a torture program, the Administration =
insists that there can not be civil liability (let alone criminal =
liability). If the Administration wanted to maintain the rule created at =
Nuremberg, it would have stated clearly that no privilege or law =
protects a lawyer who is assisting in the establishment of a war crime =
or torture program. Of course, the Administration has already said the =
opposite. Obama and Holder have stated that "just following orders" is a =
complete defense for CIA employees (here).=20
=20
The effort to ignore the clear position of this Administration shows the =
dangers of a cult of personality. Just as conservatives ignored Bush's =
violation of core conservative values on the budget and big government, =
some liberals are ignoring Obama's violation of core liberal values on =
civil liberties and privacy.=20
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Gates: Since 1944 no war popular in the US
by Michael Munk
Sun, Dec 13, 2009
|
|
Cornel West: Obama's fiercist critic?
by Michael Munk
Thu, Dec 10, 2009
|
|
Progressive Policy Institute backs Obama's wars
by Michael Munk
Wed, Dec 9, 2009
|
|
Why it's so easy for Obama to wage war
by Michael Munk
Wed, Dec 9, 2009
|
|
Only 25 Dems stand up against Obama's wars
by Michael Munk
Mon, Dec 7, 2009
|
|
Nader and Mckinney socialists?
by Michael Munk
Mon, Dec 7, 2009
|
|
Equality Now supports Obama's war
by Michael Munk
Sun, Dec 6, 2009
|
|
Another feminist for Obama's war
by Michael Munk
Fri, Dec 4, 2009
|
|
Peace prize for a warmonger
by Michael Munk
Fri, Dec 4, 2009
|
|
Obama losing supporters
by Michael Munk
Thu, Dec 3, 2009
|
|
US media whitewash Honduran vote
by Michael Munk
Wed, Dec 2, 2009
|
|
Who knew ? 300 protest Obama at West Point
by Michael Munk
Wed, Dec 2, 2009
|
|
Secret US nukes in Europe
by Michael Munk
Wed, Dec 2, 2009
|
|
Afghans say Obama builds occupation
by Michael Munk
Tue, Dec 1, 2009
|
|
US and rightist govts isolated on Honduras vote
by Michael Munk
Tue, Dec 1, 2009
|
|
War tax debate begins
by Michael Munk
Mon, Nov 30, 2009
|
|
Challenge your congressperson!
by Michael Munk
Mon, Nov 30, 2009
|
|
Afghan feminist: Obama's escalation a war crime
by Michael Munk
Mon, Nov 30, 2009
|
|
Obama can lose Afghanistan only if he stays:
by Michael Munk
Sun, Nov 29, 2009
|
|
Latin America furious at Obama's Honduran collapse
by Michael Munk
Sat, Nov 28, 2009
|
|
When will liberals stand up against Obama's wars
by Michael Munk
Sat, Nov 28, 2009
|
|
'feminist supports Afhgan occupation
by Michael Munk
Sat, Nov 28, 2009
|
|
Honduran President denounces Obama
by Michael Munk
Fri, Nov 27, 2009
|
|
More on: How about a WAR TAX to pay for Obama's wars?
by Michael Munk
Fri, Nov 27, 2009
|
|
How about a war tax to wake people up?
by Michael Munk
Thu, Nov 26, 2009
|
|
obama backs coup elections in Honduras
by Michael Munk
Tue, Nov 24, 2009
|
|
Fwd: Hating the Occupier
by Michael Munk
Tue, Nov 24, 2009
|
|
Mon-Wed Call Obama: Send no more troops
by Michael Munk
Mon, Nov 23, 2009
|
Nov 23-25 call Obama: No more troops for Afganistan
Dear Friend, VIA"Peace and Justice Works"
Today, we have much news to share about our Afghanistan peace campaign and
an opportunity for action.
First, thank you all for your calls to the White House last week -- and
for your photos and comments on our Facebook Postcards to Obama
initiative. http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=81QzgMNV7L2Qji-InM3HHQ..
This week, we are redoubling our efforts. AFSC is joining with many other
peace and justice groups for White House Call-in Days, Monday through
Wednesday. And we need your help.
Last week, the White House held three meetings to reach out to academics
and peace activists, development agencies, and representatives from faith
communities to elicit their views on Afghanistan strategy. An AFSC
colleague of ours in Washington attended the faith communities meeting,
and tells us that the Obama Administration is clearly listening.
So, this week's call-in days are all the more important.
Please take action today and join with the pro-peace majority in calling
for an end to this war.
Call the White House to Say "No More Troops in Afghanistan"
National White House Call-In Days
Monday, November 23 - Wednesday, November 25
We are at a cross roads. President Obama will soon announce the U.S.
strategy for Afghanistan, including the role of U.S. troops. Call him and
tell him that more troops will not bring more peace.
This situation needs a strategy based on diplomacy, the rule of law,
government accountability and development. This long-term vision requires
transparent and sustained support for civilian led and accountable
community institutions. Investment in civilian institutions helps citizens
strengthen their communities, which will help to prevent rather than
escalate violence. It also costs a fraction of the price of a military
surge. This would mean more money at home for job creation, prevention of
foreclosures, healthcare and other human needs.
Previous U.S. governments have shown that the U.S. is prepared to invest
lives and treasures in war. Encourage this administration to invest in
peace.
White House comment line:
202-456-1111
Talking points:
1. No additional troops to Afghanistan.
2. A timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and for diplomacy and
dialogue with all parties to the conflict, without preconditions.
3. Badly needed development aid provided, to be coordinated by
civilian-led organizations, not the military.
4. Redirect the more than $44 billion spent yearly on war to supporting
real human needs in Afghanistan and at home.
Help President Obama make the best decision on Afghanistan. Please take a
moment and make your call today.
The National White House Call-in Days are being jointly organized by
United for Peace and Justice, American Friends Service Committee, Peace
Action, CODEPINK, Just Foreign Policy, Voters for Peace, Pax Christi USA,
Common Dreams, Historians Against War, and others. Please forward this
action alert to your group or community.
http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=uqRTvPosgwyfkPkOmkmWXQ..
Thank you for taking the steps to support a more peaceful world and have a
happy Thanksgiving.
Peace,
Peter Lems and Mary Zerkel
American Friends Service Committee
P.S. While you are at your phone, won't you call to your Representative
and Senators? They approve the money for war and will be asked for
additional funds if more troops are sent. United Against Afghanistan
Escalation is an excellent companion to this effort that
provides contact information for your representative, bills to support,
and a grid that will allow you to post the response you receive.
http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=SdDnwVKwtm2tU-5UiqCc2A..
P.P.S. For more ideas on what a better strategy for Afghanistan will look
like, see AFSC's op-ed in the Huffington Post. If you'd like, take a
moment to share your thoughts on the site as well.
http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=ijiZxM8w22DBtfJPZWjDFg..
American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
http://support.afsc.org/site/R?i=CSeuWsHbUQOxlUbwjlCJug..
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Why did Bush I reject Najibullah;s offer?
by Michael Munk
Mon, Nov 16, 2009
|
|
Afghan woman ex-MP to Obama: end occupation now
by Michael Munk
Wed, Nov 11, 2009
|
|
NYT: Call it socialism?
by Michael Munk
Mon, Nov 9, 2009
|
|
BBC: World opinion critical of capitalism
by Michael Munk
Sun, Nov 8, 2009
|
Free market flawed, says survey=20
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8347409.stm VIA Renate B.=20
By James Robbins=20
Diplomatic correspondent, BBC News =20
=20
=20
Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new BBC poll has =
found widespread dissatisfaction with free-market capitalism.=20
In the global poll for the BBC World Service, only 11% of those =
questioned across 27 countries said that it was working well.=20
Most thought regulation and reform of the capitalist system were =
necessary.=20
There were also sharp divisions around the world on whether the =
end of the Soviet Union was a good thing.=20
Economic regulation
In 1989, as the Berlin Wall fell, it was a victory for ordinary =
people across Eastern and Central Europe.=20
It also looked at the time like a crushing victory for free-market =
capitalism.=20
=20
Twenty years on, this new global poll suggests confidence in free =
markets has taken heavy blows from the past 12 months of financial and =
economic crisis.=20
More than 29,000 people in 27 countries were questioned. In only =
two countries, the United States and Pakistan, did more than one in five =
people feel that capitalism works well as it stands.=20
Almost a quarter - 23% of those who responded - feel it is fatally =
flawed. That is the view of 43% in France, 38% in Mexico and 35% in =
Brazil.=20
And there is very strong support around the world for governments =
to distribute wealth more evenly. That is backed by majorities in 22 of =
the 27 countries.=20
If there is one issue where a global consensus seems to emerge =
from the survey it is this: there are majorities almost everywhere =
wanting government to be more active in regulating business.=20
It is only in Turkey that a majority want less government =
regulation.=20
Opinion about the disintegration of the Soviet Union is sharply =
divided.=20
Europeans overwhelmingly say it was a good thing: 79% in Germany, =
76% in Britain and 74% in France feel that way.=20
But outside the developed West it is a different picture. Almost =
seven in 10 Egyptians say the end of the Soviet Union was a bad thing =
and views are sharply divided in India, Kenya and Indonesia.=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
=20
=20
=20
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
No swine vacine panic under real socialized health care
by Michael Munk
Sun, Nov 8, 2009
|
In Europe, most swine flu shots by invitation only
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer Nov 6, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091106/ap_on_he_me/eu_med_europe_swine_flu
LONDON - In Britain, there are no long lines of people seeking swine flu =
vaccine. Doctor's offices aren't swamped with desperate calls. And there =
are no cries of injustice that the vaccine is going to wealthy =
corporations or healthy people who don't really need it.
Here, and across most of Europe, vaccine to protect against the pandemic =
flu is mostly given by invitation only to those at highest risk for flu =
complications.
"That is one of the great advantages of the British health system," said =
Dr. Steve Field, president of the Royal College of General Physicians. =
"We have a list of all the names of patients who qualify to be =
vaccinated."
When Britain unrolled its pandemic vaccination program last month, it =
designed its campaign to ensure that priority groups - including =
pregnant women, health workers and those with chronic health problems =
like diabetes, cancer and AIDS - get the shots first.
Instead of advertising that vaccine had arrived and waiting for the =
lines to form, Britain's National Health Service sent letters, inviting =
all those who qualify to make an appointment and get the shots first.
Field said Britain's socialized health care system allows the country to =
target people who need to be vaccinated quickly: "It's not like the =
U.S., where it's the survival of the fittest and the richest."
Just this week, Americans learned that Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs =
and Citigroup got swine flu vaccine, even as many doctor's offices and =
community clinics still had none. The companies obtained the vaccine =
through standard procedures, and it was targeted to employees who met =
criteria for vaccination. But the perception of unfairness set off an =
outcry.
In the United Kingdom, the general population will be offered the shot =
after priority groups have been taken care of, probably in about two =
months. For now, only children with health problems are a priority; =
healthy children are not.
Similar programs are being carried out in other European countries, all =
of which have socialized medicine:
. In Germany, doctors have also been contacting high-priority patients =
to come in for their swine flu shot, though other people who have asked =
for one have not been turned away.
. In Sweden, Denmark and Finland, some local governments are sending =
invitations to people in high-risk groups or posting information about =
vaccine availability on their Web sites.
. So far, France is only vaccinating health care workers. Its health =
minister said 6 million people in priority groups would start getting =
invitations to be vaccinated next week.
In North America, swine flu vaccination has largely been a free-for-all, =
although some U.S. states have recently beefed up their screening =
process to ensure pregnant women, children and people with health =
problems get shots before healthy older people.
In Canada, which has a form of socialized medicine, health officials =
began an investigation this week after professional hockey and =
basketball players got the vaccine ahead of thousands of children.
Another trend has also affected the trans-Atlantic vaccination picture: =
While Americans and Canadians appear to be clamoring for the vaccine, =
many Europeans appear indifferent.
Verona Hall, a London-based midwife, said that among her dozens of =
pregnant patients none has accepted the invitation to take the shot. The =
reluctance among pregnant women stems in part from fears the vaccine =
could hurt their babies, but other priority groups have also shown =
little interest in the flu shot.
Hall herself recently received a text message asking her to book an =
appointment to get the vaccine. She declined. "It just doesn't seem that =
serious here," she said. "Maybe if there are a lot more cases, more =
people will consider having it. But right now it isn't a priority."
British officials estimate there have been more than 600,000 swine flu =
cases since the virus was identified in April. In the U.S., experts say =
there have been millions.=20
In the U.S., the federal government is paying for the vaccine and =
rationing supplies to each state. Then state and local health =
departments decide where it goes next - from schools to doctor's offices =
to community health clinics and even some large companies with health =
directors.=20
On Thursday, the director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and =
Prevention wrote to local health departments, asking them to ensure the =
vaccine is getting to high-risk groups first. Dr. Thomas Frieden warned =
that decisions that appear to send vaccine beyond high-priority groups =
"have the potential to undermine the credibility of the program."=20
Lenny Marcus, a public health expert at Harvard University, said the =
anxiety among Americans about vaccine shortages may have a snowball =
effect.=20
Early on, U.S. officials predicted there would be 120 million vaccine =
doses available by October. They later slashed that estimate, and as of =
this week there were only about 38 million doses in the country.=20
"When people believe there's a shortage, that increases demand," Marcus =
said. "The images of people lining up for hours to get the vaccine, =
which is in short supply, has a big impact. ... Parents with kids may =
suddenly be desperate to get them immunized."=20
In contrast, there are no pictures in the British tabloids of crowded =
clinics. And the Department of Health won't reveal how many doses are =
available, saying only that enough vaccine to cover the entire =
population - 60 million people - had been ordered.=20
For now, the biggest problem confronting Britain's vaccination effort is =
not a shortage or public demand. In recent weeks, postal strikes have =
delayed delivery of about 35 million letters. Health officials worry =
that high-risk patients waiting for their swine flu vaccine invitation =
letters might never get them.=20
"The timing isn't great," said Field, adding doctors would also be =
telephoning or sending patients text messages if they qualified to get a =
swine flu vaccine. "So far we have not had a lot of terribly anxious =
people here."=20
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Why false health reform passed the House.
by Michael Munk
Sun, Nov 8, 2009
|
|
Weiner caves to Obama, Pelosi, Waxman!
by Michael Munk
Fri, Nov 6, 2009
|
|
World endorses Goldstone report on Israeli war crimes
by Michael Munk
Thu, Nov 5, 2009
|
The pathetic House of Reps vote denouncing it was decisively repudiated Bu
the UN; Obama and Israel isolated with only 16 supporters
UN endorses Goldstone report
Al-Jazeera, Nov 5, 2009
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/11/2009115224442710473.html
Most of the report's criticism was directed towards Israel's conduct during
the Gaza offensive [AFP]
The United Nations General Assembly has voted in favour of resolution
endorsing a UN-sponsored report into war crimes committed during Israel's
war on Gaza.
The Goldstone report, which accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes, was
endorsed by the assembly on Thursday by a margin of 114 to 18, after two
days of debate.
Forty-four member-nations abstained from voting.
The report, which was compiled by a panel led by Richard Goldstone, a South
African judge, had already been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council,
which sponsored the fact-finding commission.
The report calls on both Israel and the Palestinians to investigate within
three months accusations of human-rights violations during the 22-day
conflict in December and January.
Most of the criticism in the Goldstone report was directed towards Israel's
conduct during the offensive, in which human rights organisations say about
1,400 Palestinians - many of them women and children - were killed.
Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians, were killed over the course of
the war.
The report concluded that Israel used disproportionate force in the war,
deliberately targeting Gaza civilians, using them as human shields, and
destroying civilian infrastructure.
Offensive conduct
Apart from Israel and the United States, a number of European countries
including Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the Czech Republic, voted
against the resolution.
Britain and France were among EU member nations who abstained.
In depth
Video: Interview with Richard Goldstone
Timeline: Gaza War
Analysis: War crimes in Gaza?
Goldstone's full report to the UN rights council
Key points of the Goldstone report
UN inquiry finds Gaza war crimes
'Half of Gaza war dead civilians'
PLO: History of a Revolution
'Israel has to be accountable'
Al Jazeera is not responsible for external websites' content
Most developing countries voted in favour of endorsing the report.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian UN observer called it "an important night in
the history of the General Assembly and the history of fighting against
impunity and seeking accountability."
Earlier, speaking ahead of the final UN vote, he said Goldstone report had
concluded that the Israeli military onslaught "was planned in all of its
phases as a deliberately disproportionate and systematic attack aimed at
punishing, humiliating and terrorising the Palestinian civilian population".
But Daniel Carmon, Israel's deputy ambassador to the UN, told the assembly
that the resolution "endorses and legitimises a deeply flawed, one-sided and
prejudiced report of the discredited Human Rights Council and its
politicised work that bends both fact and law".
Alejandro Wolff, the US deputy ambasssador to the UN, also accused the the
resolution of being flawed, saying that it failed to name Hamas, the
Palestinian group that has de facto control of Gaza.
The non-binding resolution passed on Thursday by the General Assembly asks
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, to pass the report to the UN Security
Council.
However, diplomats have said that the five permanent members of the
15-member Security Council have signalled that they are opposed to council
involvement - meaning that it is unlikely that the 15-nation body would take
action.
The debate at the General Assembly, which began on Wednesday, was called for
by the Arab UN group, with the backing of the 118-member Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM).
Al Jazeera's Kristen Saloomey, reporting from the UN in New York ahead of
Thursday's vote, said the debate represented a push to keep the Goldstone
report alive.
"The resolution endorses the report and also attempts to force it upon the
Security Council, by getting the secretary-general involved," she said
US House vote
On Tuesday the US House of Representatives dismissed the Goldstone report as
being "irredeemably biased" against Israel.
The house voted in favour of a non-binding resolution calling on Barack
Obama, the US president, to maintain his opposition to the report.
Richard Goldstone himself last week sent a letter to the US House of
Representatives saying that the text of the US resolution had "factual
inaccuracies and instances where information and statements are taken
grossly out of context".
He offered several rejections and clarifications of the ideas expressed in
the resolution.
In response to Goldstone's criticism, three parts of the resolution were
amended on Tuesday to clarify that Goldstone had sought an expansion to the
commission's mandate so that his team could investigate claims that Hamas
had violated international law during the Gaza war.
The report called for cases to be referred to the ICC in The Hague if Israel
and Hamas do not investigate the war crimes allegations against them within
six months.
Hamas has agreed to hold such an investigation, but Israel has not.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Capitalism accelerates swine flu epidemic
by Michael Munk
Tue, Nov 3, 2009
|
Sick leave hits profits:. The NYTimes today reports that the barriers to
sick pay in private employment encourage the sick to go to work and spread
disease.
Full story at
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/who-receives-sick-leave/?scp=2&sq=Steven%20greenhouse&st=cse
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Why Obama will escalate Afghan war again
by Michael Munk
Mon, Nov 2, 2009
|
|
US CNN censors Afghan MP on US occupation
by Michael Munk
Sun, Nov 1, 2009
|
|
Does your Rep oppose discussion of the UN war crimes report?
by Michael Munk
Sat, Oct 31, 2009
|
|
War criminal pleads amnesia
by Michael Munk
Fri, Oct 30, 2009
|
CREW LAWSUIT RESULTS IN RELEASE OF NOTES OF CHENEY'S FBI INTERVIEW IN =
WILSON LEAK CASE
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/43169
=20
30 Oct 2009 // Washington, D.C. - Today, after successfully winning a =
lawsuit against the Department of Justice, under court order, CREW =
received documents related to former Vice President Dick Cheney's =
interview with the FBI in the investigation into the leak of Valerie =
Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity. The transcript reveals that Mr. =
Cheney - generally credited with razor sharp intellect and recall - =
demonstrated an astonishing inability to recollect even simple facts =
much less the numerous conversations others have testified to regarding =
his involvement in the administration's efforts to discredit former =
Ambassador Joe Wilson. Mr. Cheney's memory frequently failed to improve, =
even when confronted with his own hand-written notes. The transcript =
does indicate however, that Mr. Cheney held Mr. Wilson in low regard and =
called the CIA's decision to send Mr. Wilson to Niger "amateur-hour."=20
Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said, "For years the American =
people have wondered what role Vice President Cheney played in outing =
former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. While we may never know the =
whole story, with the release of these documents we are one step =
closer." Sloan continued, "In his closing statement at Scooter Libby's =
trial, Special Counsel Fitzgerald said a cloud remained over the =
vice-president. Mr. Cheney's near total amnesia regarding his role in =
this monumental Washington scandal - resulting in the conviction of his =
top aide - shows why."=20
Consistent with President Obama's promise of transparency, the =
administration did not appeal the court's order.
Click here to read the interview transcript, and read leak investigation =
notes here and here.=20
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
The disconect between US and Pakistan opinion
by Michael Munk
Fri, Oct 30, 2009
|
I was moved by this McClatchy dispatch from Pakistan:
"...the anti-American attitude is so engrained that the Pakistani public,
new media and political opposition blame the surge of violence in the
country in large part on the US presence in the region."
to compose: "Support for the Af-Pak war is so engrained that the American
public, news media and political opposition do not blame the surge of
violence in large part on the US occupation of Afganistan and its war on
Pakistan."
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Gay rights in return for more war?
by Michael Munk
Fri, Oct 30, 2009
|
Is anyone else appalled that the senate voted an truly obscene $680B for the
Pentagon that includes $130B for Obama's wars in Iraq and Afganistan? There
were 29 votes against it but only one was cast by an opponent of the war
(Feingold D-Wisc). The others were the most reactionary Repubs who are
redhot for war but against gay rights. The leadership tacked on an amendment
making violence against gays a federal hate so that anyone voting against
war could be considered homophobic!
Congress closely questions spending for health care but not spending for the
military industrial complex.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
UN: Only Israel and Palau endorse Obama's Cuba blockade
by Michael Munk
Wed, Oct 28, 2009
|
UN condemns US embargo on Cuba
Al-Jazeera, Oct 28, 2009
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/20091028192024534424.html
The United Nations' General Assembly has voted to condemn the United States'
trade embargo on Cuba, in a signal that worldwide opposition to the policy
remains strong.
The 187-3 vote on Wednesday to condemn the embargo marked a slight rise in
opposition to the US policy from last year, when 185 General Assembly member
states voted against the restrictions.
Israel, Palau and the United States itself were the only nations that voted
in favour of the embargo.
The General Assembly has now taken up the symbolic measure for each of the
last 19 years.
Bruno Rodriguez, Cuba's foreign minister, said in his speech before the
assembly that the embargo had cost the island's fragile economy tens of
billions of dollars during its 47-year duration and that it had prevented
Cuban children from receiving medical care.
"The blockade is an uncultured act of arrogance," Rodriguez said, adding
that the policy was an "an act of genocide" that is "ethically
unacceptable".
"President Obama has a historical opportunity to lead a change of policy
toward Cuba and the lifting of the blockade"
The General Aseembly held the annual vote for the first time since Barack
Obama, the US president, took office in January and pledged to improve
relations with countries that Washington has long been in opposition to.
The Obama administration has relaxed finance and travel restrictions on US
citizens who have relatives in Cuba, and sent a diplomat to Havana in
September in what was called the most senior-level talks between the US and
Cuba in years.
However, Washington has said that Cuba must still make several economic,
political and financial changes before it will consider lifting the embargo.
"President Obama has a historical opportunity to lead a change of policy
toward Cuba and the lifting of the blockade," Rodriguez said.
He said that "there has not been any change in the implementation of the
economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba" since Obama's
inauguration.
Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, responded by calling Rodriguez's
comments "hostile" and "straight out of the Cold War era", and said that the
Obama administration remained committed to engaging with the Cuban
government.
"The United States has demonstrated that we are prepared to engage the
government of Cuba on issues that effect the security and well-being of both
our peoples," Rice said during her speech to the assembly.
But several respesentatives spoke against the embargo, calling it an affront
to international law and that it had hurt ordinary Cubans rather than the
country's government.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Obama's secret military activities in Pakistan
by Michael Munk
Wed, Oct 28, 2009
|
From a longer Pakistani report on US pressures and secret interventuions
there. Read it at
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/some-question-to-mrs-clinton-and-mr-qureshi/
RE: "The shenanigans, in Islamabad, of US diplomats and covert operatives -
be they linked to Blackwater, Dyncorps or Inter-Risk. On Tuesday, early
morning, four US diplomats were caught with weapons in the vicinity of
Margalla police station in sector F-8 - but as always the police were
helpless in the face of US pressure and had to let the men go. This is the
sixth known case in recent times of US diplomats and undercover operatives
being caught with weapons and/or harassing local citizens. One such incident
also involved Dutch diplomats. But the question is: what are these diplomats
doing carrying weapons to and from their embassy? Whom are they delivering
these weapons to and who are they taking these weapons from? When linked to
the illicit weapons caches' of Inter Risk and arms licenses being given to
the US embassy without following proper procedures, there is a very real
issue about US involvement in questionable covert actions in the Capital and
beyond.
This becomes even more tenable when one goes back to the Inter Risk company's
training of at least 200 ex-servicemen for the US, whom the US refused to
hand over for questioning to the Pakistani authorities and instead tucked
them away in "safe houses. These trained guards were also supposed to have
been given some of the illicit weapons."
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
US resigns to protest Afghan war
by Michael Munk
Tue, Oct 27, 2009
|
US official resigns over Afghan war
Al-Jazeera, Oct 27, 2009
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/20091027173059581834.html
Full text: Matthew Hoh's resignation letter (PDF, sourced from
www.scribd.com)
A US official has resigned from his contract post in Afghanistan over the
war there, becoming the first US political representative to step down over
the conflict since it began eight years ago.
Matthew Hoh, who was a key civilian representative for the US government in
Afghanistan's Zabul province, said in a letter released on Tuesday that he
had "lost understanding of, and confidence in, the strategic purposes of the
United States' presence in Afghanistan".
"I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned
future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing
this war, but why and to what end," the letter, which was dated September
10, said.
The Washington Post, a US newspaper, reported that Hoh's decision "sent
ripples all the way to the White House".
Ian Kelly, the White House spokesman, said that while Hoh was entitled to
his views on the war, the US government would not change course.
"We take his point of view very seriously but we continue to believe that we
are on track to achieving the goal that the president has set before us.
That is ... improving Afghan governance, providing security, infrastructure,
jobs - basically, giving the Afghan people an alternative to the very
negative vision of the Taliban and al-Qaeda."
Government officials had tried to convince Hoh to stay, amid concerns that
he could become a prominent voice against the US's involvement in
Afghanistan, the Post reported.
Hoh, a former Marine Corps captain who fought in Iraq, also turned down a
senior staff-level job at the US embassy in Kabul after he resigned from hos
one-year contract position as a political officer in Zabul.
He was then called to Washington to meet Richard Holbrooke, the US special
representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"We took his letter very seriously, because he was a good officer,"
Holbrooke said in an interview with The Washington Post.
Hoh was initially convinced to stay by Holbrooke's insistence that he would
be more effective inside government, but the diplomat changed his mind days
later and once more handed in his resignation.
The former diplomat said that his resignation, which became final on
Wednesday, was tended because staying in his post "was not the right thing
to do," he told the Post.
"... you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to
solve"
"I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in
love," he said.
"I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their
congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right'."
Rosiland Jordan, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Washington, said that the
content of the letter had won some endorsement.
"There is already support coming from liberal quarters [in the US] for what
Matthew Hoh wrote in his resignation letter, which indicated that, in his
view, the US has the wrong perception of who the enemy is inside
Afghanistan.
"He said that all his efforts inside Afghanistan were being over-run by
[what he called] the fact that people in Afghanistan do not like outsiders,
regardless of what flag they work under."
Many Afghans fight US forces because of their presence in the country, Hoh
said in his letter.
He also criticised Washington's backing of the Afghan national government
that is widely considered to be corrupt.
Hoh called for the Obama administration to reduce the number of US troops in
Afghanistan, while calling for more support for neighbouring Pakistan in its
fight against fighters allied to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
"We want to have some kind of governance there, and we have some obligation
for it not to be a bloodbath," Hoh told the Post.
"But you have to draw the line somewhere, and say this is their problem to
solve."
Hoh's appeal for Obama to pull US troops out of Afghanistan is in contrast
to the call by the senior commander of US and Nato forces in the country to
send more soldiers.
General Stanley McChrystal is reported to have asked Obama for 40,000 more
troops to be deployed to Afghanistan, to fight a war that he says the US is
currently at risk of losing.
Obama has said that he will not make a decision on troop numbers until a
review of military strategy in Afghanistan is completed.
In his resignation letter, Hoh said that next year "the United States's
occupation will US official resignsequal in length the Soviet Union's own
physical involvement in Afghanistan.
"Like the Soviets, we continue to secure and bolster a failing state, while
encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by its
people," the letter said.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Who knew? Germany wants US nukes out!
by Michael Munk
Mon, Oct 26, 2009
|
This bomshell was dropped into a NYTimes report Oct 25:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/world/europe/25merkel.html?ref=europe
The new foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, who is the leader of the Free
Democrats, wants to rid Germany of the remaining American nuclear weapons
stationed here, signaling a big shift in relations with NATO and the United
States because the issue until now has been largely taboo.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Obama cuts money for Iran regime changers
by Michael Munk
Thu, Oct 22, 2009
|
No info here about US support for Iran terrorist groups like Jundalla, which
probably came from other sources..
US cuts funding to Iran opposition
By Bahman Kalbasi
BBC News, Washington OPct 21, 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8315120.stm VIA
cordymac@hotmail.com>
In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster regime
change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White House has all
but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund.
While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it has
been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists.
The controversial program was initiated by the Bush administration in an
effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran by financing Iranian NGOs.
While heralded by some in Washington, reactions in Iran to the program were
overwhelmingly negative.
US funds are going to people who have very little to do with the real
struggle for democracy in Iran and our civil society activists never
received such funds
Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have maintained
that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of the hardline
government in Iran:
"The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the human
right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any interest in using
such funds, but we were all accused by Iran's government of being American
spies because a few groups in America used these funds."
The secretiveness around the program - the recipients of the funds remain
classified - has added to the dilemma, Iranian human rights groups maintain.
They say it has enabled the Iranian authorities to accuse any Iranian NGO of
having received funds from the US government.
Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and
spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded by the
Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.
It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at
precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most
He welcomes the change in policy: "These US funds are going to people who
have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in Iran and our
civil society activists never received such funds. The end to this program
will have no impact on our activities whatsoever."
Critics of the Obama administration have accused him of cutting much needed
funds for human rights activists at a time when the Iranian government's
human rights abuses have sharply increased.
The director of one benefactor of the Iran Democracy Fund, the US-based
Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, told the Boston Globe that they
never expected their funding to be cut under these circumstances.
Senator Joe Lieberman said in a statement: "It is disturbing that the State
Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when these brave
investigations are needed most.''
Human rights defenders in Iran, however, point to the Iranian Human Rights
Documentation Center's activities as an example of exactly why the fund
should be cut.
In 2005, the centre organised a seminar in Dubai. Though it was advertised
as a human rights seminar, participants tell the BBC that they soon realised
that the aim was to train Iranian human rights defenders on how to overthrow
the Iranian regime through non-violent means.
Several of the participants were subsequently arrested and jailed in Iran.
Today, they bitterly complain that the Human Rights Documentation Center
knowingly put them under immense risk by luring them to Dubai - a hub for
Iranian intelligence services - under false pretences.
The episode is believed to have focused the attention of the Iranian regime
on NGOs and political activists. The authorities began to regard them a as a
potential national security threat, prompting a severe crackdown on Iranian
civil society.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Kurd advocate had secret oil investments
by Michael Munk
Fri, Oct 16, 2009
|
Former diplomat denies oil dealings influenced views
Galbraith helped Iraqi Kurds keep rights to fields
Peter Galbraith said his business dealings in Kurdistan are not a conflict
of interest because he was a private citizen.
By Farah Stockman
Boston Globe October 16, 2009
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/10/15/former_diplomat_denies_iraqi_oil_dealings_influenced_views/?page=full
WASHINGTON - Peter Galbraith, a former American diplomat who has been among
the most forceful advocates for Iraqi Kurds to retain control over the oil
in their region, acknowledged yesterday that he has had business dealings
involving oil companies in Iraqi Kurdistan since 2004.
But Galbraith, a key adviser to Iraqi Kurdish politicians who also helped
shape US public opinion on Iraq with his writings, said his business
relationships did not drive his support for the Kurdish cause, or present a
conflict of interest, because he was working as a private citizen at the
time.
"The business interest, including my investment into Kurdistan, was
consistent with my political views,'' he told the Globe. "These were all
things that I was promoting, and in fact, have brought considerable benefit
to the people of Kurdistan, the Kurdistan oil industry, and also to
shareholders.''
It is not illegal or unheard of for former US officials to do business with
people they worked with during their time in government. But ethical
questions often arise when such dealings become public.
Some analysts said yesterday that Galbraith stood to gain personally from
language that he helped draft for the Iraqi Constitution when he was
advising Kurdish leaders during negotiations with Iraqi and US officials in
2005. They said his business ties should have been publicly disclosed at the
time.
"Galbraith has been such a central person to the shaping of the Iraqi
Constitution, far more than I think most Americans realize,'' said Reider
Visser, a historian of southern Iraq and who edits the Iraq-focused website,
www.historiae.org. "All those beautiful ideas about principles of federalism
and local communities having control are really cast in a different light
when the community has an oil field in its midst and Mr. Galbraith has a
financial stake.''
Galbraith said in a telephone interview that Kurdish leaders knew of his oil
interests, but he was not under any obligation to tell the US and Iraqi
officials involved in the negotiations.
The controversy is the latest twist in a high-stakes struggle between Iraq's
Kurds and the central government over oil, the biggest source of the nation's
wealth. In December, the government plans to auction 10 undeveloped oil
fields believed to contain reserves worth about $3 trillion at current
prices.
It is also another chapter in the storied life of a man who has played many
powerful roles.
Galbraith, the son of famed Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, lives
in Vermont and mulled a run for governor there earlier this year. Instead,
he took a job as a top United Nations official in Afghanistan, but was fired
late last month after accusing his boss of covering up election fraud to
protect President Hamid Karzai.
Iraq has been a main focus of Galbraith's career.
His ties to Iraqi Kurdistan date back to the 1980s, when he traveled there
as a staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to research Saddam
Hussein's genocidal attacks on Kurds. Galbraith's research bolstered support
for a US no-fly zone that allowed Iraqi Kurds to set up their own de facto
government. In 1993, Galbraith was appointed US ambassador to Croatia, where
he became even more deeply convinced that some ethnic minorities should be
allowed to govern their own affairs.
In late 2002, as the Bush administration began preparing to invade Iraq,
Galbraith worked as a professor at the Naval War College and gave advice to
then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on how to handle problems in
Kurdistan. But within months of the invasion, Galbraith left the US
government and became one of its critics.
In speeches, meetings with US officials, and articles in the New York Review
of Books, Galbraith said Kurds should be given maximum autonomy and should
have the right to develop their own oil fields, free of control by Iraq's
central government.
But the same time, Galbraith was quietly entering into business deals that
gave him a financial stake in the positions he was advocating. In late 2003
and early 2004, he worked as a paid consultant to Kurdish politicians,
advising them on legal language they should seek to insert into Iraqi laws
to keep future oil development under their control. Later, in 2005, he
advised them again on an unpaid basis.
On June 23, 2004, Galbraith and his son, Andrew, registered a Delaware
partnership called Porcupine, which entered into a business arrangement with
DNO, a Norwegian oil company, according to company documents and a statement
recently circulated by Porcupine.
Two days after Porcupine was established, the Kurdistan Regional Government
signed a contract to develop Kurdistan's first oil field with DNO, ushering
in a potential economic windfall for the semiautonomous region. DNO
eventually struck oil, and currently owns a 55 percent stake in the Tawke
field.
But Iraq's central government has refused to accept the legality of its
agreement, creating a heated standoff that has stopped the flow of oil from
Kurdistan in recent days.
Rumors of Galbraith's financial dealings in Iraq have swirled for years. But
the level of his involvement was not publicly known until last weekend, when
Dagens Naeringsliv, Norway's largest business newspaper, reported that
Porcupine was seeking compensation from DNO in a closed-door arbitration
proceeding in London.
Ben Willey, a DNO spokesman, said the company had been "introduced to the
Kurdistan opportunity back in 2003 and 2004 by a third party'' he declined
to name. He said the Kurdistan Regional Government gave that third party a 5
percent stake in the DNO deal in 2004, but that the contract was
renegotiated last year and "somebody lost out.''
Now, Willey said, that third party is asking for compensation from DNO,
which is set to export roughly 43,000 barrels a day from Kurdistan, earning
approximately $30 million annually. Dagens Naeringsliv, said that besides
Porcupine, a wealthy Yemeni businessman is also seeking compensation.
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who closely follows Iraq, said
the DNO deal could pose an ethical problem because Galbraith "played a
significant role'' in helping to draft constitutional provisions that gave
the Kurds control over 100 percent of new oil development.
But Galbraith said yesterday his role in the constitutional negotiations was
unpaid and informal, and therefore he was under no obligation to disclose
his business interests to the US or Iraqi governments. He also said
confidentiality agreements prevented him from publicly disclosing details of
the business.
Galbraith said he did make a full disclosure to the UN before his recent job
in Afghanistan. A UN official, however, said he was hired over the
objections of some officials who believed he was too close to Kurdish
leaders seeking to break away from Iraq, a UN member state.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Tom Tomorrow: The Idea of Obama
by Michael Munk
Wed, Oct 14, 2009
|
VIA VABVOX@aol.com=20
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Helen Keller in US Capitol for Alabama
by Michael Munk
Tue, Oct 13, 2009
|
To the Editor
The Oregonian, Oct 12, 2009
http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2009/10/letters_to_the_editor_19.html
Irony in bronze
How ironic that on Oct. 7, a statue of Helen Keller was unveiled in the U.S.
Capitol representing the best of Alabama.
Probably not one of those present realized that Helen Keller was a
socialist. She joined the party in 1909. And in just three years she was
speaking on behalf of "socialism and working-class solidarity," according to
the Keller reference archive at www.marxists.org.
Keller would have been an advocate for the government option so many of her
adulators are against.
ANCIL NANCE
Southeast Portland
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Liberal Barney Frank in bed with Banks
by Michael Munk
Sat, Oct 10, 2009
|
Have Banks No Shame?
By JOE NOCERA
New York Times: October 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/business/10nocera.html?pagewanted=1
A few months ago, I asked Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary
Fund economist, now a prominent critic of the banking industry, what he
thought the banks owed the country after all the government bailouts.
"They can't pay what they owe!" he began angrily. Then he paused, collected
his thoughts and started over: "Tim Geithner saved them on terms extremely
favorable to the banks. They should support all of his proposed reforms."Mr.
Johnson continued, "What gets me is that the banks have continued to oppose
consumer protection. How can they be opposed to consumer protection as
defined by a man who is the most favorable Treasury secretary they have had
in a generation? If he has decided that this is what they need, what moral
right do they have to oppose it? It is unconscionable."
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Starting on Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee will take up a
number of reforms proposed by the Obama administration, hoping to push them
through the committee so they can be voted on the House floor as part of a
larger financial reform package. Among the proposals the committee will
tackle is, yes, the establishment of a new consumer financial protection
agency.
The administration's outline for this new agency - which would regulate
mortgages, credit cards, debit cards, installment loans and any other
product issued by a financial institution - was sent up to Capitol Hill in
July. Since then, Barney Frank, the committee chairman, has made a number of
substantial changes, none of which, I have to say, have strengthened the
proposed legislation. He stripped the bill of the much-promoted "plain
vanilla" provision, which would have forced, say, mortgage brokers to offer
customers a 30-year fixed mortgage alongside any exotic option A.R.M.
mortgage they wanted to push.
He has changed the nature of an oversight panel, so that it would consist of
the top bank regulators - the very same regulators who did such a miserable
job looking out for consumers during the housing bubble. He has tinkered
with the way the agency will be financed, making it less onerous for the
banking industry and more onerous for nonbank financial institutions that
will come under the agency's purview.
Saddest of all - at least from where I'm sitting - he abandoned the
so-called reasonableness standard, which would have forced bankers to make
sure their customers both understood the products they were buying and could
afford them. Mr. Frank has said that such a provision would put bankers in
an "untenable position." Yet that is precisely what brokers are required to
do when they sell a stock or a bond to their customers. Why shouldn't the
same standard apply to a banker making a mortgage loan?
Part of the reason Mr. Frank made those changes is that he needs the support
of conservative Democrats if he hopes to turn this bill into law. But it is
also because he felt a need to mollify, at least to some extent, the bank
lobby, especially the community bankers who populate every Congressional
district in the country. Indeed, in a recent missive to its members, the
American Bankers Association trumpeted its success in helping make the bill
more palatable to the banking industry.
Yet even now, despite its success in reining in the proposed agency, the
banking industry is still lobbying fiercely against it. Edward L. Yingling,
the president of A.B.A., borrowed a line from "Casablanca" to describe the
impulse behind the proposed consumer agency. "They're rounding up the usual
suspects," he complained to me the other day. "We're the usual suspects."
Not long ago, the A.B.A. sent an "action alert" to its member banks,
pleading with them to call their congressman in a last-ditch effort to stop
the bill. ("Passing more laws that will overly complicate and restrict the
products our customers need is detrimental to our banks," the note read in
part.) And even if the bill does pass, the industry is hoping to pervert its
purpose, so that it will become a means to stifle competition from nonbank
financial institutions.
To which one can only ask: Have they no shame?
"There needs to be more focus on consumers," Mr. Yingling insisted. "We
agree with that."
Whenever you talk to bankers or their lobbyists about the proposed agency,
you hear some variation of what I've come to think of as the party line. It's
not that they're against consumer protection, they say. (Heaven forbid!)
Rather, they say, this new agency - larded as it will surely be with
thousands of newly deputized bureaucrats, each one eager to impose
burdensome new regulations - is simply not the way to go about it.
No one can doubt that these fees hurt the very people who can least afford
to pay them. (If you have college-age children, as I do, you know this
firsthand.) But none of the regulators who are now supposed to be looking
out for consumers were the least bit concerned. Only after the articles
exposing these practices ran on the front page of The New York Times did
several banks agree to abandon the fees for small overdrafts. But should it
really require newspaper exposés to get banks to do the right thing?
Alas, without a consumer agency, that is pretty much what it takes. The real
reason current regulators don't pay more attention to consumer problems is
not that they are evil (well, mostly they're not), but that they have
another mission that takes priority. They are charged with insuring the
safety and soundness of the banking system. And safety and soundness means
making sure that banks have enough capital - and are compensating for loan
losses. When a bank decides to raise a customer's credit card interest rate
to 35 percent to make up for losses elsewhere in the credit card portfolio,
that believe it or not, is a good thing from the perspective of safety and
soundness. Even though it is a terrible thing for consumers.
Which is also why the bankers' line about having their current regulators
look out for consumers is so bogus. At the Federal Reserve, consumers will
never come first; Alan Greenspan had the power to curb abusive subprime
loans, but he just wasn't interested. Nor is it any different over at the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the nation's other big bank
regulator. Not long ago, John C. Dugan, the comptroller, gave a speech in
which he said - channeling Mr. Yingling - that the banks had not been
responsible for the financial crisis. Regulators who take their talking
points from the American Bankers Association don't exactly inspire
confidence that they're looking out for consumers.
A consumer protection agency, on the other hand, wouldn't have that dual
mission; its sole goal would be to try to keep bank - and nonbank -
customers from being gouged, deceived or otherwise taken advantage of.
Without question, it would occasionally come into conflict with the safety
and soundness regulators. But that is why that oversight panel exists: to
hash out such conflicts.
There are those who believe that Mr. Frank's changes have essentially gutted
the bill. John Taylor, the chief executive of the National Community
Reinvestment Coalition, told me that he now opposed the bill because it had
been so watered down.
But most others still think it is a strong bill. Michael Calhoun, the
president of the Center for Responsible Lending, called it "a reasonably
strong bill," despite the changes. And although I was worried at first when
I saw provisions like plain vanilla and the reasonableness standard falling
by the wayside, I'm now convinced that the new agency, as currently
conceived, can still do a lot of good. It will have the authority to outlaw
unfair products, and to force financial institutions treat their customers
like, well, customers - and not lambs to be slaughtered.
Who could possibly be against that? Oh, right. The bankers are against it.
And just a few days ago, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, that
knee-jerk defender of corporate interests, came out against it as well.
That clinches it for me. The sooner we can pass the thing, the better.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Ayer's Marxist triumph
by Michael Munk
Fri, Oct 9, 2009
|
Stalking William Ayers
By Kate Phillips
New York Times, Oct 8, 2009
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/stalking-william-ayers/?scp=1&sq=William%20Ayres&st=cse
Read this rather breathless account of an admission wrested from William
Ayers at Reagan National Airport, during an ambush moment by blogger Anne
Leary, the "BackyardConservative."
Indeed, stopped by a relative stranger after attending an education
conference in Arlington, Va., Mr. Ayers revealed for the very first time
that he did write - page-for-page - "Dreams From My Father," the
best-selling memoir of Barack Obama's life.
Aha! Mr. Ayers, the 1960s radical whose ties to Mr. Obama have been mined
for years now, has finally confirmed his intimate knowledge of the president's
entire life and affirmed the conspiracy whipping around the blogosphere. Mr.
Ayers' ghost-writing was recently reinforced by details in the incredibly
authoritative book on the Obamas' marriage by their extremely close BFF,
Christopher Andersen.
Then watch as Ms. Leary monitors the aggregation site memeorandum.com,
updating her posts with the climb upward - No. 2! Wow! Lots of links! (Right
now, it's at No. 1)
But then, uh-oh. Read Jonah Goldberg, no slouch in the conservative world of
writers and bloggers, who deflates this amazing airport revelation by
unearthing a little post from the National Journal magazine last week: "It
sounds like Ayers is jerking some chains."
He cites: National Journal
Who actually wrote Dreams From My Father? The book cover says Barack Obama,
but one corner of the right-wing blogosphere thinks Obama had a
ghostwriter-and that it was Bill Ayers, onetime Weatherman, current
academic, perpetual radical. National Journal caught up with Ayers at a
recent book festival where he was exhorting a small crowd of listeners to
remember that they are citizens, not subjects. "Open your eyes," he said.
"Pay attention. Be astonished. Act, and doubt." When he finished speaking,
we put the authorship question right to him. For a split second, Ayers was
nonplussed. Then an Abbie Hoffmanish, steal-this-book-sort-of-smile lit up
his face. He gently took National Journal by the arm. "Here's what I'm going
to say. This is my quote. Be sure to write it down: 'Yes, I wrote Dreams
From My Father. I ghostwrote the whole thing. I met with the president three
or four times, and then I wrote the entire book.'" He released National
Journal's arm, and beamed in Marxist triumph. "And now I would like the
royalties." -Will Englund
Oh! Wait, maybe he'll sue and tell all!
Mr. Obama's books had garnered nearly $9 million in sales by last March. You'd
think Mr. Ayers would have sought payment some time ago, when either of Mr.
Obama's books - and sometimes both - were riding the height of the best
seller lists. No?
F.Y.I., Mr. Englund tells us that he ran into Mr. Ayers at the Baltimore
book festival two Sundays ago. Mr. Ayers was busy promoting "Race Course," a
new book he wrote with Bernadine Dohrn. Both authors' names appear on the
jacket, by the way.
Update: At The Daily Beast, Benjamin Sarlin said he had e-mailed Mr. Ayers
about the ghost-writing chatter and posted this reply: "You've all lost your
minds," Mr. Ayers is quoted as writing. "Best of luck in the twilight zone."
That's all.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Another confused feminist for Obama's war?
by Michael Munk
Thu, Oct 8, 2009
|
|
Bombshell: Did Abbas ask the Israelis to continue Gaza attack?
by Michael Munk
Wed, Oct 7, 2009
|
To see the important Interview with Richard Falk in which he =
politely criticizes Obama's position on the Goldstone report you need to =
go to the article's website=20
=
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/200910712447715422.h=
tml =20
=20
UN council to discuss Gaza report
Al-Jazeera, Oct 6, 2009=20
=20
=20
Many Palestinians have protested against the delay in =
endorsing the Goldstone report [AFP]=20
=20
Members of the UN Security Council will meet to discuss Libya's =
request for an emergency session on a report that claimed war crimes =
were committed by Israel during last year's offensive on Gaza.
Le Luong Minh, Vietnam's ambassador who holds the council =
presidency this month, said that he had scheduled closed-door talks for =
Wednesday after receiving a request from Libya, the only Arab member on =
the 15-nation council.
Libya circulated a letter on Tuesday on behalf of the UN Arab =
group urgently seeking "an emergency meeting" of the council to consider =
the Goldstone report, Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya's deputy ambassador, said.
The UN Human Rights Council, based in Geneva, Switzerland, =
postponed a vote last Friday on a resolution that would have condemned =
Israel's failure to co-operate with its investigation into the =
December-January war.
Israel launched a major offensive on the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip =
in December 2008, saying it wanted to stop rockets fired by Hamas into =
its territory.
At least 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died during the =
three-week war.
Libyan initiative
Ahmed Gebreel, a Libyan spokesman, said his country had requested =
the meeting "because of the seriousness of the report and because we =
think it's too long to wait until March".
Palestinians, including Fatah, the party of President Mahmoud =
Abbas, have strongly criticised the Goldstone vote postponement, holding =
him responsible for the decision.
But following Libya's request, the Palestinian Observer Mission at =
the UN expressed "full support" for the move.
In video=20
Richard Falk on Palestinian leadership's support to defer UN =
vote on Goldstone report
=20
"We are welcoming Libya's step that they have asked the Security =
Council to meet to discuss the Goldstone report," Abbas told the AFP =
news agency in a telephone conversation from Rome, the Italian capital.
"Libya's step is supporting the Palestinian people's rights."
Palestine TV, the official television channel of the Palestinian =
Authority (PA), reported that Abbas would send Riyadh al-Malki, the =
Palestinian foreign minister, to New York to assist in the Libyan bid to =
have the council address the report.
The Security Council session, however, may not be enough to limit =
the political damage suffered by Abbas, and by extension Fatah.
Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman, said that the controversy surrounding =
the Goldstone report could affect the Palestinian reconciliation deal =
which Egypt has said will be signed later this month.
"All the Palestinian factions, including Hamas, are angry at the =
[Palestinian] Authority after what happened with the Goldstone report =
and this could affect the arrangements for the [reconciliation] =
dialogue," he said on Wednesday.
"According to Egyptian arrangements up to now, the delegations are =
due to go to Cairo ... and Egypt is to fix the date of the signing of =
the deal."
Telltale videtape
The diplomatic and political developments came a day after a =
Palestinian news agency, Shahab, reported that PA representatives at a =
meeting in the US initially rejected Israel's request not to endorse the =
Goldstone report.
But, then, Brigadier Eli Avraham, an Israeli representative, =
played a videotape showing a meeting between Abbas and Ehud Barak, the =
Israeli defence minister during the Gaza war, in which Tzipi Livni, =
Israel's former foreign minister, was also present.
The tape showed Abbas trying to convince Barak to continue the =
offensive, according to Shahab.
=20
=20
Avraham also played an audiotape of a telephone call between Dov =
Weissglas, a senior Israeli official, and al-Tayyib Abdul Rahim, =
secretary-general of the Palestinian president's office.
In the conversation, Abdul Rahim noted that circumstances were =
suitable for entry of the Israeli army into Jabalya and al-Shatea =
refugee camps, and said that the fall of these two camps would end =
Hamas's rule in Gaza Strip, Shahab said.
Weissglas then told Abdul Rahim that such an army operation would =
lead to the deaths of thousands of civilians, but, according to Shahab, =
Abdul Rahim said: "They have all elected Hamas, so they are the ones who =
have chosen their fate, not us."
The Israeli delegation warned the PA representatives that it would =
present the recorded material to the UN and news organisations, forcing =
the Palestinians to accede to Israel's demand to delay the vote on the =
Goldstone report, Shahab said.
The Palestinian news agency's report on alleged Israeli =
arm-twisting appeared on the same day that a senior Qatari foreign =
ministry official said the Palestinians missed a rare chance by delaying =
the UNHRC vote.
Sheikh Khaled bin Jassem al-Thani, head of ministry's human rights =
department, told Al Jazeera on Tuesday that the Palestinian =
representative to the council had requested a delay until the next =
meeting in March.
"The Palestinian decision was based on their wishes ... and member =
states could not take unilateral measures contrary to the wishes of the =
Palestinian Authority," he said.
"There were many countries that supported [the report and a vote] =
... it could have been adopted, but I think that an opportunity was =
missed and it may not come back."
=20
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Fw: Outrage at Abbas's capitulation to US/Israel
by Michael Munk
Sun, Oct 4, 2009
|
Abbas faces uproar over deferred war crimes vote
By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer Oct 4, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians_5
RAMALLAH, West Bank - Engulfed by domestic outrage, Palestinian President
Mahmoud Abbas rushed Sunday to limit the fallout from his decision to
suspend efforts to have Israeli officials prosecuted for war crimes over
last winter's military offensive in Gaza.
The decision set off a wave of condemnation, not just from his Islamic
militant Hamas rivals, but also Palestinian human rights groups,
intellectuals and commentators. Leading members of the Palestine
Liberation Organization and even Abbas' own Fatah movement quickly
distanced themselves, saying they had been taken by surprise.
In an attempt to deflect the anger, Abbas announced Sunday he would have a
low-level committee look into the decision-making process. It was not
clear whether Abbas himself would come under scrutiny.
The U.S. exerted pressure to win a deferral on the war crimes allegations,
Israeli and Palestinian officials confirmed, speaking on condition of
anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the content of
closed-door meetings. The goal appeared to be to keep the hope of renewed
Mideast negotiations alive.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned last week that pursuing
the war crimes charges would deal a deadly blow to efforts to restart
peace talks.
At issue is the fate of a U.N. report that accused both Israel and Hamas
of committing war crimes during Israel's three week offensive against
Gaza's Hamas rulers in December and January. Late last week, the U.N.
Human Rights Council considered a resolution to send the report to the
U.N. General Assembly for possible action. Instead, Palestinian diplomats
said Friday they would agree to delay the vote until March. With the
Palestinians out of the picture, Arab and Muslim states did not take the
case further.
In going along with the U.S., Abbas signaled that he prefers to protect
his strong ties with the Obama administration - and the implied promise of
U.S. help in getting the Palestinians a state - even at the cost of losing
respect at home.
It was the third domestic setback for Abbas in less than two weeks.
Late last month, the Palestinian leader radiated weakness when he met with
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the urging of President
Barack Obama. Abbas agreed to the meeting even though he repeatedly said
there's nothing to discuss until Israel freezes settlement construction in
the West Bank.
With the U.S. pushing for a resumption of peace talks despite Israel's
refusal to halt construction, Abbas may soon find himself having to choose
between defying Washington and the public humiliation of returning to
talks on terms he's often called unacceptable.
Last week, rival Hamas scored a triumph with the release of 20 Palestinian
women prisoners by Israel in exchange for a videotaped sign of life from a
captured Israeli soldier. It was seen as a step toward a swap of hundreds
of Palestinian prisoners for the soldier - a major Israeli concession to
Hamas.
In contrast, Abbas has failed to engineer a large-scale prisoner release
in nearly five years in office.
With his latest domestic crisis over the U.N. war crimes report, Abbas may
have underestimated the extent of the outrage. Many Palestinians viewed
the report, written by respected justice Richard Goldstone, as a rare
opportunity to hold Israel accountable for what they consider its harsh
policies against them.
The report accused Israel of using disproportionate force and targeting
civilians in Gaza. It faulted Hamas for firing rockets at Israeli towns.
Israel launched its offensive to halt years of Hamas rocket fire.
Nearly 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, were killed in
the war, along with 13 Israelis.
Both sides denied committing war crimes.
On Sunday, Hamas, whose forces routed those of Abbas' Fatah movement in a
violent takover of Gaza in 2007, lashed out at Abbas for his decision on
the U.N. report.
Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said the decision was
"shameful and irresponsible" and "traffics in the blood of our women and
children in Gaza."
But others also sharply criticized Abbas.
Ali Jarbawi, planning minister in Abbas' West Bank government, said he
would seek an explanation when the Cabinet meets Monday.
"Someone made a mistake," he said. "There was a wrong decision, and this
is terribly bad."
Leading members of the Palestine Liberation Organization said they were
taken by surprise and called for an investigation.
In Syria, the Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was
"astonished" by the Palestinian Authority's position which it said foiled
international efforts to "take appropriate measures and implement the
report's recommendations."
Five Syrian-based radical Palestinian factions called for those
responsible for the decision to be put on trial.
Abbas responded Sunday by setting up a low-level committee to look into
the chain of decision-making. A member of the panel, former legislator
Azmi Shuaibi, said the group would talk to Abbas, the Palestinian
ambassador to the U.N. and other officials.
However, it appears unlikely the investigation would target Abbas.
Abbas' aides have defended the decision to defer the vote on the Goldstone
report, saying Palestinian diplomats needed more time to win international
support for the document. They insisted the report wasn't being shelved.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
22 House Dems oppose more troops for AfPak war
by Michael Munk
Sun, Oct 4, 2009
|
H.R.3699
Title: To prohibit any increase in the number of members of the United
States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan.
Sponsor: Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] (introduced 10/1/2009) Cosponsors (21)
Latest Major Action: 10/1/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred
to the House Committee on Armed Services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(21),
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 10/1/2009 Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] -
10/1/2009
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 10/1/2009 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] -
10/1/2009
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4] - 10/1/2009 Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] -
10/1/2009
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 10/1/2009 Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] - 10/1/2009
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 10/1/2009 Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] -
10/1/2009
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 10/1/2009 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] -
10/1/2009
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 10/1/2009 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] -
10/1/2009
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 10/1/2009 Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] -
10/1/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 10/1/2009 Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] -
10/1/2009
Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 10/1/2009 Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] -
10/1/2009
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 10/1/2009
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
The Nuclear Weapons States vs Iran
by Michael Munk
Wed, Sep 30, 2009
|
Tommorrow's meeting in Geneva is best described as the Nuclear Weapons
States (NWS) vs. a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
that is not a member of the "nuclear club."
The US media usually call the NWS the " five permanent members of the UN
Security Council" plus Germany but it is more relevant that they own most of
the
world's nuclear weapons arsenal..
The NPT confers upon the five SC members the internationally recognized
title of NWS.
Less formally, the NWS and four other nations known to possess nuclear
weapons are referred to as members of the "nuclear
club." These are Israel, India, and Pakistan which, unlike Iran or Brazil
and 187 other sovereign nations, have not joined the NPT. North Korea did
join but formally withdrew from the
NPT in 2003, and South Africa was a previous member of the nuclear club
that.disassembled its arsenal in the early 1990s and joined the NPT.
All this should teach us to regard the meeting as between the owners of
world's major nuclear arsenals (plus Germany) most of whom are hostile
to the subject of the meeting, a nation without nuclear weapons..
Iran has just released the text of a letter received from the IAEA:
"With reference to the letter of 21 September 2009 from HE Ambassador
Soltanieh to the Director General of the Agency Dr ElBaradei, I wish to
thank the Islamic Republic of Iran for providing the Agency with information
about Iran's activities related to the construction of a new pilot
enrichment plant. To ensure that appropriate safeguard measures are put in
place, I would appreciate receiving, in accordance with Iran's Safeguards
Agreement, further information with respect to the name and location of the
pilot enrichment facility, the current status of its construction and plans
for the introduction of nuclear material into the facility. We kindly
request that this information, along with the other information detailed in
the attached design information questionnaire, be provided to the Agency as
soon as possible. The Agency would also appreciate being given access to the
facility as soon as possible.
Herman Nackaerts, Director
Division Of Operations
Department Of Safeguards.
IAEA
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Dems kill public option in senate committee
by Michael Munk
Tue, Sep 29, 2009
|
The five Senate finance committee Dems who embraced all 10 Repubs in voting
down Rockefeller's(WV) public option amendment 15-8 were
Baucus (MT), Conrad (ND),Carper, (Del),Lincoln (Ark) and Nelson (FL).
Baucus and Conrad also voted against Schumer's (NY) much more modest
amendment (Lincoln didn't vote) that went down 13-10.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Clinton to Iran : Prove a negative
by Michael Munk
Mon, Sep 28, 2009
|
|
Juan Cole on mideast's only nuke weapons site
by Michael Munk
Mon, Sep 28, 2009
|
|
Honduran gorillas' death toll at 10, violate Constitution
by Michael Munk
Mon, Sep 28, 2009
|
Honduras Restricts Liberties to Protect Gorillas
[My joke, the Times's biased hede read "to Prevent Rebellion"}
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
New York Times: September 28, 2009
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras (AP) -- Interim government leaders have suspended
constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties in a pre-emptive strike against
widespread rebellion Monday, three months to the day since they ousted
President Manuel Zelaya in a military-backed coup.
Zelaya supporters said they would ignore the decree issued late Sunday and
march in the streets as planned. Some already had arrived in the capital,
Tegucigalpa, from outlying provinces.
The measures -- announced just hours after Zelaya called on his backers to
stage mass protest marches in what he called a ''final offensive'' against
the government -- are likely to draw harsh criticism from the international
community, which has condemned the June 28 coup and urged that Zelaya be
reinstated to the presidency and allowed to serve out his term, which ends
in January.
Officials also issued an ultimatum to Brazil on Sunday, giving the South
American country 10 days to decide whether to turn Zelaya over for arrest or
grant him asylum and, presumably, take him out of Honduras. They did not
specify what they would do after the 10 days were up.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva responded, saying that his
government ''doesn't accept ultimatums from coup-plotters.''
Interim President Roberto Micheletti has pledged not to raid the Brazilian
Embassy building where Zelaya has been holed up with more than 60 supporters
since he sneaked back into the country a week ago. The building is
surrounded by armed police and soldiers. On Tuesday, the day after Zelaya's
return, baton-wielding troops used tear gas and water cannons to chase away
thousands of his supporters.
Protesters say at least 10 people have been killed since the coup, while the
government puts the toll at three.
Interim Foreign Minister Carlos Lopez has said that, because Brazil has
broken off diplomatic relations with the interim government, it would have
to remove the Brazilian flag and shield from the Embassy ''and it (the
building) becomes a private office.''
The government's suspension of civil liberties violates rights guaranteed in
the Honduran Constitution: The decree prohibits unauthorized gatherings and
allows police to arrest without a warrant ''any person who poses a danger to
his own life or those of others.''
The Honduran Constitution forbids arrests without warrants except when a
criminal is caught in the act.
The government measures also permit authorities to temporarily close news
media outlets that ''attack peace and public order.''
In a nationally broadcast announcement, the government explained it took the
steps it did ''to guarantee peace and public order in the country and due to
the calls for insurrection that Mr. Zelaya has publicly made.''
There was no immediate reaction from Zelaya, who is demanding to be
reinstated and has said that Micheletti's government ''has to fall.''
Zelaya's supporters pledged to ignore the restrictions and forge ahead with
their scheduled demonstrations.
''The protest is on,'' said pro-Zelaya leader Juan Barahona. ''Tomorrow we
will be in the streets.''
The media restrictions appear aimed at pro-Zelaya radio and television
stations that -- while subject to brief raids immediately after the coup --
had been allowed to operate freely, openly criticizing the interim
government and broadcasting Zelaya's statements.
Under Sunday's order, authorities may now ''prevent the transmission by any
spoken, written or televised means, of statements that attack peace and the
public order, or which offend the human dignity of public officials, or
attack the law.''
The decree states that the country's national telecommunications commission,
known as Conatel, is authorized ''through police and the armed forces ... to
immediately suspend any radio station, cable or television network whose
programming does not comply with these regulations.''
Pro-Zelaya television station Channel 36 warned earlier Sunday that
restrictions on the news media were coming and said they were part of a
pattern by the interim government of quashing constitutional rights.
Micheletti's administration had previously bragged about the democratic
atmosphere in the country, citing media outlets such as Channel 36 as proof.
The station continued broadcasting without interruption Sunday night.
Talks between Zelaya and interim government officials aimed at resolving the
political standoff have gotten nowhere. Prospects for success appeared even
grimmer Sunday after the government expelled at least four members of an
advance team from the Organization of American States who had arrived Sunday
to re-establish negotiations.
Micheletti has previously said the OAS was welcome to come, but suggested
that representatives begin arriving Monday. Foreign Minister Carlos Lopez
said that the team's arrival didn't come ''at the right time ... because we
are in the middle of internal conversations.''
In addition, while many nations have announced they would send diplomatic
representatives back to Honduras to support negotiations, the interim
government said Sunday that it would not automatically accept ambassadors
back from some nations that withdrew their envoys.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Ritter on Iran's new nuke factory
by Michael Munk
Mon, Sep 28, 2009
|
Keeping Iran honest
Iran's secret nuclear plant will spark a new round of IAEA inspections and
lead to a period of even greater transparency
Scott Ritter in The Guardian (UK) 25 September 2009 VIA
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/46410
It was very much a moment of high drama. Barack Obama, fresh from his
history-making stint hosting the UN security council, took a break from his
duties at the G20 economic summit in Pittsburgh to announce the existence of
a secret, undeclared nuclear facility in Iran which was inconsistent with a
peaceful nuclear programme, underscoring the president's conclusion that
"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow".
Obama, backed by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, threatened tough
sanctions against Iran if it did not fully comply with its obligations
concerning the international monitoring of its nuclear programme, which at
the present time is being defined by the US, Britain and France as requiring
an immediate suspension of all nuclear-enrichment activity.
The facility in question, said to be located on a secret Iranian military
installation outside of the holy city of Qom and capable of housing up to
3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, had been monitored by the
intelligence services of the US and other nations for some time. But it
wasn't until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not
on any intelligence "scoop" provided by the US, but rather Iran's own
voluntary declaration. Iran's actions forced the hand of the US, leading to
Obama's hurried press conference Friday morning.
Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic
intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules"
Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear
terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and
Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as
the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the
IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational
centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that
facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would
initiate a process of complementary access and design verification
inspections by the IAEA.
This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the
"additional protocol" has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and
as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being
voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a
confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.
In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of
Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early
provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its
legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did
not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the
introduction of nuclear material.
While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member
states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot
speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the
nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that "Iran is
breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally
wrong.
There are many ways to interpret Iran's decision of March 2007, especially
in light of today's revelations. It should be underscored that what the Qom
facility Obama is referring to is not a nuclear weapons plant, but simply a
nuclear enrichment plant similar to that found at the declared (and
inspected) facility in Natanz.
The Qom plant, if current descriptions are accurate, cannot manufacture the
basic feed-stock (uranium hexaflouride, or UF6) used in the centrifuge-based
enrichment process. It is simply another plant in which the UF6 can be
enriched.
Why is this distinction important? Because the IAEA has underscored, again
and again, that it has a full accounting of Iran's nuclear material
stockpile. There has been no diversion of nuclear material to the Qom plant
(since it is under construction). The existence of the alleged enrichment
plant at Qom in no way changes the nuclear material balance inside Iran
today.
Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon
today than it was prior to Obama's announcement concerning the Qom facility.
One could make the argument that the existence of this new plant provides
Iran with a "breakout" capability to produce highly-enriched uranium that
could be used in the manufacture of a nuclear bomb at some later date. The
size of the Qom facility, alleged to be capable of housing 3,000
centrifuges, is not ideal for large-scale enrichment activity needed to
produce the significant quantities of low-enriched uranium Iran would need
to power its planned nuclear power reactors. As such, one could claim that
its only real purpose is to rapidly cycle low-enriched uranium stocks into
highly-enriched uranium usable in a nuclear weapon. The fact that the Qom
facility is said to be located on an Iranian military installation only
reinforces this type of thinking.
But this interpretation would still require the diversion of significant
nuclear material away from the oversight of IAEA inspectors, something that
would be almost immediately evident. Any meaningful diversion of nuclear
material would be an immediate cause for alarm, and would trigger robust
international reaction, most probably inclusive of military action against
the totality of Iran's known nuclear infrastructure.
Likewise, the 3,000 centrifuges at the Qom facility, even when starting with
5% enriched uranium stocks, would have to operate for months before being
able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single nuclear device.
Frankly speaking, this does not constitute a viable "breakout" capability.
Iran has, in its declaration of the Qom enrichment facility to the IAEA on
21 September, described it as a "pilot plant". Given that Iran already has a
"pilot enrichment plant" in operation at its declared facility in Natanz,
this obvious duplication of effort points to either a parallel military-run
nuclear enrichment programme intended for more nefarious purposes, or more
likely, an attempt on the part of Iran to provide for strategic depth and
survivability of its nuclear programme in the face of repeated threats on
the part of the US and Israel to bomb its nuclear infrastructure.
Never forget that sports odds makers were laying 2:1 odds that either Israel
or the US would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities by March 2007. Since leaving
office, former vice-president Dick Cheney has acknowledged that he was
pushing heavily for a military attack against Iran during the time of the
Bush administration. And the level of rhetoric coming from Israel concerning
its plans to launch a pre-emptive military strike against Iran have been
alarming.
While Obama may have sent conciliatory signals to Iran concerning the
possibility of rapprochement in the aftermath of his election in November
2008, this was not the environment faced by Iran when it made the decision
to withdraw from its commitment to declare any new nuclear facility under
construction. The need to create a mechanism of economic survival in the
face of the real threat of either US or Israeli military action is probably
the most likely explanation behind the Qom facility. Iran's declaration of
this facility to the IAEA, which predates Obama's announcement by several
days, is probably a recognition on the part of Iran that this duplication of
effort is no longer representative of sound policy on its part.
In any event, the facility is now out of the shadows, and will soon be
subjected to a vast range of IAEA inspections, making any speculation about
Iran's nuclear intentions moot. Moreover, Iran, in declaring this facility,
has to know that because it has allegedly placed operational centrifuges in
the Qom plant (even if no nuclear material has been introduced), there will
be a need to provide the IAEA with full access to Iran's centrifuge
manufacturing capability, so that a material balance can be acquired for
these items as well.
Rather than representing the tip of the iceberg in terms of uncovering a
covert nuclear weapons capability, the emergence of the existence of the Qom
enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even
greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and
implementation of the IAEA additional protocol. This, more than anything,
should be the desired outcome of the "Qom declaration".
Calls for "crippling" sanctions on Iran by Obama and Brown are certainly not
the most productive policy options available to these two world leaders.
Both have indicated a desire to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty. Iran's action, in declaring the existence of the Qom facility, has
created a window of opportunity for doing just that, and should be fully
exploited within the framework of IAEA negotiations and inspections, and not
more bluster and threats form the leaders of the western world.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
How Iran's nukes reported by the US
by Michael Munk
Sun, Sep 27, 2009
|
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/26/iran/print.html
Should any Iraq lessons be applied to Iran?
The claims about Iran raise more questions than they answer. Virtually =
none is being asked by America's media.=20
Glenn Greenwald
Sep. 26, 2009 |=20
(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV )=20
Anonymous Obama officials yesterday dictated to Helene Cooper and Mark =
Mazzetti of The New York Times their version of the dramatic and =
exciting behind-the-scenes events that led to the administration's =
announcement this week about Iran's nuclear facility -- a late-night =
strategy session; secret consultation with allies; high-level diplomatic =
wrangling; the White House's decision to "outflank the Iranians." =
Cooper and Mazzetti faithfully wrote down everything they were told and =
produced this breathless front-page article (though, to their credit, =
they noted the motive of their anonymous sources: "all of whom want the =
story known to help support their case against Iran"). Perhaps the most =
meaningful paragraphs came at the very end:
The Chinese, one administration official said, were more skeptical, and =
said they wanted to look at the intelligence, and to see what =
international inspectors said when they investigated.
The lessons of the Iraq war still lingered.
"They don't want to buy a pig in a poke," the senior administration =
official said.
That's rational, isn't it? Shouldn't the American media infuse its =
coverage with some of that same skepticism, along with a similar desire =
to see actual evidence to support the claims being made? Isn't that =
exactly the lesson every rational person should have learned from the =
Iraq War? Identically, don't the two decades worth of false warnings =
about how Iran would have a nuclear bomb in "a couple of years" if we =
did not act by themselves warrant a demand for evidence before =
mindlessly embracing these claims?
Obviously, the Chinese have their own self-interested motives when it =
comes to Iran. And although the official position of the American =
intelligence community remains that Iran is not attempting to develop a =
nuclear bomb, it would hardly be a shock (or even irrational) if they =
did harbor that ambition. As the long list of nuclear states =
demonstrate -- which ironically includes all of the ones expressing such =
anger over Iran -- many governments believe, rationally, that their =
security will be enhanced if they obtain one. After all, the U.S. has =
more or less explicitly stated that it wants to prevent other nations =
from obtaining a nuclear weapon to ensure we can still attack them if we =
choose. Under those circumstances, it's not hard to believe that =
countries like Iran want to obtain nuclear weapons. It would be more =
surprising if they didn't.
Still, the accusations issuing about Iran are unaccompanied by evidence =
and raise at least as many question as they answer. Yet here we have, =
yet again, inflammatory (and, in many eyes, war-justifying) accusations =
made against an American Enemy, and the American establishment media =
seems capable of nothing other than mindlessly repeating it, asking no =
real questions, and doing little other than fueling the fire.
By contrast, The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman spent all day =
yesterday diligently and critically grappling with the question of =
whether Iran even breached any of its obligations under the NPT (he =
quotes an analyst with the Federation of American Scientists' Strategic =
Security Program who points out out that the NPT requires notification =
to the IAEA no less than 6 months before a facility is operational -- =
which Iran plainly did -- but also notes there may be non-public =
Iran/IAEA agreements requiring earlier notification). Either way, =
everyone agrees that -- despite all the rhetoric about Iran getting =
caught red-handed -- it was Iran itself which notified the IAEA of this =
facility; the facility is far from operational; and there's no evidence =
that it contains or even can produce weapons-grade material. Until =
there's an IAEA inspection -- which Iran said it would permit -- it's =
impossible to know the true purpose and capabilities of this facility, =
which is the cause for the Chinese's skepticism and should cause =
skepticism among every thinking person, beginning with the American =
media. Can anyone point to any such skepticism anywhere? Listening to =
the media coverage, one would think that Iran just got caught sitting on =
a secret atomic bomb.
The reason such accusations deserve so much scrutiny is obvious: there =
is a substantial faction in our political culture which craves a =
military attack on Iran -- the same faction, more or less, that caused =
us to attack Iraq -- and will seize on anything to justify that. Anyone =
who doubts that should look at this creepily excited and chest-beating =
statement yesterday from Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, GOP Sen. John Kyl, =
and Sen. Joe Lieberman: Iraq War supporters all. Contradicting the =
2007 NIE, they declare as an "inescapable conclusion" that "Iran is =
determined to acquire nuclear weapons." Their joint statement threatens =
"catastrophic consequences" against Iran and vows that "we are prepared =
to do whatever it takes to stop Iran's nuclear breakout." Just in case =
anyone is still confused by what they are threatening, they favorably =
cite a "bipartisan" report from former Senators Chuck Robb (D) and Dan =
Coats (R) which urges the President to begin preparing for military =
action against Iran, and lays out a detailed plan for what it would =
entail, beginning with a naval blockade and extending to "devastating =
strikes" against "assets" inside Iran that "would probably last up to =
several weeks and would require vigilance for years to come." That's =
what three key U.S. Senators are explicitly threatening.
In the absence of what they call "immediate" compliance, the Senators =
call for "crippling new sanctions against Iran." In The Washington Post =
today, AIPAC's most trusted House member -- Foreign Affairs Committee =
Chairman Howard Berman (D) -- similarly recommends sanctions that would =
"cause the Iranian banking system to collapse" and impose other severe =
economic hardships. So much for all of that oh-so-moving, profound, =
green-wearing concern for the welfare of The Iranian People. Time to =
bomb them or, at best, starve them until their government complies with =
our dictates. The Post Editorial Page repeats the same claim made for =
two decades about Iran ("officials say that when it is operational, it =
could deliver the material for a bomb in a year") and warns: "If it had =
not been discovered, the Qom plant could have given Iran the means for a =
bomb by 2011 without the world knowing about it. And if there is one =
clandestine facility, most likely there are others."
So we can all see where this is headed. Obama, to his credit, is one of =
the least inflammatory and fear-mongering establishment voices in all of =
this. And whatever else one might think of the whole Iran question, =
Obama officials -- just on a strategic level, in terms of negotiating =
tactics -- are infinitely smarter and more calculating than the ones who =
preceded them. They seem intent on formulating a negotiation strategy =
that will be most likely to resolve the matter through mutual agreement. =
But the drooling, belligerent sentiments being unleashed by the =
reporting of this story -- eagerly fueled by the always-war-hungry =
Bayh/Kyl/Lieberman faction -- could easily produce its own momentum. =20
Just look at how these people think -- the ones who exert great =
influence over our actions. Here's the deeply Serious Evan Bayh in =
2008:
You just hope that we haven't soured an entire generation on the =
necessity, from time to time, of using force because Iraq has been such =
a debacle. That would be tragic, because Iran is a grave threat. They're =
everything we thought Iraq was but wasn't. They are seeking nuclear =
weapons, they do support terrorists, they have threatened to destroy =
Israel, and they've threatened us, too.
In other words: Whoops. We bombed, invaded and destroyed the wrong =
country. We should have attacked that one over there rather than this =
one here. Silly us. It sure would be awful if our little mistake in =
Iraq prevented us from attacking Iran or caused people not to trust what =
we say. And here's what Joe Lieberman is, as reported by Jeffrey =
Goldberg, then of The New Yorker:
In another conversation, [Lieberman] told me that he was reading =
"America Alone," a book by the conservative commentator Mark Steyn, =
which argues that Europe is succumbing, demographically and culturally, =
to an onslaught by Islam, leaving America friendless in its =
confrontation with Islamic extremism [GG: that book also flirts with =
explicit advocacy of anti-Muslim genocide]. . . .
Lieberman likes expressions of American power. A few years ago, I was in =
a movie theatre in Washington when I noticed Lieberman and his wife, =
Hadassah, a few seats down. The film was "Behind Enemy Lines," in which =
Owen Wilson plays a U.S. pilot shot down in Bosnia. Whenever the =
American military scored an onscreen hit, Lieberman pumped his fist and =
said, "Yeah!" and "All right!"
With people like that at the center of American power -- and with recent =
history demonstrating how literally crazed and bloodthirsty our =
political establishment is -- nothing is more vital than aggressive =
media scrutiny and skepticism towards war-fueling accusations against =
our Enemy Du Jour, the latest Hitlers. But we have the opposite. =
Nothing excites them like the smell of aggressive American confrontation =
with the bad people. As a result, all of the genuine questions raised =
by this latest Iran episode are completely obscured, and the most =
inflammatory and hysteria-generating assertions are assumed to be true =
and disseminated as such by our "journalists."
=20
UPDATE: Daniel Larison has some typically insightful observations about =
all of this, which should be read in their entirety, including this:
Significant Russian cooperation with a sanctions regime would make it =
more "successful" in that it would isolate Iran more fully, which would =
at least address part of the practical problem of imposing sanctions on =
Iran, but this would not lead to the result that sanctions advocates =
want. Most likely, China would pick up the slack and become even more =
heavily invested in trade with Iran than it has been. On the contrary, =
as opponents of sanctions keep saying, a tighter sanctions regime will =
harm internal political opposition to the regime, increase the =
political-military establishment's hold on the economy and cause =
Iranians to rally behind their government in the face of outside =
hostility.
One of the things the American political establishment has the greatest =
difficulty accepting is that sometimes we can't force other countries to =
do what we order by bombing them or otherwise harming them, and that the =
far more likely way to obtain the outcome we want is through consensual =
agreement. That doesn't produce the same pulsating sensations of power =
and strength as Shock and Awe -- it won't cause Joe Lieberman to pump =
his fists and yell "Yeah!" and "All right!" -- but it is still the most =
rational and effective course of action.
=20
UPDATE II: The CIA's personal spokesman at The Washington Post, David =
Ignatius (who, needless to say, supported the attack on Iraq), says =
today that the confrontation with Iran is "the Cuban Missile Crises in =
slow motion" and excitedly concludes: "It's hard to see how this one =
will end short of military confrontation if the Iranians don't start =
bargaining for real." How exciting: we have our own Cuban Missile =
Crises that is heading for military attack, and will end with us waging =
war simultaneously against three Muslim countries -- because we're good =
and peaceful.
Along the same lines, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution =
(who, needless to say, supported the attack on Iraq), has a new book out =
this week with this cover (h/t sysprog):
That perfectly sums up the American establishment's view of war: a fun =
and fulfilling game where we sit around strategizing and put camouflage =
hats onto human beings whom we view as pawns (while Joe Lieberman, =
sitting with his family and Evan Bayh and John Kyl far away in the =
comfort and safety of his house, pumps his fists and yells: "Yeah!" and =
"All right!").
Related to all of this -- and highly worth watching in its own right -- =
is this: a performance of sand animation from a Ukranian talent show. =
Trust me: it's very worth watching.
=20
UPDATE III: Iran's top nuclear official claims to be shocked by the =
West's reaction to the second enrichment plant, since they disclosed its =
existence to the IAEA a year earlier than required by the NPT (i.e., =
they disclosed it 18-24 months before operability), and also said the =
site would be open to full IAEA inspections. So what "rules" exactly =
did Iran violate here? Additionally, Iran claims it opened a second, =
secret enrichment site in order to disperse its assets, so as to protect =
its civilian nuclear program from an Israeli air attack, which has been =
threatened many times. Steve Hynd argues that claim is both plausible =
and rational.
Iranian assertions shouldn't be believed any more than those from =
American officials. The point is that there are competing claims and =
the American media shouldn't assume that the American Government's =
assertions are true without evidence -- any more than they should have =
done so in the run-up to the Iraq War.
=20
UPDATE IV: James Acton of Carnegie Endowment for Peace argues that the =
rule Iran violated is a 2003 amendment between the Iranians and the IAEA =
that purports to require notification to the IAEA immediately upon =
Iran's deciding to build such a facility -- not merely 180 days prior to =
its receipt of nuclear material. Iran denies the validity of this =
agreement, as it was never ratified by its legislature, and -- as early =
as 2007 -- advised the IAEA that it did not consider itself bound by =
this provision. Thus, it seems clear that Iran complied with all of its =
obligations under international law with the possible exception of an =
amendment to an agreement between it and the IAEA which Iran has long =
claimed is invalid and was never ratified.
Everyone can decide for themselves if they find Acton's argument =
convincing; it's certainly plausible at the very least, and it seems =
clear Iran wanted to hide its construction of this facility (either =
because they intended it for nefarious purposes and/or because they =
wanted to prevent the Israelis from destroying it). But, given that =
Iran did notify the IAEA long before the facility became operational and =
has agreed to inspections, this "violation" -- even if one is persuaded =
by Acton's argument -- is obviously a very thin reed on which to hang =
orgies of international outrage and particularly war threats, to put =
that mildly.
-- Glenn Greenwald
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
About that socialist's pledge of allegiance
by Michael Munk
Fri, Sep 25, 2009
|
About that Socialist pledge
Letters to the Editor
The Oregonian September 25, 2009
Our schoolchildren should never be instructed by their teachers to quote
Socialist propaganda -- even to repeat the eloquent words of President
Barack Obama.
Imagine an America where classrooms of indoctrinated young students would be
directed to stand together every morning, place their hands over their
hearts and recite the liberal proclamations of those like avowed Socialist
Francis Bellamy, who wrote, in 1892, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the
Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all."
Not in this America...
Burl Ross
Lake Oswego
Here's the full story
The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge
in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is
expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the
American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality
(1897).
Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels
and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned
economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government
would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial
complex.
The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's
Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day.
Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his
assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in
Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation,
Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often
controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.
In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state
superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its
chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial
celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school
program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of
Allegiance.'
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
(to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in
his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his
committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to'
added in October, 1892. ]
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the
American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the
Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.'
Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the
words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath
and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change.
He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his
socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church
because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.
What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went
through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national
history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of
the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of
the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it
stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the
concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War
was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify
that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great
speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French
Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty,
equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of
years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine
of liberty and justice for all...
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Iranian nuke plant no secret
by Michael Munk
Fri, Sep 25, 2009
|
The US media is playing this story for maximum scare value refusing to
distinguish between weapons and energy development. When Gergen was
challenged on CNN last night on his claim of Iran weapons, the discuission
was cut off before listeners could learn about his deliberate confusion.
The IAEA received Iran announcement that construction had begun on Monday
but US leakers at IAEA in Vienna didn't report it. But when Obama confirms
the Iranian announcement it becomes big news.
Note too that IAEA regulations only require announcement 180 days before new
nuclear materials are installed, and that hasn't happened.
Since Israel refuses to sign the NPT, it has no oligation to inform the IAEA
of its nuclear weapoins arsenalthe plant has nothing to do with nuclear
weapons
Iran's second enrichment plant 'not secret': nuclear chief
by Jay Deshmukh, Sept 25, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090925/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpoliticsenrichment_20090925193425
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran's new uranium enrichment plant, whose existence was made
public on Friday, is not secret and will operate under the UN nuclear
watchdog's rules, the country's nuclear chief told AFP as the United States,
Britain and France demanded immediate access to it.
"This installation is not a secret one, which is why we announced its
existence to the IAEA," Ali Akbar Salehi said.
"When I took over the job in July, I committed myself to accelerate
cooperation (with the International Atomic Energy Agency) and, within the
existing framework of regulations and of our cooperation with the IAEA, we
announced the existence of this installation to the agency."
Salehi did not say how long the facility had been under construction or
whether it is finished.
Iranian officials say Tehran is only obliged to inform the UN watchdog of
the existence of any new site 180 days before putting radioactive materials
into it.
Before that, they insist, Iran does not need to say anything about building
new nuclear sites.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad brushed off Western criticism.
Iran has informed the IAEA of the plant's existence and "should be
encouraged for that. It was perfectly legal," he said at a news conference
in New York on Friday.
Denying that the revelation has created a crisis between Iran and Western
powers, Ahmadinejad said he is "very hopeful" about talks with six world
powers in Geneva on October 1.
Also on Friday, he told Time magazine: "We have no secrecy, we work within
the framework of the IAEA."
Salehi also said the new plant will operate under IAEA guidelines.
"In a successful new step, the Islamic republic has created another
semi-industrial nuclear fuel enrichment plant. The activities of this
facility will be within IAEA regulations," the official IRNA news agency
quoted him as saying.
"Everything has been considered in building this plant, including installing
defence systems.
"Considering the threats (to the existing nuclear sites), our organisation
decided to do what is necessary to preserve and continue our nuclear
activities," Salehi later told state television.
"So we decided to build new installations which will guarantee the
continuation of our nuclear activities which will never stop at any cost."
Earlier, the IAEA said Iran had announced it was building a second plant,
just days before the Geneva meeting.
"On September 21, Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel
enrichment plant is under construction in the country," spokesman Marc
Vidricaire said in a statement.
US President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British
Prime Minister Gordon Brown threatened tough sanctions if Iran fails to open
the facility to IAEA inspection.
"We expect the IAEA to immediately investigate this disturbing information
and to report to the IAEA board of governors," Obama said, calling the new
plant a "direct challenge" to international non-proliferation rules.
He said that at the October 1 meeting, Iran must be ready to cooperate fully
with the IAEA or face further isolation.
Salehi was scathing about the criticism, levelled at the G20 summit in
Pittsburgh.
"Apparently, Mr Obama, Sarkozy and Brown wanted to make some revelations
about this site, but we acted on time and informed the IAEA about this site
and now they are mad about that because they lost an opportunity. But then
that is their problem," he told state television.
The West accuses Iran of seeking the atomic bomb, but Tehran insists the
activities are entirely peaceful.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in a statement urged Iran to cooperate
fully with the IAEA, but did not raise the threat of sanctions.
He said Iran should show "convincing proof of its intention to develop
nuclear energy solely for peaceful aims" in Geneva.
Vidricaire said the IAEA has asked Iran for access to the facility "as soon
as possible." The IAEA said no nuclear material has yet been introduced to
it.
Iran told the agency "the enrichment level would be up to 5.0 percent,"
which is not high enough to make the fissile material for an atomic weapon.
Low enriched uranium is used to make nuclear fuel.
"Iran's second enrichment centre is similar to the Natanz enrichment
facility," the ISNA news agency reported an unnamed source as saying.
The New York Times reported on Friday that the new plant is being built
inside a mountain near the holy city of Qom, 160 kilometres (100 miles)
south of Tehran.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Honduran gorillas kill another supporter of the President
by Michael Munk
Thu, Sep 24, 2009
|
and wound another five. Note the difference in media reporting when an
Iranian protester is killed
One dead in Honduras clash, world pressure grows
By Gustavo Palencia Sep 24, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090924/wl_nm/us_honduras
TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - A man was shot and killed in a clash between police
and supporters of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, as international
pressure mounted on the de facto government to let the leftist return to
power.
It was the first reported death in political violence since Zelaya, forced
into exile by a June 28 coup, slipped back into Honduras this week and took
refuge in the Brazilian Embassy.
A 65-year-old Zelaya supporter was killed in the poor Flor del Campo
district of the capital, Tegucigalpa, on Tuesday night, a source at the
coroner's office said. Five other pro-Zelaya protesters were shot and
wounded in another part of the city, a doctor at the Escuela hospital said.
On Wednesday, riot police firing tear gas dispersed thousands of Zelaya
supporters marching through the city toward the Brazilian Embassy, according
to a Reuters witness. A Red Cross official said there were no immediate
reports of injuries.
Zelaya slipped back into Honduras on Monday, ending almost three months of
exile after he was toppled in the coup and bringing the world's attention to
his cause again.
Hundreds of soldiers and riot police, some in ski masks and carrying
automatic weapons, have surrounded the embassy where Zelaya is taking
shelter with his family and about 40 supporters.
Brazil and Venezuela called at the United Nations for Zelaya, a former
rancher and timber magnate who took office in 2006, to be returned to power.
Concerned about the rising tension in Honduras, the United Nations suspended
assistance in preparing the presidential election set for November.
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who finds himself involved in
a political crisis outside Brazil's traditional sphere of influence in South
America, said on Wednesday he requested a meeting with U.S. President Barack
Obama this week to discuss Honduras.
The government that has ruled the small Central American country since
Zelaya's overthrow said it was suspending a curfew in effect day and night
since Monday starting at 6 a.m. (8 p.m. EDT) on Thursday and encouraged
people who have been holed up inside to return to work.
Large lines formed at stores in the capital as residents rushed to stock up
on water and basic foods. State-run television broadcast frequent messages
from the de facto government warning that Zelaya would be responsible for
any violent acts.
Honduras is a major coffee producer but output has not been affected by the
crisis.
Soldiers toppled Zelaya at gunpoint and sent him into exile in his pajamas
after the Supreme Court ordered his arrest, saying he had broken the law by
pushing for constitutional reforms that critics say were an attempt to
change presidential term limits and extend his rule. Zelaya denies the
allegations.
De facto leader Roberto Micheletti said Zelaya could stay in the embassy
"for five to 10 years" if he wanted, hinting his administration was getting
ready for a long standoff.
Micheletti, a one-time Zelaya ally who was the head of Congress before the
coup, was unmoved by the mounting international pressure on his government.
"We're alone, but we're surviving," he said on Wednesday in an interview
with CNN's Spanish-language network.
The United States, European Union and Organization of American States have
urged dialogue to bring Zelaya back to office.
The Honduras crisis has been Obama's most serious challenge so far in Latin
America, earning him criticism from regional governments for not taking a
tough enough stance to reverse the coup despite cutting some aid.
Lula, who is facing some criticism at home for harboring Zelaya at Brazil's
embassy, called at the U.N. General Assembly in New York for the deposed
leader to be reinstated.
"The international community demands that Mr. Zelaya immediately return to
the presidency of his country and must be alert to ensure the inviolability
of Brazil's diplomatic mission in the capital of Honduras," Lula said.
The leaders of the coup, backed by the country's military, Supreme Court and
Congress, insist Zelaya must face trial for violating the constitution, and
have said Brazil must turn him over to Honduran authorities or give him
political asylum outside the country.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Krugman ignores Marxist economics
by Michael Munk
Thu, Sep 24, 2009
|
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?
Lead letter to the New York Times Magazine: September 16, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/magazine/20Letters-t-001.html?ref=magazine
Paul Krugman's How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"(September 6, 2009)
offers a refreshing, critical assessment of the academic profession of
economics and how it missed the recent economic collapse. While addressing
the standard textbook issues in mainstream economics, Krugman seems
oblivious to one area of the field that has warned of deep, cyclical crises
in capitalism since its inception: Marxist economics. You do not have to
believe in revolution or the proletarian struggle to appreciate the
centrality of secular crises for this economic tradition. Marx was wrong
about a lot of things, but he seems to have been on target when pointing out
at least two problems: the severity and depth of periodic crises and the
rise of financial speculation.
DIEGO VON VACANO
Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
US media hype Iran, suppress Honduran crackdowns
by Michael Munk
Tue, Sep 22, 2009
|
=20
=20
Police disperse pro-Zelaya protest=20
=
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/09/2009922143328780849.ht=
ml
Al-Jajeera, Sept 22, 2009=20
=20
=20
Protesters gathered near the embassy, despite the =
government's efforts to keep them away [AFP]
=20
=20
Honduran security forces have dispersed thousands of pro-Zelaya =
protesters outside the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, where Manuel =
Zelaya, the ousted president, has taken refuge.
Police fired tear gas at the demonstrations and chased them away =
from the embassy in the Honduran capital on Tuesday, a day after Zelaya =
sneaked back into the country.
Some reports said protesters threw stones at police, but officials =
reported no arrests and there was no immediate reports of injuries.
Zelaya remained inside the embassy and accused police of preparing =
an attack.
"The embassy is surrounded by police and the military ... I =
foresee bigger acts of aggression and violence, that they could be =
capable of even invading the Brazilian embassy," Zelaya said in an =
interview with Venezuelan broadcaster Telesur.
Tense atmosphere
Radio Globo in Honduras later reported that a team of "hooded men" =
had stormed the house next to the Brazilian embassy, but there was no =
independent confirmation.
=20
=20
Mariana Sanchez, Al Jazeera's correspondent reporting from =
Honduras, said: "It's difficult to say whether they would go into the =
Brazilian embassy and get former president Manuel Zelaya out of there.=20
"Of course, they would be breaking international treaties [if they =
did] - the situation is very tense."
Later, Roberto Micheletti, Honduras' de facto leader, said he had =
no intention of ordering his men to enter the embassy or to confront =
Brazil.
"We want them [Brazil] to understand that they should give him =
political asylum [in Brazil] or turn him over to Honduran authorities to =
be tried," he said.
"We will respect international and national law. If [Zelaya] wants =
to stay there for 5 or 10 years, we don't have any problem with him =
living there," Micheletti said
Military coup
Soldiers toppled Zelaya at gunpoint and sent him into exile in his =
pyjamas in a coup on June 28, sparked by his attempts to call a =
constitutional referendum on presidential term limits.
Micheletti has repeatedly refused to allow Zelaya to return, =
insisting he would be arrested if he returned.
"It's like an insurrection, you know. The people say they =
won't listen to the government so today is going to be a very important =
day"
Oscar Hendrix,
youth activist=20
=20
A statement from Brazil's foreign ministry said that the de facto =
government had cut water, electricity and phone lines to the Brazilian =
embassy where Zelaya had taken refuge.=20
Brazil currently has no ambassador in Honduras and the embassy is =
headed by Francisco Caruda Resende, Brazil's business attache, the =
statement said.
Micheletti said he would not reopen negotiations and insisted that =
Brazil hand over Zelaya to face charges for corruption and violating the =
constitution.
"I insist that the courts are waiting so he can present himself =
there and pay for the crimes he committed," Micheletti said.
Honduras's government ordered a 26-hour shutdown of the capital =
beginning on Monday afternoon, closed all the nation's international =
airports and set up roadblocks on highways leading into town to keep =
Zelaya supporters from protesting.
'Insurrection'
But Zelaya loyalists ignored the decree and surrounded the =
embassy, dancing and cheering and using their mobile phones to light up =
the streets after electricity was cut off to the area around the =
embassy.
Carlos Salgado, a 43-year-old jewellery-maker from Zelaya's home =
state of Olancho, said: "We're here to support him and protect him, and =
we're going to stay here as long as it's physically possible."
Oscar Hendrix, a youth activist in San Pedro Sula, told Al Jazeera =
he and others were planning to march to the capital in defiance of the =
curfew.
"It's like an insurrection, you know. The people say they won't =
listen to the government so today is going to be a very important day," =
he said.
"We will call for [people in] the capital to mobilise ... and they =
will see that there are more of us that want constitutional order back =
in our country. We're trying to do it in a peaceful way, that's our main =
goal."
International sanctions
Zelaya's surprise return to Tegucigalpa comes as world leaders =
gather at the United Nations in New York, putting renewed international =
pressure on the interim government to let him return to power.
Economic sanctions have already been imposed by the US government =
and the EU, while Zelaya has called for negotiations with the leaders =
who forced him from the country at gunpoint.
His return has overshadowed campaigning for the November =
presidential vote that the interim government hopes will restore an =
image of international legitimacy.
Speaking from New York, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the Brazilian =
president, called for negotiation and said that his coutry was doing =
what "any democratic country would do" by granting Zelaya refuge in its =
embassy.
=20
=20
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Elected President back in Honduras
by Michael Munk
Mon, Sep 21, 2009
|
Elected (Ousted) leader returns to Honduras, defies arrest
.
By FREDDY CUEVAS, Associated Press Writer Freddy Cuevas Sept 21, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_coup_7
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras - Deposed President Manuel Zelaya defied threats of
arrest and returned home to Honduras Monday, three months after he was
forced into exile at gunpoint.
Seeking safety at the Brazilian Embassy, Zelaya called on his countrymen to
come to the capital for peaceful protest.
"It is the moment of reconciliation," he said Monday during a televised
speech that featured Zelaya's voice but not his image.
His surprise arrival sparked demonstrations in the streets outside the
embassy as supporters, who have protested for months since his ouster,
cheered his return.
"We are all happy, because he is the constitutional president of Honduras,"
teacher Alfredo Rodriguez Escobar told The Associated Press. Overhead a
police helicopter hovered over the growing crowd.
The return sharply and suddenly escalates the country's political crisis -
challenging the government installed by the coup to make good on its promise
to arrest Zelaya and making him a polarizing figure for demonstrations - for
and against _directly in the country's capital.
The country's Congress and Supreme Court, alarmed by Zelaya's political
shift into a close alliance with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, backed
Zelaya's removal, arguing that he violated the constitution, even if many
officials say he should have been arrested rather than sent abroad.
Crowds gathered outside the United Nations compound early Monday after
Zelaya initially went on television saying he had arrived there, apparently
trying to mislead local officials. He later appeared at the Brazilian
Embassy.
Zelaya said he had "evaded a thousand obstacles" to return. And his staunch
supporter, Chavez, described the journey: "President Manuel Zelaya, along
with four companions, traveled for two days overland, crossing mountains and
rivers, risking their lives. They have made it to Honduras."
Zelaya was forced out of the country at gunpoint on June 28. Interim leader
Roberto Micheletti has repeatedly said a jail cell awaits Zelaya if he comes
back.
Most international leaders - including the United States and the
Organization of American States - say they still recognize Zelaya as
president and demand he be reinstated.
Micheletti has said he will step aside after presidential elections are held
as scheduled in November.
If the interim administration attempts to imprison Zelaya, protesters who
have demonstrated against his ouster could turn violent, said Vicki Gass at
the Washington Office on Latin America.
"There's a saying about Honduras that people can argue in the morning and
have dinner in the evening, but I'm not sure this will happen in this case,"
said Gass. "It's been 86 days since the coup. Something had to break and
this might be it."
But Juan Carlos Hidalgo, project coordinator for Latin America at the
libertarian Cato Institute, said Zelaya should expect to be jailed.
"If he is back, his options are quite limited, because the moment that his
location is discovered or that he publicly comes out of the trees where he's
hiding, he's going to be arrested for sure," he said
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
The resistance US media ignores in favor of Iran's
by Michael Munk
Sun, Sep 20, 2009
|
September 15 Neocolonialism Meets Resistance in Honduras
18 September 2009
http://www.truthout.org/092009Z?n
by: Tom Loudon, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis
On the 80th day of the coup, both the de facto government and the
resistance movement against the coup held marches to celebrate the
anniversary of Central America's independence from Spain. At a military
parade, de facto President Roberto Micheletti defiantly insisted that it
would take a military intervention to remove him. Meanwhile, thousands of
coup resisters, with elected President Manuel Zelaya's wife at the head,
marched through the central park of Tegucigalpa, where last month police and
military attacked peaceful protesters and passers-by. The massive resistance
movement in Honduras continues to grow, denouncing the violent coup as an
illegal takeover on the part of neocolonial economic and military interests.
The EU used the occasion of the anniversary to promise further sanctions
if there was not a return to constitutional order. Secretary of State
Clinton merely lamented "the turmoil and political differences that have ...
divided Honduras."
During the month of August, the coup government of Honduras suffered a
number of setbacks on the international level. First, was the release of an
Amnesty International Report highlighting "serious human rights concerns
which should be addressed as a matter of urgency." The report corroborated
"increasingly disproportionate and excessive use of force being used by the
police and military to repress legitimate and peaceful protests across the
country."
Subsequently, delegations arrived from the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (IACH), the OAS and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The
preliminary report from the IAHC confirmed that coup leaders in Honduras
have committed thousands of violations of human rights. The Commission also
said that "only a return to institutional democracy" will allow Honduras to
restore individual rights.
The OAS delegation, after two unsuccessful attempts to enter Honduras,
made a short visit in which they again attempted to persuade the coup
government to accept the San Jose Accords. During his visit, OAS Secretary
General Insulza stated: "The message to the de facto government is still
very clear: Why cause harm to the population when there is a very clear
solution by way of the San José Accord? I hope that this is understood."
The visit, which perhaps had the most influence on the behavior of the
coup government, was that of the International Criminal Court. One of the
members of this delegation was Judge Garzon, the Spanish judge who brought
the infamous Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet to trial. Garzon stated that
he was, " gravely concerned by the human rights situation in the country."
Honduras, unlike the United States, is a signatory to the ICC. Serious
human rights crimes committed in Honduras and not prosecuted by Honduran
authorities can lead to charges being filed by the International Court. At a
press conference, ICC representatives indicated that among the cases they
investigated were seven which they considered possible cases for the ICC.
They also stated that charges could be brought against intellectual authors
of crimes as well as actual perpetrators.
By the end of August, tactics of the security forces had changed.
Frontal attacks on marches and caravans seem to have stopped. However, other
forms of intimidation have been adopted. The police and army follow along
with the marchers, (in an attempt to intimidate them), either directly
behind or on either side of peaceful protesters. Security forces take
photographs of protesters and follow them after the marches disburse. They
arrest anyone caught spray-painting.
A notable exception to this new approach occurred during a protest in
Choluteca when the mayor arrived at a protest armed with a pistol and
accompanied by some 100 men armed with machetes, who proceeded to attack the
demonstration. The demonstrators were protesting the presence of Elvin
Santos, the Liberal Party candidate for president, whom they consider
illegitimate. Five of the protesters were arrested.
Selective murders continue on a weekly basis. On Saturday, August 29,
Ismael Padilla was murdered by unknown assailants in front of his house.
Padilla was president of the Association of Microbuses, and had accompanied
President Zelaya to pick up ballot boxes in one of the buses on the day
before the coup. His assassination was a clear message to all who oppose the
coup and support the call for a Constitutional Assembly.
International pressure on the coup government mounted in September. Most
countries, including the United States, have said that they will not
recognize elections if Zelaya is not first returned to power. The EU
recently promised further sanctions if there is not a return to
constitutional order. The EU also said that it will not send observers to
the November vote if it is overseen by the coup regime. The UN announced
that it has cut off funding that it had been providing for the election
process.
The United States cut more aid and announced that visas were being
revoked for 17 key people in the coup government, including the de facto
president, attorney general, head of armed forces and all 14 Supreme Court
judges. Perhaps even more threatening to the coup regime, the United States
canceled an unknown number of visas for powerful civilians who back the
coup. This past weekend, Adolfo FacussÈ, president of the powerful National
Association of Industries of Honduras, which many think has financed the
coup, was taken off his flight from Honduras and held by ICE agents in Miami
before being deported back to Honduras. Creating this kind of embarrassment
may just be the most effective thing the US has done to date to discourage
supporters of the coup. A few days prior to his trip, Mr. FacussÈ announced
a plan devised by business owners to increase the vote in the November
elections. Pro-coup businesses are considering offering discounts to people
who show the ink on their fingers indicating that they have voted.
Earlier this week, an incident occurred at the UN Human Rights Council
in Geneva. Several countries, including Brazil, Argentina and Mexico refused
to allow the representative from Honduras to stay in the session unless he
was approved by President Zelaya. After several hours of conflict, which
postponed the opening of the session, he was escorted out by UN guards.
Despite increasing international pressure, the coup government seems
determined to hold out at all costs. As the day of the scheduled election
grows closer, a negotiated solution to the crisis becomes less viable. A
broad-based national coalition against the coup has called for a boycott of
the elections if President Zelaya has not been returned to power. But the
coup regime passed a law making it illegal to advocate that others not vote.
If elections are held under these conditions, it will certainly spark
increased social unrest.
Independence from national and foreign neocolonial elites remains a
vibrant hope for the people of Honduras. The resistance movement in Honduras
has called on the international community to take more measures to isolate
the coup regime. Given the history of US domination of Honduras and
increasing evidence linking US corporate interests and senior US government
officials with the coup, the Obama Administration has a particular
obligation to make sure that US policy in Central America is aligned with
democratic efforts to build more just and equitable societies, rather than
neocolonial elites.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Israeli nukes called threat by IAEA
by Michael Munk
Fri, Sep 18, 2009
|
Nuclear conference criticizes Israeli nukes
Nuclear meeting passes resolution critical of Israeli atomic program for
first time since 1991
GEORGE JAHN
AP News
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/nuclear_conference_criticizes_israeli_nukes.php?ref=fpa
Sep 18, 2009
Overriding Western objections, a 150-nation nuclear conference on Friday
passed a resolution directly criticizing Israel and its atomic program for
the first time in 18 years. Iran hailed the vote as a "glorious moment."
The result was a setback not only for Israel but also for the U.S. and other
backers of the Jewish state, which had lobbied for 18 years of past
practice - debate on the issue without a vote. It also reflected building
tensions between Israel and its backers and Islamic nations, backed by
developing countries.
Of delegations present at the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting
Friday, 49 voted for the resolution. Forty-five were against and 16
abstained from endorsing or rejecting he document, which "expresses concern
about the Israeli nuclear capabilities," and links it to "concern about the
threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons for the security and
stability of the Middle East."
The result once again exposed the deep North-South divide gripping IAEA
meetings.
The United States and its allies consider Iran the greatest proliferation
threat, fearing that Tehran is trying to achieve the capacity to make
nuclear weapons despite its assertion that it is only building a civilian
program to generate power. They also say Syria - which, like Iran is under
IAEA investigation - ran a clandestine nuclear program, at least until
Israeli warplanes destroyed what they describe as a nearly finished
plutonium-producing reactor two years ago.
But Islamic nations insist that Israel is the true danger in the Middle
East, saying they fear its nuclear weapons capacity. Israel has never said
it has such arms, but is universally believed to posses them.
The Muslim countries enjoy support from the developing world which is
critical of the U.S. and other nuclear weapons nations for refusing to
disarm and suspects that developed nations are trying to corner the market
on peaceful nuclear technology to their disadvantage.
Israeli delegate David Danieli denounced the vote as "openly hostile to the
state of Israel" and accused Iran and Syria of "creating a diplomatic smoke
screen" to cover up their "pursuit of nuclear weapons."
But chief Iranian delegate Ali Asghar Soltanieh said the vote should serve
as a warning to Washington and other supporters of the Jewish State.
"The U.S. Administration .... has received a message that they should not
continue supporting Israel at any price," he told reporters.
Since the conference passed a harshly worded anti-Israel resolution in 1991,
there has been annual Islamic criticism of Israel's nuclear program and its
refusal to join the Nonproliferation Treaty. But - until Friday - the West
had lobbied successfully against a vote, arguing they could damage hopes of
a Middle East peace through negotiations.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Why I threw the shoe
by Michael Munk
Fri, Sep 18, 2009
|
|
Somalis denounce Obama's death squads
by Michael Munk
Tue, Sep 15, 2009
|
Somali rebels slam U.S. killing of al Qaeda suspect
Sept 15, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090915/wl_nm/us_somalia_conflict
MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Somalia's al Shabaab insurgents denounced a U.S.
commando raid that killed one of Africa's most wanted al Qaeda suspects and
vowed on Tuesday to continue their fight against Western nations.
U.S. special forces in helicopters struck a car in rebel-held southern
Somalia on Monday, killing the Kenyan said to have built the truck bomb that
claimed 15 lives at an Israeli-owned beach hotel on the Kenyan coast in
2002.
Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, 28, was also accused of involvement in a
simultaneous, but botched, missile attack on a Israeli airliner packed with
tourists as it left nearby Mombasa.
Several senior Somali government sources said he had been killed along with
four other foreign members of al Shabaab, which Washington describes as al
Qaeda's proxy in Somalia.
The rebel group responded angrily to his death.
"Al Shabaab will continue targeting Western countries, especially America
... we are killing them and they are hunting us," an al Shabaab spokesman,
Sheikh Bare Mohamed Farah Khoje, told Reuters by telephone from the southern
region of Gedo.
"We wish we could eradicate them all. We will never forget our brothers who
were targeted illegally by the United States."
The attack marked an apparent change in tactics for the U.S. military, which
has previously targeted wanted militants in Somalia using missiles, as
opposed to helicopter-borne troops.
Western security agencies say the failed Horn of Africa state has become a
safe haven for militants, including foreigners, who use it to plot attacks
in the region and beyond.
Another Islamist group linked to al Shabaab also expressed its outrage and
said the raid would feed local resentment.
"WE CONDEMN AMERICA"
"This will only increase Somalis' hatred for the United States," Sheikh
Mohamed Ibrahim Bilal, chairman of Amal Islam, told Reuters. "The United
States never abides by international law. We condemn America. All these
raids show its war on Islam."
A moderate Somali militia that has been battling al Shabaab praised the U.S.
operation, however, and called for more strikes to wipe out foreign
jihadists hiding in Somalia.
"We are very pleased with the helicopters that killed the foreign al Shabaab
fighters," Sheikh Abdullahi Sheikh Abu Yussuf, the spokesman for Ahlu Sunna
Waljamaca, told Reuters.
"God sent birds against those who attacked the Holy Mosque, the Ka'ba,
millennia ago. The same way, God has sent bombers against al Shabaab. We
hope more aircraft will destroy the rest of al Shabaab, who have abused
Islam and massacred Somalis."
Ahlu Sunna has fought al Shabaab for months across Somalia's central and
southern regions. It is allied with the U.N.-backed government of President
Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, which controls just parts of the central region and
some of Mogadishu.
Nabhan was killed near Roobow village in Barawe District, 250 km (150 miles)
south of the capital.
A U.S. official in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S.
special forces aboard two helicopters that flew from a U.S. Navy ship opened
fired on a vehicle that they believed contained Nabhan. They then took the
body into custody, the official said, and were confident it was Nabhan.
"We appreciate the good job they have done," Somali Prime Minister Omar
Abdirashid Sharmarke told Reuters in Mogadishu, referring to the U.S. armed
forces.
The U.S. military has launched several airstrikes inside Somalia in the past
against individuals including those blamed for the U.S. embassy bombings in
Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
Ora Anter, mother of two Israeli boys who were killed in the 2002 bombing of
the Paradise Hotel near Mombasa, told Israeli Army Radio that news of
Nabhan's death brought her no pleasure.
"This isn't something you can feel happy over, that they have been killed
and are no more. Unfortunately there will be (more terror attacks), they
rise up like mushrooms," she said.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Sept 14: Obama extends Cuba embargo another year
by Michael Munk
Tue, Sep 15, 2009
|
Obama Taking Wrong Course with Conditionality Approach to Cuba
The Washington Note Sept. 14, 2009
By Steve Clemons
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/09/obama_undermine/
President Obama has missed yet another chance to pressure Congress to end
the self-inflicted damage of a "unilateral embargo" against Cuba and to take
American foreign policy writ large in a new, more constructive direction.
Today, the President officially extended the trade embargo against Cuba for
another year -- putting the US at odds again with roughly 183 nations that
vote against the embargo each year in the United Nations.
The President's global mystique has been based on a perception that he would
shift the Bush era gravitational forces in more constructive directions --
that he would support engagement and exchange as tools of American foreign
policy in order to try and get better outcomes in international affairs.
But by continuing an embargo that undermines American interests and even US
national security, he chooses the continuity of failure over the opportunity
for change and over his own principles.
By arguing that "he will not lift the embargo until Cuba undertakes
democratic and economic reforms," Obama is perpetuating a fallacy that
conditionality produces results in Cuba's domestic internal affairs. That
approach has failed for decades -- and needs to be dropped.
The President has made some progress on Cuba -- but its mostly progress that
the most hawkish, right wing elements of the Cuban-American community
desired, not progress that was based on the interests of the nation as a
whole.
Obama needs to fix his course on Cuba, or despite the modest creep forward
recently -- helping a single class of ethnic Americans access Cuba but
keeping up prohibitions on other American citizens, he will be added to a
long roster of Presidents who maintained a Cold War in the America's
backyard that is, as David Rothkopf called it, "the edsel" of US foreign
policy.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Hedges on Obama
by Michael Munk
Mon, Sep 14, 2009
|
|
Letter from Kabul: Stop spending $5 B/mo on death and destruction
by Michael Munk
Mon, Sep 14, 2009
|
Letter from Kabul
by Zaher Wahab, Guest opinion=20
The Oregonian: September 12, 2009
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/09/letter_from_kabul_aft=
er_the_el.html
Courtesy of ZAHER WAHABZaher Wahab (right) visited his brother and =
mother in Afghanistan during an earlier trip. Guns are widely available =
in the country, says the Portland professor, who has been unable to =
visit his mother this year because the 100-mile trip on the main highway =
from Kabul is too dangerous.
Editor's note: Lewis & Clark College professor Zaher Wahab is a native =
of Afghanistan who has been returning every year since 2002 to help =
rebuild the country's higher education system. Below, in a handwritten =
letter composed Thursday and edited for clarity, he describes life in =
Afghanistan following the Aug. 20 election. Read more of his experiences =
at his blog, called "Dispatches From Afghanistan."=20
Even though Kabul looks like a city under siege -- with thousands of =
heavily armed Afghan-NATO-ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] =
forces everywhere -- there is little to no security.=20
Two days ago, insurgents rocketed the city, killing a family of four, =
and a suicide bomber drove to the inner gate of the heavily protected =
Kabul military-civilian airport, killing and injuring several. There is =
fighting in the south, east, north and west of the country. Two-thirds =
of the country is considered unsafe by the U.N. and the Afghan Ministry =
of Interior. I have irregular Internet access and electricity at Kabul =
Education University. And we are told to keep a low profile and avoid =
crowds. I am not allowed, and would not consider, traveling to where I =
was born to see my mother -- about 100 miles on the main highway. I =
won't get out alive and would endanger the people I visit.=20
You heard about the bombing of the two tankers in Kunduz, in the north =
at 2:30 a.m. last Friday, killing at least 125 people, mostly civilians. =
And you probably read about the killing of Afghan journalist Sultan =
Munadi, and Stephen Farrell's abduction; Farrell, a correspondent for =
The New York Times, was rescued alive.=20
Afghans of all kinds are mad as hell, both at the insurgents and all the =
foreign troops, which they call the occupiers, who behave worse than the =
Red Army in the 1980s.=20
My students, even those who live 20 miles from Kabul, risk their lives =
visiting their families. They must grow a beard, wear traditional =
clothes, remove all ID documents and cell phones, and pretend that they =
have no connection with the government or the foreigners. I, myself, =
travel in an armored car with armed bodyguards. I am not allowed to go =
to the corner bakery alone. And I cannot post my name or office hours on =
my door inside the university campus.=20
The election=20
and democracy=20
In a country where 90 percent of the women and 70 percent of the men are =
illiterate, there are no political parties. The vast majority of the =
women are not allowed to leave their house, be seen or heard by strange =
men, or have their picture taken.=20
Eighty percent of the people live in rural areas, isolated hamlets, =
mountains, deserts, in transition as internally displaced people.=20
Most people have no ID cards.=20
About 3.5 [million] to 4 million Afghans live as refugees in Iran and =
Pakistan and could not/did not vote.=20
Most people do not know how old exactly they are.=20
The country is in fact under occupation and not free. Most of the =
country/people are controlled by warlords, strongmen, drug lords and/or =
insurgents.=20
The official government barely controls the cities and their compounds.=20
Many people are geographically so isolated that you simply cannot reach =
them.=20
Up to and including the election day, official Washington -- H. Clinton, =
Obama, Holbrooke -- the European Union, NATO, [Army generals] McChrystal =
and Eikenberry, and the mainstream American press could not contain =
themselves regarding "democraticizing Afghanistan." The West spent $500 =
million on the election itself, and much more on security.=20
Now, the whole world knows that there was "massive, organized and =
systemic" fraud. Very true, and all those cheerleaders must eat their =
words.=20
We know that voting cards were sold and bought all over the country.=20
Underage voting took place.=20
Fake booths were set up and ballot boxes stuffed.=20
People were forced at gunpoint to vote a certain way.=20
At best 30 percent of the 16 million registered voted.=20
Strongmen, government officials took the ballot boxes home and filled =
them.=20
There were more ballots cast than registered voters.=20
Candidates made deals with known criminals, drug lords and assassins.=20
In many places, the [polling] stations didn't open so no voting =
occurred.=20
In some places like Kandahar, 100 percent of the votes went to one =
candidate and none to another.=20
Candidates bribed, fed and promised positions to people to vote for =
them.=20
The open secret is that Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia and America =
supported (with money also) their favorite candidates.=20
26 people were killed, one had his fingers -- and another his nose and =
ears -- cut off by insurgents for voting. There were at least 600 =
attacks on voting day.=20
The permanent ink to prevent repeat voting was not permanent.=20
The independent election commission was appointed by President Karzai, =
and it declared him the winner before the 2,600 complaints can be =
investigated by the five-member U.N.-sponsored commission.=20
Now the farce and charade is exposed and we have a recount.=20
The aftermath=20
The country is thrown into deeper and more serious political, =
constitutional and ethnic crisis because of the election. People are =
anxious, fearful and uncertain about the outcome; some are organizing =
and threatening "Iranian-style street action with Kalashnikovs." The =
price of light weapons is going up, and weapons are being moved north =
and south. People fear resurgent civil war between Abdullah Abdullah's =
followers in the north and Karzai's followers in the Pashtun south.=20
The American-installed Karzai regime has zero credibility. It is =
corrupt, ineffective, indifferent, autocratic and American-made. No =
matter what is done with the election, no government will have any =
legitimacy or credibility. And Americans and Europeans who support this =
bankrupt system have little place here, either. It is too simple and =
ignorant to blame everything on extremist Taliban or al-Qaida. This is a =
multifaceted insurgency ranging from the drug mafia to nationalists to =
fundamentalists. There are no al-Qaida or terrorists here. And the =
insurgency are not a threat to the west.=20
This is part civil war between Pashtuns (60 percent of the population) =
and others in the north. It is also a multidimensional anti-imperialist =
struggle by people who don't like being invaded, searched, arrested, =
tortured, killed and bombed. Knowing the Afghans, there is no way they =
can be subdued. It is best to:=20
Withdraw U.S.-NATO [troops] soon and replace them with peacekeeping =
forces from neutral Muslim countries.=20
Commit to developing the country's education, agriculture, health care, =
energy resources, transportation, mining.=20
Build state apparatus.=20
Reconcile ethnic, religious conflicts, restore proportional power =
structure. Have Loya Girga [the grand council of tribes] develop a new =
constitution.=20
Let the Afghans develop their own polity, economy, culture, etc., in =
their own way.=20
Ensure the country's independence and neutrality.=20
Stop spending $5 billion per month on death and destruction.=20
Regards,=20
Zaher Wahab=20
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
West NGOs exaggerated Darfur victims
by Michael Munk
Sat, Sep 12, 2009
|
Darfur groups 'padded' death tolls
Al-Jazeera, Sept 12, 2009
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/09/200991083039170414.html
A group of former Sudanese activists says some of the figures of those
reported dead and displaced in the conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region
were exaggerated.
The former Darfur rebel activists told Al Jazeera that they increased tolls
and gave false evidence during investigations conducted by delegates from
foreign organisations into the conflict.
"We used to exaggerate the numbers of murders and rapes," Salah al Din
Mansour, a former translator with World NGOs in Darfur, said.
"If the figure was 10, for example, we asked people to say two or three
hundred."
"In case of an attack on a certain village, from the Janjawid, we used to
ask them to mention the government forces with their Land Cruiser cars, in
order to involve the government in the tribal clashes."
The group said they had decided to admit to their fabrications in an attempt
to put an end to the crisis.
Al Jazeera's Mohamed Vall said the group claimed its false testimonies also
helped build a criminal case against Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president,
by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The ICC issued a warrant for al-Bashir's arrest in March on counts of war
crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged role in the conflict in
Darfur.
But the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the
Sudanese leader for genocide.
Al-Bashir has denied the prosecution's allegations and has refused to
recognise the court's jurisdiction.
He also expelled 13 international aid groups and three local aid
organisations from Darfur after the ICC decision, accusing them of
co-operating with the ICC against him, a charge the groups denied.
The government later agreed to allow some of the groups back in after
international pressure.
The UN says the fighting in Darfur has killed up to 300,000 people and
displaced an estimated 2.7 million.
But officials in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, dispute the figures, saying
that only 10,000 people have died since ethnic minority fighters rose up
against the Arab-dominated government and its allies.
Government officials have hailed the activists' alleged confessions as
vindication of their long-time denial of committing war crimes in Darfur.
"We will continue listening to these confessions with the UN, with the
permanent and non-permanent members ... namely in terms of raising the
awareness of the international community to the necessity to support the
national efforts," Halim Abdul Mahmoud, Sudan's ambassador to the UN, said.
But Yahia Bolad, a spokesman for the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement, said
the people making the allegations were not a part of Sudan's resistance
group and were fabricating their claims.
"Many NGOs and many international leaders visited Darfur and they concluded
that there are war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the United States
also labelled it as a genocide," he told Al Jazeera.
"The evidence was there. The villages were destroyed, the IDPs [internally
displaced persons], the refugees - this is clear evidence."
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Sept 14: Shoe-thrower hero free
by Michael Munk
Fri, Sep 11, 2009
|
Soon to Be Freed, Shoe-Throwing Iraqi Journalist Showered With Gifts: "I
Feel Like Michael Jackson"
By Martin Chulov and Rory McCarthy, The Guardian (UK) September 11, 2009.
http://www.alternet.org/story/142529/soon_to_be_freed%2C_shoe-throwing_iraqi_journalist_showered_with_gifts%3A_%22i_feel_like_michael_jackson%22
Muntazer al-Zaidi has won the adulation of millions, who believe his act of
defiance did what their leaders had been too cowed to do. As his size 10s
spun through the air towards George W Bush, Muntazer al-Zaidi -- the man the
world now knows as the shoe-thrower -- was bracing for an American bullet.
"He thought the secret service was going to shoot him," says Zaidi's younger
brother, Maitham. "He expected that, and he was not afraid to die."
Zaidi's actions during the former U.S. president's swansong visit to Iraq
last December have not stopped reverberating in the nine months since.
Next Monday, when the journalist walks out of prison, his 10 raging seconds,
which came to define his country's last six miserable years, are set to take
on a new life even more dramatic than the opening act.
Across Iraq and in every corner of the Arab world, Zaidi is being feted. The
20 words or so he spat at Bush -- "This is your farewell kiss, you dog. This
is for the widows and orphans of Iraq" - have been immortalized, and in many
cases memorized.
Pictures of the president ducking have been etched onto walls across
Baghdad, made into T-shirts in Egypt, and appeared in children's games in
Turkey.
Zaidi has won the adulation of millions, who believe his act of defiance did
what their leaders had been too cowed to do.
Iraq has been short of heroes since the dark days of Saddam Hussein, and
many civilians are bestowing greatness on the figure that finally took the
fight to an overlord.
"He is a David and Goliath figure," said Salah al-Janabi, a white goods
salesman in downtown Baghdad. "When the history books are written, they will
look back on this episode with great acclaim. Al-Zaidi's shoes were his
slingshot."
From his prison cell, Zaidi has a sense of the gathering fuss, but not the
full extent of the benefactors and patrons preparing for his release.
A new four-bedroom home has been built by his former boss. A new car -- and
the promise of many more -- awaits.
Pledges of harems, money and healthcare are pouring in to his employers, the
al-Baghdadia television channel.
"One Iraqi who lived in Morocco called to offer to send his daughter to be
Muntazer's wife," said editor Abdul Hamid al-Saij.
"Another called from Saudi offering $10m for his shoes, and another called
from Morocco offering a gold-saddled horse.
"After the event, we had callers from Palestine and many women asking to
marry him, but we didn't take their names. Many of their reactions were
emotional. We will see what happens when he is freed."
From the West Bank town of Nablus, Ahmed Jouda saw the incident on
television news and felt so moved that he called together his relatives for
a meeting in a nearby reception hall.
Jouda, 75, a farmer and head of a large extended family, convinced his
relatives to contribute tens of thousands of dollars to support Zaidi's
legal case.
Jouda himself decided to sell half his herd of goats; another man asked if
he might offer a young woman from his family as a bride. Jouda said he
would, if Zaidi was interested.
"I said we are willing to present him with a bride loaded with gold," said
Jouda. "We are people of our word. If he decided to marry one of our
daughters we would respect what we said.
"We are compassionate and supportive to the Iraqi people for what they have
gone through.
"We are people who have tasted the bitterness, sorrow and agony of
occupation too. What he did, he did for all the Arabs, not just the Iraqis,
because Bush was the reason behind the problems of all the Arab world."
Zaidi's brother insists that no one put Muntazer up to such an act. But he
revealed that Muntazer had told him he had pre-scripted at least one line
ahead of the fateful press conference.
From the roof of his brother's new home, Maitham al-Zaidi said: "He always
thought he would die as a martyr, either by al-Qaida or the Americans. More
than once he was kidnapped by insurgents. He was surprised that Bush's
guards didn't shoot him on the spot."
Muntazer al-Zaidi has told Maitham, and another brother, Vergam, that he is
planning to open an orphanage when he leaves prison and will not work again
as a journalist.
"He doesn't want his work to be a circus," said Vergam. "Every time he asked
someone a difficult question they would have responded by asking whether he
was going to throw his shoes at them."
Muntazer has alleged that after his actions he was tortured by government
officials. Medical reports say he has lost at least one tooth and has two
broken ribs and a broken foot that have not healed properly.
"He will stay in Iraq, but first he has to leave the country to get his
health fixed," said Vergam.
In the run-up to his release, Maitham has a sense of the reception awaiting
his brother.
"I feel like Michael Jackson at the moment. Everywhere I go, people are
taking pictures of me and asking for my photo. If they do that for me, what
will they do for Muntazer himself?"
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Dem doubts on Obama's war
by Michael Munk
Fri, Sep 11, 2009
|
Obama Facing Doubts Within His Own Party on Afghanistan
By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER
New York Times: September 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/world/asia/11military.html?_r=1&hp
WASHINGTON - The leading Senate Democrat on military matters said Thursday
that he was against sending more American combat troops to Afghanistan until
the United States speeded up the training and equipping of more Afghan
security forces.
The comments by the senator, Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, illustrate the growing skepticism
President Obama is facing in his own party as the White House decides
whether to commit more deeply to a war that has begun losing public support,
even as American commanders acknowledge that the situation on the ground has
deteriorated.
Senator Levin's comments, made in an interview and in the draft of a speech
he will deliver Friday, are significant because his stature on military
matters gives him the ability to sway fellow lawmakers, and his pivotal
committee position provides a platform for vetting Mr. Obama's major
decisions on troops.
Underscoring the increasing unease, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said
earlier on Thursday that the president would face opposition if he sought to
fulfill an expected request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top
commander in Afghanistan, for more American combat troops.
"I don't think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to
Afghanistan in the country or in Congress," Ms. Pelosi told reporters,
emphasizing that she was eager to see a report due from the White House in
two weeks on benchmarks to measure the success of the administration's
six-month-old strategy.
The White House has begun to indicate that it could be weeks or perhaps much
longer before Mr. Obama decides whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.
Administration officials say they want to do a complete review of the
effectiveness of the last troop increase, which will put the American
presence at 68,000 troops by year's end, an all-time high. They are also
digesting a strategic assessment of the Afghan mission that General
McChrystal has submitted.
A delay on deciding whether to increase American troop levels would also
have the political advantage of pushing down the road a split within Mr.
Obama's party while he is trying to build coalitions for overhauling the
health care system.
In the telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Levin said he was not ruling out
sending more troops eventually, but rather insisted that the United States
try again on a years-old project: finding a way to expand and accelerate the
training of the Afghan security forces.
"I just think we should hold off on a commitment to send more combat troops
until these additional steps to strengthen the Afghan security forces are
put in motion," he said.
Mr. Levin, who returned from a trip to Afghanistan just last week, said that
the Afghan national army should be increased to 240,000 troops by 2012 from
a current goal of 134,000 by next year, and that Afghan national police
forces should grow to 160,000 officers from 96,800 in the same period. These
troop goals are consistent with General McChrystal's planning but would be
reached a year earlier, the senator said.
Mr. Levin acknowledged that more American trainers would be needed to meet
that goal, but he said that he did not know how many. In the most recent
deployment of 21,000 American troops, about 4,000 were trainers. The last of
those forces will not be in place until November.
In counterinsurgency operations, there are sometimes few distinctions
between trainers, support troops and combat forces, a fact that Mr. Levin
said he recognized.
He said the United States should send Afghan forces more equipment -
including rifles, bullets and trucks - and shift more equipment to
Afghanistan from stocks now in Iraq.
Finally, Mr. Levin said the administration needed to adopt a plan to
separate low- and midlevel insurgents from hard-core Taliban fighters and
commanders. He said the current American efforts to do this had been
tentative and halfhearted.
Mr. Levin, who said he intended to outline his proposal in a speech on the
Senate floor on Friday, said he explained his concerns in meetings on
Wednesday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary
Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
Mr. Gates has indicated that he is willing to consider a request for more
forces. Separate from any troop request forwarded by the commanders in
Afghanistan, Mr. Gates has said he will press for more troops and equipment
to protect American, allied and Afghan forces from improvised explosive
devices, which are the roadside bombs that have been the leading cause of
death and injuries in Afghanistan.
Troops for the mission to counter roadside bombs, which potentially could
number in the thousands, would include route- clearance teams and
ordnance-disposal units - some of the most dangerous jobs in the military -
as well as intelligence analysts and medical personnel. They would be in
addition to a substantial increase in the number of armored troop transport
vehicles sent to Afghanistan.
While Mr. Levin traveled to Afghanistan last week with two other colleagues,
the lawmakers did not agree on all positions.
Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said in an interview that he
agreed with the need to speed the training and equipping of the Afghan
security forces and to reintegrate any Taliban fighters willing to recognize
the Afghan government.
Mr. Reed said he was waiting for the analysis by General McChrystal on
possible troop increases before making up his mind. "What the president has
to do is continually point to the fact that Al Qaeda is operating in the
border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said. "Given the chance to
reconstitute themselves and operate in those border spaces, they'll pose a
threat to the United States."
Representative Adam Smith, a Washington State Democrat on the House Armed
Services and Intelligence Committees who traveled to Afghanistan and
Pakistan in the past week, said he also wanted more information before
deciding. "But my general position is we have to give General McChrystal
what he needs to get the job done," he said.
Other Democrats said Mr. Obama and his military commanders needed to make a
more persuasive case to sell the administration's Afghanistan strategy.
"They have a relatively short period of time to show that we're on a path
that's going to demonstrate positive results," said Representative Earl
Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat who visited Afghanistan last week. "This is
our last best chance to change things around."
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Howard Dean backs Obama's war
by Michael Munk
Wed, Sep 9, 2009
|
|
Remember Niger yellowcake forgery+
by Michael Munk
Wed, Sep 9, 2009
|
|
Progressives wobble on public option
by Michael Munk
Tue, Sep 8, 2009
|
|
Oregon docs start single payer tour to DC
by Michael Munk
Tue, Sep 8, 2009
|
|
Obama in hock to Repubs for his wars
by Michael Munk
Wed, Sep 2, 2009
|
|
differences between O's 1st term and Bush's 3rd
by Michael Munk
Wed, Sep 2, 2009
|
|
Obama adopts Bush's War on Terror
by Michael Munk
Tue, Sep 1, 2009
|
|
6 Oregon docs on roadtrip for single payer
by Michael Munk
Tue, Sep 1, 2009
|
|
do liberals really back Obama's wars?
by Michael Munk
Tue, Sep 1, 2009
|
|
Why is US ambassador still in Honduras/
by Michael Munk
Sun, Aug 30, 2009
|
|
where are Cindy's antiwar supporters?
by Michael Munk
Fri, Aug 28, 2009
|
|
Sheehan brings her protests to Obama
by Michael Munk
Fri, Aug 28, 2009
|
|
More bad news for Obama Hopers
by Michael Munk
Mon, Aug 24, 2009
|
Keep those Torture Taxis Flying!
Rendition of Terror Suspects Will Continue Under Obama
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON
New York Times: August 24, 2009
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration's
practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for detention and
interrogation, but will monitor their treatment to insure they are not
tortured, administration officials said on Monday.
The administration officials, who announced the changes on condition that
they not be identified, said that unlike the Bush administration, they would
give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred
detainees would not be abused.
"The emphasis will be on insuring that individuals will not face torture if
they are sent over overseas," said one administration official, adding that
no detainees will be sent to countries that are known to conduct abusive
interrogations.
But human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying it would permit
the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture and that
promises of humane treatment, called "diplomatic assurances," were no
protection against abuse.
"It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing
the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which
have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture," said Amrit
Singh of the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases
under President George W. Bush.
She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the
United States to Syria, which offered assurances against torture but beat
Mr. Arar with electrical cable anyway.
The Obama task force proposed improved monitoring of treatment of prisoners
sent to other countries, but Ms. Singh said the usual method of such
monitoring - visits from American or allied consular officials - had also
been ineffective. A Canadian consular official visited Mr. Arar several
times, but the prisoner was too frightened to tell him about the torture,
according to a Canadian investigation of the case.
The new transfer policy was one of a series of recommendations proposed by a
working group set up in January to study changes in rendition and
interrogation policies under an executive order signed by President Obama.
In addition, the Obama administration is setting up a new administrative
interrogation unit, to be housed within the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
which will oversee the interrogations of top terror suspects using largely
non-coercive techniques approved by the administration earlier this year.
The creation of the new unit will formally end the Central Intelligence
Agency's primary role in questioning high level detainees after years in
which some lawmakers and human rights groups complained of abusive
treatment.
Bill Burton, the deputy White House spokesman who is with the vacationing
president in Oak Bluffs, Mass., said that creation of the unit does not mean
the C.I.A. is out of the interrogation business. The new unit will include
"all these different elements under one group," he said at the briefing, and
would work out of F.B.I. headquarters in Washington.
The announcement of the new unit came as the administration released a long
withheld C.I.A. Inspector General's report written in 2004 that is said to
be a scathing critique of how the C.I.A. carried out interrogations of
terror suspects.
The new unit, to be called the High Value Interrogation Group, will be
comprised of analysts, linguists and other personnel from the C.I.A. and
other intelligence agencies who will contribute expertise to interrogations.
The group will operate under policies set by the National Security Council.
The officials said all interrogations will comply with guidelines contained
in the Army Field Manual, which outlaws the use of physical force. The new
interrogation group will study interrogation methods, however, and may add
additional non-coercive methods in the future, the officials said.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
More US mercenaries than troops in Afganistan
by Michael Munk
Sun, Aug 23, 2009
|
Obama's war is bigger than he want the public to understand. By the end of
the year, he will have almost 150,000 troops and mercenaries in Afganistan,
compared to the 250,000 now in Iraq.
Afghanistan Contractors Outnumber Troops
Despite Surge in U.S. Deployments, More Civilians Are Posted in War Zone;
Reliance Echoes the Controversy in Iraq.
By AUGUST COLE Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125089638739950599.html
Even as U.S. troops surge to new highs in Afghanistan they are outnumbered
by military contractors working alongside them, according to a Defense
Department census due to be distributed to Congress -- illustrating how hard
it is for the U.S. to wean itself from the large numbers of war-zone
contractors that proved controversial in Iraq.
The number of military contractors in Afghanistan rose to almost 74,000 by
June 30, far outnumbering the roughly 58,000 U.S. soldiers on the ground at
that point. As the military force in Afghanistan grows further, to a planned
68,000 by the end of the year, the Defense Department expects the ranks of
contractors to increase more.
The military requires contractors for essential functions ranging from
supplying food and laundry services to guarding convoys and even military
bases -- functions that were once performed by military personnel but have
been outsourced so a slimmed-down military can focus more on battle-related
tasks.
The Obama administration has sought to reduce its reliance on military
contractors, worried that the Pentagon was ceding too much power to outside
companies, failing to rein in costs and not achieving desired results.
President Obama has repeatedly called defense contractors to task since
taking office. "In Iraq, too much money has been paid out for services that
were never performed, buildings that were never completed, companies that
skimmed off the top," he said during a March speech.
In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to hire 30,000
civilian officials during to cut the percentage of contractors in the
Pentagon's own work force, and last month he told an audience of soldiers
that contractor use overseas needed better controls.
.Military contractors' personnel for a time outnumbered U.S. troops in
Iraq. The large contractor force was accompanied by issues ranging from
questionable costs billed to the government to shooting of civilians by
armed security guards. A September 2007 shooting incident involving
Blackwater Worldwide guards working for the U.S. State Department, in which
17 Iraqis were killed, forced the U.S. to aggressively rework oversight of
security firms.
Yet in Afghanistan as in Iraq, the Pentagon has found that the military has
shrunk so much since the Cold War ended that it isn't big enough to sustain
operations without using companies to directly support military operations.
"Because of the surge, we're trying to get ahead of the troops," said Gary
Motsek, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Program Support, who
helps oversee the Pentagon's battlefield contractor efforts. "So we're
pushing contractors in place, doing it as fast as we can, and trying to be
responsible about it."
The heavy reliance on contractors in Afghanistan signals that a situation
that defense planners once considered temporary has become a standard
fixture of U.S. military operations.
"For a sustained fight like our current commitments, the U.S. military can't
go to war without contractors on the battlefield," said Steven Arnold, a
former Army general and retired executive at logistics specialists Ecolog
USA and KBR Inc. KBR was formerly owned by Halliburton Co. He added, "For
that matter, neither can NATO."
That poses a challenge for military planners who must keep tabs on tens of
thousands of people who are crucial to their operations yet are civilians
outside the chain of command.
In Congress, there's a particular concern about security contractors who
might upset diplomatic and military relationships. "We've had incidents when
force has been used, we believe, improperly against citizens by
contractors," said Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the
Senate Armed Services Committee. "This creates huge problems, obviously, for
those who have been injured or killed and their families, but it also
creates huge problems for us and our policies in Afghanistan."
.In Iraq, as of June 30 there were 119,706 military contractors, down 10%
from three months earlier and smaller than the number of U.S. troops, which
stood at approximately 132,000. But as the Pentagon has been drawing down
contractors in Iraq, their ranks have been growing in Afghanistan -- rising
by 9% over that same three-month period to 73,968. More than two-thirds of
those are local, which reflects the desire to employ Afghans as part of the
counterinsurgency there.
Many contractors in Afghanistan are likely to face combat-like conditions,
particularly those manning far-flung outposts, and are exposed to possible
militant attacks -- blurring the line between soldier and support staff.
The reliance on contractors has prompted a shift in the defense industry,
sending more money to logistics and construction companies that can perform
everything from basic functions to project engineering.
A recent contract is worth up to $15 billion to two firms, DynCorp
International Inc. and Fluor Corp., to build and support U.S. military bases
throughout Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, government auditors have repeatedly uncovered military
mismanagement of contractors. The Wartime Contracting Commission reported
finding during an April trip that the military had accepted a new
headquarters building in Kabul hobbled by shoddy construction. Officials in
Iraq and Afghanistan were unable to give the commission complete lists of
work being contracted out at the bases they visited.
Coordination of security contractors, one of the most charged issues in
Iraq, is being beefed up for Afghanistan, said Mr. Motsek, the Pentagon
official. A new umbrella contract planned for later this year is designed to
make awarding work speedier and to help oversight and vetting.
As well, he said more Defense Department civilians are being sent to oversee
all types of contracts, and they will stay longer overseas than their
predecessors did in Iraq.
Video conferencing and other remote management tools had fallen short as a
substitute. The Army is also adding hundreds of civilian contracting
personnel, among the measures being put in place.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Doubts about Lockerbie conviction
by Michael Munk
Sat, Aug 22, 2009
|
|
Krugman's new take on progressive Dems
by Michael Munk
Fri, Aug 21, 2009
|
Krugman favored Hillary during the primaries, and thus his concern for the
priorities of progressive Dems is new-found.
Obama's Trust Problem
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times: August 21, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1
According to news reports, the Obama administration - which seemed, over the
weekend, to be backing away from the "public option" for health insurance -
is shocked and surprised at the furious reaction from progressives.
Well, I'm shocked and surprised at their shock and surprise.
A backlash in the progressive base - which pushed President Obama over the
top in the Democratic primary and played a major role in his general
election victory - has been building for months. The fight over the public
option involves real policy substance, but it's also a proxy for broader
questions about the president's priorities and overall approach.
The idea of letting individuals buy insurance from a government-run plan was
introduced in 2007 by Jacob Hacker of Yale, was picked up by John Edwards
during the Democratic primary, and became part of the original Obama health
care plan.
One purpose of the public option is to save money. Experience with Medicare
suggests that a government-run plan would have lower costs than private
insurers; in addition, it would introduce more competition and keep premiums
down.
And let's be clear: the supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham.
That's not just my opinion; it's what the market says: stocks of health
insurance companies soared on news that the Gang of Six senators trying to
negotiate a bipartisan approach to health reform were dropping the public
plan. Clearly, investors believe that co-ops would offer little real
competition to private insurers.
Also, and importantly, the public option offered a way to reconcile
differing views among Democrats. Until the idea of the public option came
along, a significant faction within the party rejected anything short of
true single-payer, Medicare-for-all reform, viewing anything less as
perpetuating the flaws of our current system. The public option, which would
force insurance companies to prove their usefulness or fade away, settled
some of those qualms.
That said, it's possible to have universal coverage without a public
option - several European nations do it - and some who want a public option
might be willing to forgo it if they had confidence in the overall health
care strategy. Unfortunately, the president's behavior in office has
undermined that confidence.
On the issue of health care itself, the inspiring figure progressives
thought they had elected comes across, far too often, as a dry technocrat
who talks of "bending the curve" but has only recently begun to make the
moral case for reform. Mr. Obama's explanations of his plan have gotten
clearer, but he still seems unable to settle on a simple, pithy formula; his
speeches and op-eds still read as if they were written by a committee.
Meanwhile, on such fraught questions as torture and indefinite detention,
the president has dismayed progressives with his reluctance to challenge or
change Bush administration policy.
And then there's the matter of the banks.
I don't know if administration officials realize just how much damage they've
done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry,
just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying
giant bonuses is playing. But I've had many conversations with people who
voted for Mr. Obama, yet dismiss the stimulus as a total waste of money.
When I press them, it turns out that they're really angry about the bailouts
rather than the stimulus - but that's a distinction lost on most voters.
So there's a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my
colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that's why the mixed signals
on the public option created such an uproar.
Now, politics is the art of the possible. Mr. Obama was never going to get
everything his supporters wanted.
But there's a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and
progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side
of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will
draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death
panel smear, warning that reform will "pull the plug on grandma," and two
days later the White House declares that it's still committed to working
with him.
It's hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to
appease people who can't be appeased, and who take every concession as a
sign that he can be rolled.
Indeed, no sooner were there reports that the administration might accept
co-ops as an alternative to the public option than G.O.P. leaders announced
that co-ops, too, were unacceptable.
So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted,
and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Pakistani: We hate all Americans
by Michael Munk
Fri, Aug 21, 2009
|
.U.S. Officials Get a Taste of Pakistanis' Anger at America
"Thousands of innocent people have been killed because the US is trying to
find Osama bin Laden."
By HELENE COOPER
New York Times: August 19, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/world/asia/20holbrooke.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Pakistani%20anger%20at%20America&st=cse
KARACHI, Pakistan - Judith A. McHale was expecting a contentious session
with Ansar Abbasi, a Pakistani journalist known for his harsh criticism of
American foreign policy, when she sat down for a one-on-one meeting with him
in a hotel conference room in Islamabad on Monday. She got that, and a
little bit more.
After Ms. McHale, the Obama administration's new under secretary of state
for public diplomacy and public affairs, gave her initial polite
presentation about building bridges between America and the Muslim world,
Mr. Abbasi thanked her politely for meeting with him. Then he told her that
he hated her.
" 'You should know that we hate all Americans,' " Ms. McHale said Mr. Abbasi
told her. " 'From the bottom of our souls, we hate you.' "
Beyond the continuation of the battle against militants along the
Pakistani-Afghan border, a big part of President Obama's strategy for the
region involves trying to broaden America's involvement in the country to
include nonmilitary areas like infrastructure development, trade, energy,
schools and jobs - all aimed at convincing the Pakistani people that the
United States is their friend. But as Ms. McHale and other American
officials discovered this week, during a visit by Richard C. Holbrooke, the
special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan, making that case was not
going to be easy.
"We have made a major turn with our relationship with Pakistan under
President Obama," Mr. Holbrooke told reporters at a news conference in
Karachi on Wednesday. Time and again, Mr. Holbrooke tried to delineate the
differences between the Obama administration and the Bush era, painting the
new administration as one that wants to see a better life and more business
opportunities for Pakistanis.
He said his very presence in Karachi - Pakistan's largest city and its
commercial capital - demonstrated that drone attacks and the hunt for Al
Qaeda were not the only American foreign policy activities in the country.
To polite applause, Mr. Holbrooke told local officials at the Governor's
House that the United States Consulate in Karachi would start granting
business visas -100 a week - instead of making would-be business travelers
to the United States go to Islamabad for the visas, as has been the case.
He stopped at a shantytown in the city to chat with schoolboys crowded into
three classrooms, and even visited the home of a local resident, to get a
feel for how people in Karachi live. On Tuesday, he met with opposition
leaders in Islamabad, including Liaqat Baloch, the secretary general of the
anti-American political party Jamaat-e-Islami, and Fazlur Rehman, the leader
of another anti-American party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, who is sometimes
referred to as the spiritual founder of the Taliban.
In Karachi on Wednesday, Mr. Holbrooke kept bringing up a trade bill that
just passed the House, which would set up so-called reconstruction
opportunity zones so that textiles and other goods made in Pakistan's tribal
areas could get preferential access to the United States market. And Ms.
McHale, whose job is, in part, to try to repair America's relations with the
Muslim world, strayed from his side only when she ventured out on
fence-mending missions of her own, meeting with 17 Pakistani journalists, 8
officials of nongovernmental organizations and members of several political
parties, all in an effort to deliver one message: America cares about
Pakistan.
But Mr. Abbasi's reaction - a response that, Ms. McHale acknowledged,
apparently reflects the feelings of about 25 percent of the population,
according to a recent poll - demonstrated just how tough the job is. For all
of the administration's efforts to call attention to the nonmilitary ties
that would bind the two countries, America is still being judged by many
Pakistanis as an uncaring behemoth whose sole concern is finding Osama bin
Laden, no matter the cost in civilian Pakistani lives.
"He told me that we were no longer human beings because our goal was to
eliminate other humans," Ms. McHale said Wednesday, recounting the
conversation with Mr. Abbasi. "He spoke English very well, and he said that
thousands of innocent people have been killed because we are trying to find
Osama bin Laden."
Following Mr. Holbrooke's example when he received a similar lashing from
Mr. Baloch, Ms. McHale said she argued her points with Mr. Abbasi, points
that to many Americans would appear logical, but that often fail to impress
over here: Al Qaeda and Mr. bin Laden attacked the United States on Sept.
11, 2001; the war in Afghanistan, unlike the war in Iraq, is blessed by the
United Nations and is a multinational effort; America will always do
whatever it takes to defend itself.
She said that even though she knew that she did not sway Mr. Abbasi, it was
good to hear what he thought because she wanted to try to understand the
source of much of the anti-Americanism in Pakistan.
Meanwhile, in Karachi, Mr. Holbrooke continued to push an agenda of soft
power, telling business leaders that the United States wanted to invest in
energy projects in Pakistan. But he acknowledged that some of the projects
that Karachi technocrats put before him, with their complex ownership
structures, would never get approval in the Congress.
The trade bill, now before the Senate, has labor provisions that are
unlikely to get past free-trade Republicans, whose support is needed for it
to pass.
And on top of that, in a concession to the United States textile industry,
the bill would not include imports of cotton tops and pants, items that are
made in abundance in Pakistan.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
US media obsessed with IOran's protests, ignore Honduras'
by Michael Munk
Thu, Aug 20, 2009
|
Amnesty: Honduras Testimonies Show Extent of Police Violence
http://www.truthout.org/082009C?n 20 August 2009
by: Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
There has been very little attention in the US press to repression in
Honduras under the coup regime. Hopefully, that will now change: Amnesty
International issued a report today documenting "serious ill-treatment by
police and military of peaceful protesters" in Honduras, warning that
"beatings and mass arrests are being used as a way of punishing people for
voicing their opposition" to the coup.
An Amnesty International delegation interviewed people, who were
detained after police and military broke up a peaceful demonstration July
30. Most detainees had injuries as a consequence of police beatings.
Esther Major, Central America researcher at Amnesty International, said:
"Detention and ill treatment of protesters are being employed as forms of
punishment for those openly opposing the de facto government, and also as a
deterrent for those contemplating taking to the streets to peacefully show
their discontent with the political turmoil the country is experiencing."
US media often rely heavily on international human rights groups like
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to report on human rights
abuses. So, it will be interesting to see how much US press coverage the
Amnesty report gets.
If the repression under the coup regime were more widely known, it would
be much more difficult for representatives of that regime to peddle their
story in Washington that their government is "democratic" and "respects the
rule of law." How is the coup's hired gun Lanny Davis going to spin
Amnesty's report on police repression of peaceful dissent against the coup?
Amnesty urgently calls for the "international community" to seek a
resolution to the political crisis. But not all members of the
"international community" have equal say. Last week, the president of Brazil
called on the United States to use more political influence to help solve
the crisis. Brazil's foreign minister said President Zelaya's return would
depend largely on the position of the United States.
No one is calling on the US to send the Fourth Fleet to Honduras. The
Obama administration has modest policy levers it has not employed. Rep. Raul
Grijalva (D-Arizona) and 15 other members of the House have written to
President Obama, urging him to speak out about the repression in Honduras
and to cancel US travel visas and freeze US bank accounts of leaders of the
coup regime to pressure it to accept a compromise for President Zelaya's
return.
The coup regime "must be disabused" of the notion that it can "run out
the clock" until a November presidential election, wrote The New York Times
in a recent editorial. The US must be prepared to exert more pressure on the
coup regime if it refuses to accept a compromise for President Zelaya's
return, the Times said.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
White House attacks progressive Dems
by Michael Munk
Thu, Aug 20, 2009
|
TPMDC
Anonymous White House Official Slams Liberals Over Public Option
Brian Beutler | August 19, 2009
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/anonymous-white-house-official-slams-liberals-over-public-option.php?ref=fpb
In case progressives were beginning to feel as if the Obama
administrationdoesn't really care what they think, they can rest assured:
the White Househears them loud and clear. It just doesn't like the
message."I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this
is theirWaterloo," an anonymous senior White House adviser tells the
WashingtonPost. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left
isdetermined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how
thathas become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform.
"That's probably not a characterization--"left of the left"--liberals
wouldhave chosen for more than five dozen members of the Democratic caucus.
Andit doesn't exactly inspire faith that the White House sees the public
optionas more than a sliver of reform. But it also doesn't suggest
they'reexpecting House progressives to fold.And, in a bit of good news for
progressives, it comes just as White Housechief of staff Rahm Emanuel--who
could even be the Post's anonymousofficial--tells the New York Times that
the GOP "has made a strategicdecision that defeating President Obama's
health care proposal is moreimportant for their political goals than solving
the health insurance problems that Americans face every day."If health care
bipartisanship is dead or dying, then the public optionsuddenly loses much
(though certainly not all) of its political volatility.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Americans reject Obama's war
by Michael Munk
Wed, Aug 19, 2009
|
Majority in Post-ABC Poll Say Afghan War Not Worth Fighting
By Jennifer Agiesta and Jon Cohen,Washington Post Staff Writers
August 19, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081903066.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009081http://www.http://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/update
A majority of Americans now see the war in Afghanistan as not worth fighting
and just a quarter say more U.S. troops should be sent to the country,
according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Most have confidence in the ability of the United States to meet its primary
goals -- defeating the Taliban, facilitating effective economic development
and molding an honest and effective Afghan government -- but very few say
Thursday's elections there are likely to produce such a government.
When it comes to the baseline question, 42 percent of Americans say the U.S.
is winning in Afghanistan; about as many, 36 percent, say it is losing the
fight.
The new poll comes amid widespread speculation that the top U.S. commander
in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, will request more troops for his
stepped-up effort to root the Taliban from Afghan towns and villages. That
is a position that gets the backing of 24 percent of those polled, while
nearly twice as many, 45 percent, want to decrease the number of military
forces there. (Most of the remainder say to keep the level about the same.)
In January, before President Obama authorized sending an additional 17,000
troops to the country, public sentiment tilted more strongly toward a troop
increase.
Should President Obama embrace his general's call for even more U.S.
military forces, he risks alienating some of his staunchest supporters While
60 percent of all Americans approve of how Obama has handled the situation
in Afghanistan, his ratings among liberals have slipped and majorities of
liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war
and are calling for a reduction in troops.
Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs, and
fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels. Nearly
two-thirds of the most committed Democrats now feel "strongly" that the war
was not worth fighting. Among moderate and conservative Democrats, a slim
majority say the United States is losing in Afghanistan.
Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58
percent) remain the war's strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare
point of GOP support for Obama's policies. A narrow majority of
conservatives approve of Obama's handling of the war (52 percent), as do
more than four in 10 Republicans (43 percent).
Among all adults, 51 percent now say the war is not worth fighting, up six
points since last month and four points above the previous high, reached in
February. Less than half, 47 percent, say the war is worth its costs. Those
strongly opposed (41 percent) outweigh strong proponents (31 percent).
Opposition to the Iraq war reached similar levels in the summer of 2004 and
deteriorated further, through the 2006 midterm elections, becoming issue No.
1 in many congressional races that year.
By the time support for the Iraq war had fallen below 50 percent,
disapproval of President George W. Bush's handling of it had climbed to 55
percent, in contrast to Obama's solid overall approval on dealing with
Afghanistan.
But there are warning signs for the president.
Among liberals, his rating on handling the war, which he calls one of
"necessity," has fallen swiftly, with strong approval cratering by 20
points. Nearly two-thirds of liberals stand against a troop increase, as do
about six in 10 Democrats.
On the GOP side, views are more evenly distributed, as Republicans divide
about equally in support of an increase, a decrease and no change to troop
levels.
Partisan divisions on the handling of the war itself are tempered when it
comes to faith in the ability of the United States and its allies to get the
job done in Afghanistan. Broad majorities across party lines say they are
confident the U.S. will defeat the Taliban and succeed in spurring economic
development.
Independents express slightly less confidence on these issues, and less than
half of independents (46 percent) say they are confident that the United
States can encourage an honest and effective Afghan government. Overall, 55
percent are confident that the United States could help establish an honest
and effective government.
Far fewer, 34 percent, say the country's national election will result in an
effective government, with just 3 percent "very confident."
Beyond ideological and partisan divisions on the war, women have shifted
against the war more sharply than men and are far more apt to say troop
levels should be decreased (51 percent) than are men (38 percent). Nearly
six in 10 women say the war was not worth fighting, up from just under half
last month.
The Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Aug. 13-17
among a random national sample of 1,001 adults including users of both
conventional and cellular phones. Results from the full survey have a margin
of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points; it is higher
among subgroups
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Will liberal Dems oppose no reform health bill?
by Michael Munk
Mon, Aug 17, 2009
|
Obama Picks Fight With Left on Health Reform
16 August 2009 http://www.truthout.org/081709B?n
by: Ian Swanson | Visit article original @ The Hill
In backing away from its support for a public option in healthcare
reform, the Obama administration is picking a fight with the liberal wing of
the Democratic party.
Liberal Democrats have insisted a public insurance option is necessary
to ensure competition for private insurers. Just this week, former
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean predicted there could be
Democratic primary challenges if a healthcare bill without a public option
is approved by Congress.
Dean also told liberal bloggers gathered last week at the "Netroots
Nation" convention that the only piece of reform left in the House bill that
is worth doing is the public option.
The left wing of the Democratic party already has been irritated by
concessions its leaders have made on healthcare to centrists in the House
and Senate.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) told CNN on Sunday it would be
"very difficult" for her and other liberals to support legislation that does
not include a public option.
"The only way we can be sure that very low-income people and persons who
work for companies that don't offer insurance have access to it, is through
an option that would give the private insurance companies a little
competition," she said.
Johnson added that House liberals have already told Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.) that she should insist on White House support for a public
option.
Some liberals are already disappointed with positions President Barack
Obama has taken since his election.
For example, Obama hasn't moved to repeal the don't ask, don't tell law
on gays in the military, to the dismay of some liberals. Others were upset
with his decision to not release photos detailing the abuse of detainees in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Over the weekend, Valarie Jarrett, a close advisor to Obama, was hissed
at and booed by some attending the Netroots Nation over the photo issue,
according to a report in The Huffington Post.
Still, liberals might have a hard time dropping their support for
landmark legislation reforming healthcare over the lack of a public plan,
particularly if a final bill does set up co-ops. In addition, the dropping
of a public option could make it easier for the bill to attract support from
conservative Democrats and Republicans.
Rep. Mike Ross (Ark.), a blue dog Democrat who won several concessions
for conservative Democrats in a House Energy and Commerce Committee
healthcare bill approved by the panel just before the recess, said a final
bill by Congress is likely to be written by the Senate Finance Committee.
"It's probably going to have to be bipartisan in the Senate, which I
think it should be, and - so I know a lot of members in my party in the
House don't want to hear this, but the reality is that what comes out of
that conference report, which is what really matters, my guess is about 90
percent of it will be reflected from what's in the Senate Finance
Committee," Ross said on CNN.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a key member of Finance involved in
negotiations on the panel's bill, all but said a public option is dead in
comments today on Fox.
The administration signaled its shift on the public option in comments
Sunday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and White
House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
Sebelius said that what the president sees as essential is to set up
competition to private insurers in the healthcare system. But she said that
doesn't have to come from a public health insurance option.
"Well, I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," she said
on CNN. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole
new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the
right thing. We need some choices, we need some competition."
A short time later, Gibbs stopped far short of earlier calls insisting
on a public plan.
"What the president has said is in order to inject choice and
competition. . . people ought to be able to have some competition in that
market," Gibbs said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Asked if he was hedging on support for a public plan, Gibbs said, "The
president has thus far sided with the notion that that can best be done with
a public option."
Gibbs and Sebelius seemed to be making clear what President Barack Obama
had hinted at on Sunday during a town hall event in Colorado broadcast
across the country on cable television.
Obama, who has fielded questions at town halls from people worried about
the public plan, described it as only a "sliver" or "aspect" of reform.
"The public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the
entirety of healthcare reform," Obama said at the town hall event in
Colorado. "This is just one sliver of it. One aspect of it. And by the way,
it's both the right and the left that have become so fixated on this that
they forget everything else."
Republicans, signaling a victory, pounced Sunday afternoon on the
administration's shift. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.)
office circulated a list of quotations from Obama to illustrate how the
president had previously insisted on including a public option in a
healthcare reform bill.
"I also strongly believe that one of the options in the exchange should
be a public option in order for us to create some competition for the
private insurers to keep them honest," Obama had said in an online town hall
on July 1.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Obama channels Bush, urges support for his war in Afpak
by Michael Munk
Mon, Aug 17, 2009
|
Obama, urging patience, says Afghan war worth fighting
By Matt Spetalnick and Jeff Mason Aug 17, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090817/pl_nm/us_obama_afghanistan_4
PHOENIX (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Monday called the conflict in
Afghanistan "a war worth fighting" as he sought to stiffen U.S. public
support before an election there this week that will test his new strategy.
Obama's words were designed to prepare Americans for the long haul. U.S.
combat deaths have risen since he ordered a troop buildup to confront a
resurgent Taliban, and polls show public backing for the eight year-war has
softened.
"The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight, and we won't
defeat it overnight," Obama said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, the largest U.S. military veterans group. "This will not be quick nor
easy."
Obama described why he believes the Afghanistan policy he unveiled earlier
this year is working and why the United States must remain committed to
stabilizing the war-ravaged country.
"This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity," Obama said.
"Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left
unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from
which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."
"So this is not only a war worth fighting, this is fundamental to the
defense of our people," Obama said.
Since taking office in January, he has shifted focus from the more unpopular
war in Iraq to Afghanistan as his top foreign policy priority.
Obama spoke as Afghans prepared to vote in a presidential election Thursday
that the Taliban, stronger than at any time since they were driven from
power in 2001, have vowed to disrupt.
Securing the balloting will be a crucial test for Obama's strategy that has
rushed 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan this year. Underlining the threat,
the Taliban Saturday claimed a suicide car bomb that killed seven people in
Kabul.
PRESSURE TO SHOW RESULTS
In a speech that also covered Iraq, defense spending and healthcare for
veterans, Obama did not comment on the Afghan presidential contenders to
avoid charges of U.S. interference.
Despite the administration's unease with President Hamid Karzai, polls show
the incumbent comfortably leading his nearest challenger, Abdullah Abdullah,
but not by enough to avoid a run-off.
The new commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley
McChrystal, will deliver a strategy assessment shortly after the election.
It comes as surging Taliban violence is exerting pressure on Washington to
show results.
After a record 44 U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan in July, a recent
CNN poll showed U.S. public support for the war at a new low of 41 percent,
with 54 percent opposed.
Obama's strategy has called for increased reconstruction aid as well as
troops, but the effort to bring in more civilians to help rebuild has been
slow.
He has worked to draw neighboring Pakistan into a regional crackdown on al
Qaeda and their Taliban allies.
Obama said his strategy recognizes that the insurgents had moved their bases
to the remote, tribal areas of Pakistan.
He reiterated that the United States was on track to "remove all our troops
from Iraq by the end of 2011."
During last year's presidential campaign, Obama had accused the Bush
administration of being distracted by Iraq and neglecting Afghanistan.
Obama addressed the VFW a year ago when he was still a candidate and had to
defend his credentials to serve as U.S. commander-in-chief. This time, the
Democratic president received a polite but less-than-rousing reception from
the group, which is known for conservative views.
In Phoenix, Obama was unable to escape the fierce domestic debate over
healthcare reform. Dozens of protesters on each side stood on opposite sides
of the street shouting at each other outside the convention hall where he
spoke.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Chavez corrects Obama
by Michael Munk
Sun, Aug 16, 2009
|
Chavez is of course correct:Obama claims Latin America wants US to
"intervene" in Honduras, while what they demand is the opposite: withdraw US
troops from Honduras and stop the money subsidy to the gorillas.
Chavez says Obama "lost in space" on Latin America
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090816/pl_nm/us_venezuela_obama_1
Aug. 16, 2009
CARACAS (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama is "lost in the
Andromeda" galaxy on Latin American policy, his chief critic in the region,
Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, said on Sunday, while demanding the closure
of U.S. military bases.
Last week Obama said critics of U.S. involvement in Latin America who are
now asking Washington to do more to restore the ousted president of Honduras
"can't have it both ways."
"We are not asking you to intervene in Honduras, Obama. On the contrary, we
are asking that "the empire" get its hands off Honduras and get its claws
out of Latin America," Chavez said in a rambling weekly television and radio
show.
"President Obama is lost in the Andromeda Nebula, he has lost his bearings,
he doesn't get it," he said.
Chavez repeated an accusation that the United States had prior knowledge of
the coup that deposed Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on June 28 and the
military plane that flew Zelaya out of the country had used a U.S. base in
Honduras.
Despite Chavez's frequent tirades against U.S. imperialism, the United
States remains the main client for Venezuelan oil, though the OPEC country
is gradually increasing sales to other countries, especially China.
Chavez, who expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela at the end of the Bush
administration but allowed him back when Obama took office, said he still
believes Obama has good intentions.
Obama has promised to improve U.S. relations with Latin America. U.S.
officials say his administration will put more effort into ties with the
region to counter Chavez's growing influence.
The leftist Venezuelan leader is furious, however, at a U.S. security
agreement with Colombia that will give the Pentagon access to seven
Colombian military bases. Chavez has cut trade with his neighbor as a
reprisal.
The United States and Colombia say the deal is an expansion of an existing
accord and will help fight drug traffickers and guerrillas involved in the
Colombian cocaine trade. Chavez says a larger U.S. troop presence risks
sparking war in the region.
Venezuela is planning to beef up its army by buying tanks and other weapons
from Russia, Chavez said, adding that his country needs to be prepared for
an attack.
Chavez claims the United States wants to control Venezuela's huge oil
reserves as well as the Amazon region.
"This is just the start of an imperial military expansion," Chavez said of
the U.S.-Colombian security arrangement.
Chavez asked Obama to withdraw U.S. forces from the Palmerola air base in
Honduras (also known as Soto Cano) and from Guantanamo Bay which the U.S.
Navy has used as a base in Cuba for over a century.
"Until when? Get with it, Obama -- get with it, brother," Chavez said.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Torture pyschologists Spokane company shut down
by Michael Munk
Wed, Aug 12, 2009
|
Note: The American Pyschological Association has been reluctant to
discipline these torture contractors. In fact a former APA president,
retired Oregon Health Sciences University professor Joseph Dominic
Matarazzo, owned one percent of Mitchell Jessen & Associates and was one of
five members of the firm's governing board.
Interrogation Inc: 2 U.S. Architects of Harsh Tactics in 9/11's Wake
By SCOTT SHANE
New York Times: August 12, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/12psychs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
WASHINGTON - Jim Mitchell and Bruce Jessen were military retirees and
psychologists, on the lookout for business opportunities. They found an
excellent customer in the Central Intelligence Agency, where in 2002 they
became the architects of the most important interrogation program in the
history of American counterterrorism.
A former Air Force explosives expert and a natural salesman, Dr. Mitchell
and his colleague had no expertise on Al Qaeda and had never conducted an
actual interrogation. But they had psychological credentials and an intimate
knowledge of a brutal treatment regimen used decades ago by Chinese
Communists.
They had never carried out a real interrogation, only mock sessions in the
military training they had overseen. They had no relevant scholarship; their
Ph.D. dissertations were on high blood pressure and family therapy. They had
no language skills and no expertise on Al Qaeda.
But they had psychology credentials and an intimate knowledge of a brutal
treatment regimen used decades ago by Chinese Communists. For an
administration eager to get tough on those who had killed 3,000 Americans,
that was enough.
So "Doc Mitchell" and "Doc Jessen," as they had been known in the Air Force,
helped lead the United States into a wrenching conflict over torture, terror
and values that seven years later has not run its course.
Dr. Mitchell, with a sonorous Southern accent and the sometimes overbearing
confidence of a self-made man, was a former Air Force explosives expert and
a natural salesman. Dr. Jessen, raised on an Idaho potato farm, joined his
Air Force colleague to build a thriving business that made millions of
dollars selling interrogation and training services to the C.I.A.
Seven months after President Obama ordered the C.I.A. interrogation program
closed, its fallout still commands attention. In the next few weeks,
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to decide whether to begin a
criminal torture investigation, in which the psychologists' role is likely
to come under scrutiny. The Justice Department ethics office is expected to
complete a report on the lawyers who pronounced the methods legal. And the
C.I.A. will soon release a highly critical 2004 report on the program by the
agency's inspector general.
Col. Steven M. Kleinman, an Air Force interrogator and intelligence officer
who knows Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen, said he thought loyalty to their
country in the panicky wake of the Sept. 11 attacks prompted their excursion
into interrogation. He said the result was a tragedy for the country, and
for them.
"I feel their primary motivation was they thought they had skills and
insights that would make the nation safer," Colonel Kleinman said. "But good
persons in extreme circumstances can do horrific things."
For the C.I.A., as well as for the gray-goateed Dr. Mitchell, 58, and the
trim, dark-haired Dr. Jessen, 60, the change in administrations has been
neck-snapping. For years, President George W. Bush declared the
interrogation program lawful and praised it for stopping attacks. Mr. Obama,
by contrast, asserted that its brutality rallied recruits for Al Qaeda;
called one of the methods, waterboarding, torture; and, in his first visit
to the C.I.A., suggested that the interrogation program was among the agency's
"mistakes."
The psychologists' subsequent fall from official grace has been as swift as
their rise in 2002. Today the offices of Mitchell Jessen and Associates, the
lucrative business they operated from a handsome century-old building in
downtown Spokane, Wash., sit empty, its C.I.A. contracts abruptly terminated
last spring.
With a possible criminal inquiry looming, Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen have
retained a well-known defense lawyer, Henry F. Schuelke III. Mr. Schuelke
said they would not comment for this article, which is based on dozens of
interviews with the doctors' colleagues and present and former government
officials.
In a brief e-mail exchange in June, Dr. Mitchell said his nondisclosure
agreement with the C.I.A. prevented him from commenting. He suggested that
his work had been mischaracterized.
"Ask around," Dr. Mitchell wrote, "and I'm sure you will find all manner of
'experts' who will be willing to make up what you'd like to hear on the spot
and unrestrained by reality."
At the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, Dr. Mitchell had just retired from his
last military job, as psychologist to an elite special operations unit in
North Carolina. Showing his entrepreneurial streak, he had started a
training company called Knowledge Works, which he operated from his new home
in Florida, to supplement retirement pay.
But for someone with Dr. Mitchell's background, it was evident that the
campaign against Al Qaeda would produce opportunities. He began networking
in military and intelligence circles where he had a career's worth of
connections.
He had grown up poor in Florida, Dr. Mitchell told friends, and joined the
Air Force in 1974, seeking adventure. Stationed in Alaska, he learned the
art of disarming bombs and earned bachelor's and master's degrees in
psychology.
Robert J. Madigan, a psychology professor at the University of Alaska who
had worked closely with him, remembered Dr. Mitchell stopping by years
later. He had completed his doctorate at the University of South Florida in
1986, comparing diet and exercise in controlling hypertension, and was
working for the Air Force in Spokane.
"I remember him saying they were preparing people for intense
interrogations," Dr. Madigan said.
Military survival training was expanded after the Korean War, when false
confessions by American prisoners led to sensational charges of communist
"brainwashing." Military officials decided that giving service members a
taste of Chinese-style interrogation would prepare them to withstand its
agony.
Air Force survival training was consolidated in 1966 at Fairchild Air Force
Base in the parched hills outside Spokane. The name of the training,
Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape, or SERE, suggests its breadth: airmen
and women learn to live off the land and avoid capture, as well as how to
behave if taken prisoner.
In the 1980s, Dr. Jessen became the SERE psychologist at the Air Force
Survival School, screening instructors who posed as enemy interrogators at
the mock prison camp and making sure rough treatment did not go too far. He
had grown up in a Mormon community with a view of Grand Teton, earning a
doctorate at Utah State studying "family sculpting," in which patients make
physical models of their family to portray emotional relationships.
Dr. Jessen moved in 1988 to the top psychologist's job at a parallel
"graduate school" of survival training, a short drive from the Air Force
school. Dr. Mitchell took his place.
The two men became part of what some Defense Department officials called the
"resistance mafia," experts on how to resist enemy interrogations. Both
lieutenant colonels and both married with children, they took weekend
ice-climbing trips together.
While many subordinates considered them brainy and capable leaders, some
fellow psychologists were more skeptical. At the annual conference of SERE
psychologists, two colleagues recalled, Dr. Mitchell offered lengthy
put-downs of presentations that did not suit him.
At the Air Force school, Dr. Mitchell was known for enforcing the safety of
interrogations; it might surprise his later critics to learn that he
eliminated a tactic called "manhandling" after it produced a spate of neck
injuries, a colleague said.
At the SERE graduate school, Dr. Jessen is remembered for an unusual job
switch, from supervising psychologist to mock enemy interrogator.
Dr. Jessen became so aggressive in that role that colleagues intervened to
rein him in, showing him videotape of his "pretty scary" performance,
another official recalled.
Always, former and current SERE officials say, it is understood that the
training mimics the methods of unscrupulous foes.
Mark Mays, the first psychologist at the Air Force school, said that to make
the fake prison camp realistic, officials consulted American P.O.W.'s who
had just returned from harrowing camps in North Vietnam.
"It was clear that this is what we'd expect from our enemies," said Dr.
Mays, now a clinical psychologist and lawyer in Spokane. "It was not
something I could ever imagine Americans would do."
In December 2001, a small group of professors and law enforcement and
intelligence officers gathered outside Philadelphia at the home of a
prominent psychologist, Martin E. P. Seligman, to brainstorm about Muslim
extremism. Among them was Dr. Mitchell, who attended with a C.I.A.
psychologist, Kirk M. Hubbard.
During a break, Dr. Mitchell introduced himself to Dr. Seligman and said how
much he admired the older man's writing on "learned helplessness." Dr.
Seligman was so struck by Dr. Mitchell's unreserved praise, he recalled in
an interview, that he mentioned it to his wife that night. Later, he said,
he was "grieved and horrified" to learn that his work had been cited to
justify brutal interrogations.
Dr. Seligman had discovered in the 1960s that dogs that learned they could
do nothing to avoid small electric shocks would become listless and simply
whine and endure the shocks even after being given a chance to escape.
Helplessness, which later became an influential concept in the treatment of
human depression, was also much discussed in military survival training.
Instructors tried to stop short of producing helplessness in trainees, since
their goal was to strengthen the spirit of service members in enemy hands.
Dr. Mitchell, colleagues said, believed that producing learned helplessness
in a Qaeda interrogation subject might ensure that he would comply with his
captor's demands. Many experienced interrogators disagreed, asserting that a
prisoner so demoralized would say whatever he thought the interrogator
expected.
At the C.I.A. in December 2001, Dr. Mitchell's theories were attracting
high-level attention. Agency officials asked him to review a Qaeda manual,
seized in England, that coached terrorist operatives to resist
interrogations. He contacted Dr. Jessen, and the two men wrote the first
proposal to turn the enemy's brutal techniques - slaps, stress positions,
sleep deprivation, wall-slamming and waterboarding - into an American
interrogation program.
By the start of 2002, Dr. Mitchell was consulting with the C.I.A.'s
Counterterrorist Center, whose director, Cofer Black, and chief operating
officer, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., were impressed by his combination of
visceral toughness and psychological jargon. One person who heard some
discussions said Dr. Mitchell gave the C.I.A. officials what they wanted to
hear. In this person's words, Dr. Mitchell suggested that interrogations
required "a comparable level of fear and brutality to flying planes into
buildings."
By the end of March, when agency operatives captured Abu Zubaydah, initially
described as Al Qaeda's No. 3, the Mitchell-Jessen interrogation plan was
ready. At a secret C.I.A. jail in Thailand, as reported in prior news
accounts, two F.B.I agents used conventional rapport-building methods to
draw vital information from Mr. Zubaydah. Then the C.I.A. team, including
Dr. Mitchell, arrived.
With the backing of agency headquarters, Dr. Mitchell ordered Mr. Zubaydah
stripped, exposed to cold and blasted with rock music to prevent sleep. Not
only the F.B.I. agents but also C.I.A. officers at the scene were uneasy
about the harsh treatment. Among those questioning the use of physical
pressure, according to one official present, were the Thailand station
chief, the officer overseeing the jail, a top interrogator and a top agency
psychologist.
Whether they protested to C.I.A. bosses is uncertain, because the voluminous
message traffic between headquarters and the Thailand site remains
classified. One witness said he believed that "revisionism" in light of the
torture controversy had prompted some participants to exaggerate their
objections.
As the weeks passed, the senior agency psychologist departed, followed by
one F.B.I. agent and then the other. Dr. Mitchell began directing the
questioning and occasionally speaking directly to Mr. Zubaydah, one official
said.
In late July 2002, Dr. Jessen joined his partner in Thailand. On Aug. 1, the
Justice Department completed a formal legal opinion authorizing the SERE
methods, and the psychologists turned up the pressure. Over about two weeks,
Mr. Zubaydah was confined in a box, slammed into the wall and waterboarded
83 times.
The brutal treatment stopped only after Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen
themselves decided that Mr. Zubaydah had no more information to give up.
Higher-ups from headquarters arrived and watched one more waterboarding
before agreeing that the treatment could stop, according to a Justice
Department legal opinion.
The Zubaydah case gave reason to question the Mitchell-Jessen plan: the
prisoner had given up his most valuable information without coercion.
But top C.I.A. officials made no changes, and the methods would be used on
at least 27 more prisoners, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was
waterboarded 183 times.
The business plans of Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen, meanwhile, were working
out beautifully. They were paid $1,000 to $2,000 a day apiece, one official
said. They had permanent desks in the Counterterrorist Center, and could now
claim genuine experience in interrogating high-level Qaeda operatives.
Dr. Mitchell could keep working outside the C.I.A. as well. At the
Ritz-Carlton in Maui in October 2003, he was featured at a high-priced
seminar for corporations on how to behave if kidnapped. He created new
companies, called Wizard Shop, later renamed Mind Science, and What If. His
first company, Knowledge Works, was certified by the American Psychological
Association in 2004 as a sponsor of continuing professional education.
(A.P.A. dropped the certification last year.)
In 2005, the psychologists formed Mitchell Jessen and Associates, with
offices in Spokane and Virginia and five additional shareholders, four of
them from the military's SERE program. By 2007, the company employed about
60 people, some with impressive résumés, including Deuce Martinez, a lead
C.I.A. interrogator of Mr. Mohammed; Roger L. Aldrich, a legendary military
survival trainer; and Karen Gardner, a senior training official at the
F.B.I. Academy.
The company's C.I.A. contracts are classified, but their total was well into
the millions of dollars. In 2007 in a suburb of Tampa, Fla., Dr. Mitchell
built a house with a swimming pool, now valued at $800,000.
The psychologists' influence remained strong under four C.I.A. directors. In
2006, in fact, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her legal
adviser, John B. Bellinger III, pushed back against the C.I.A.'s secret
detention program and its methods, the director at the time, Michael V.
Hayden, asked Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen to brief State Department
officials and persuade them to drop their objections. They were
unsuccessful.
By then, the national debate over torture had begun, and it would undo the
psychologists' business.
In a statement to employees on April 9, Leon E. Panetta, President Obama's
C.I.A. director, announced the "decommissioning" of the agency's secret
jails and repeated a pledge not to use coercion. And there was another item:
"No C.I.A. contractors will conduct interrogations."
Agency officials terminated the contracts for Mitchell Jessen and
Associates, and the psychologists' lucrative seven-year ride was over.
Within days, the company had vacated its Spokane offices. The phones were
disconnected, and at neighboring businesses, no one knew of a forwarding
address.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Obama's McChrystal = LBJ's Westmoreland
by Michael Munk
Tue, Aug 11, 2009
|
Remember Westy's regular demands for more troops in Vietnam?
McChrystal Wants Huge Boost in US Troops and Civilians in Afghanistan
10 August 2009 http://www.truthout.org/081109F?n
by: Nancy A. Youssef and Warren P. Strobel | Visit article original @
McClatchy Newspapers
Kabul - In addition to requesting some 45,000 additional U.S. troops in
Afghanistan, the country's top American military commander will ask the
Obama administration to double the number of U.S. government civilian
workers who are in the country.
The proposed civilian "surge" is the fourth leg of Army Gen. Stanley
McChrystal's emerging strategy to rebuild Afghanistan's economy and
government, along with more American troops, vastly expanded Afghan security
forces and closer cooperation between U.S. and Afghan troops, including
posting troops from both countries at the same bases.
The request for additional civilian resources will be part of a 60-day
assessment of the strategy in Afghanistan. McChrystal's plan also will
outline how the military wants to revamp the relationship between civilians
and the military so that soldiers shift economic and political development
work to civilians.
It's not clear, however, whether the State Department can deploy enough
civilians fast enough to make progress in an economically backward nation
that remains plagued by an Islamist insurgency, internal rivalries,
inadequate infrastructure, official corruption and a booming opium trade.
What's more, nearly eight years after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, one
thing that many of its people have in common is growing discontent with the
presence of foreign forces.
The assessment was to be released later this week, but the Pentagon has
announced that it won't be made public until early September. The plan is
already a race against time in Afghanistan and in Washington, where the
administration is eager to demonstrate significant progress before the 2010
congressional elections.
A State Department official said that there were 560 to 570 U.S.
government civilian employees in Afghanistan at the end of last year, and
that by the end of this year there'll be about 1,000.
Only 75 of the new arrivals are in Afghanistan so far. "We're doing this
in a planned way. We have to balance getting the right people out there, as
opposed to just deploying them quickly," said the official, who spoke only
on the condition of anonymity, as the official wasn't authorized to speak
for the record. "We fully expect to be able to get them all out there by the
end of the year."
Many of the new arrivals will join provincial reconstruction teams,
which work with provincial and local officials across Afghanistan. Not all
of them are coming from the State Department. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture is sending 55 employees into the field as part of an effort to
rejuvenate Afghanistan's once-rich agriculture.
It may be difficult, however, to convince some disheartened American
troops to work with civilians, whom they think haven't had much impact in
the places where they've been.
In Kabul, though, military officials called the proposal a central part
of their plan, saying that rebuilding Afghanistan's shattered economy and
cleaning up its corrupt government are key to the U.S. strategy.
The military will move to population centers and wrest control from the
Taliban, and civilians will move in afterward to rebuild communities. In
many places now, the Taliban not only control areas by force but also have
established local courts, government centers and businesses and have run
government officials out of their communities.
"Government is the key, and you will see that in General McChrystal's
strategy," said a senior military official, who also spoke on the condition
of anonymity because he isn't authorized to speak to the news media. "If all
we achieve is security, then this won't work."
However, even if the surge occurs, "it might not arrive until early
2010," said Andrew Exum, who's at the Washington-based Center for a New
American Security, a national-security policy research center, and who
serves as an adviser to McChrystal. "For the near term, the military needs
to be prepared to take on responsibilities better executed by civilians....
We're on a very short timeline in Afghanistan with respect to shifting
momentum, and by the time the civilians arrive in any significant numbers or
capabilities, it might be quite late in the game."
As for the provincial reconstruction teams, he said, there's no
standardization. "What (each one does) depends on their relationship with
the Afghan people and their guidance from their home country," Exum said.
Many of the new employees are being hired under a special provision of
the law that allows the government to hire temporary personnel on an
expedited basis. Aside from the new hires, it's not clear where the
additional personnel will come from. Some could come from Iraq, where a
State Department inspector general's report recently recommended that the
U.S. Embassy be downsized significantly and provincial reconstruction teams
be phased out.
The U.S. Embassy in Kabul has alerted the State Department that hundreds
more civilians beyond the total of 1,000 now planned probably will be needed
in 2010 and 2011, officials said. The total could end up reaching 1,350,
with about 800 in Kabul and about 550 outside the capital.
Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative for
Afghanistan and Pakistan, dismissed criticism that the civilian buildup has
been insufficient so far.
"We have a very sustained plan. This is not like taking an existing
military unit out of Fort Bragg and training them and then sending them
out," Holbrooke said at a briefing last month. "We have hundreds of people
in the pipeline."
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Honduran gorillas being back death squad terrorist
by Michael Munk
Sun, Aug 9, 2009
|
So why is Obama afraid to break with those guys?
A Cold War Ghost Reappears in Honduras
By GINGER THOMPSON
New York Times: August 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/08/world/americas/08joya.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras THE coup here has brought back a lot of Central
America's cold war ghosts, but few as polarizing as Billy Joya, a former
police captain accused of being the former leader of a death squad.
He didn't sneak quietly back into national politics. He made his
reappearance on a popular evening talk show just hours after troops had
rousted President Manuel Zelaya out of bed and loaded him onto a plane
leaving the country.
Mr. Joya's purpose, he said, was to defend the ouster and help calm a public
that freed itself from military rule less than three decades ago. Instead,
he set off alarms among human rights activists around the world who worried
that the worst elements of the Honduran military were taking control.
"The name Billy Joya reverberated much more than Micheletti," Mr. Joya
protested, perhaps a little too strenuously, referring to the head of the de
facto government, Roberto Micheletti, installed by the military. "Instantly,
my image was everywhere."
Mr. Joya's conflicting images - a vilified figure who portrays himself as a
victim - are as hard to reconcile as his life story. Human rights groups
consider him one of the most ruthless former operatives of an
American-backed military unit, known as Battalion 316, responsible for
kidnapping, torturing and murdering hundreds of people suspected of being
leftists during the 1980s.
Today, Mr. Joya, a 52-year-old husband and father of four, has become a
political consultant to some of the most powerful people in the country,
including Mr. Micheletti during his failed campaign to become president last
year. Now that Mr. Micheletti has effectively secured that post, Mr. Joya
has resurfaced again as a liaison of sorts between Mr. Micheletti and the
international media.
Mr. Joya looks straight out of central casting, though not for the role of a
thug. He has more of the smooth, elegant bearing of a leading man. And in
the 14 years since he was first brought to trial on charges of illegally
detaining and torturing six university students, he has undertaken a
solitary quest - one that can at times border on obsession - aimed not only
at defending himself, but also at vindicating the government's past fight
against Communism.
In 1995, he released a 779-page volume of newspaper clippings, government
records and human rights reports meant to substantiate the military's
narrative of the cold war, which essentially accuses its opponents of having
blood on their hands as well. And in 1998, after living for a couple of
years in exile in Spain, Mr. Joya said he was the first and only military
officer to surrender himself for trial.
"Not once in 14 years has there been a single legitimate piece of evidence
linking me to these crimes," he said. Referring to human rights
organizations, he said, "What they have done is to condemn me in the media,
because they know if they proceed with these cases in court, they are going
to lose."
The odds would appear to be on Mr. Joya's side. In 1989, the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights determined that the Honduran military was responsible
for systematic abuses against government opponents. Still, in the 27 years
since this country returned to civilian rule, authorities say, Honduran
courts have held only two military officials - Col. Juan Blas Salazar Mesa
and Lt. Marco Tulio Regalado - accountable for human rights violations.
ONLY about a dozen other officers ever faced formal charges. And most of
those cases, like Mr. Joya's, remain unresolved by a judicial system that
remains crippled by corruption.
Meanwhile, Mr. Joya has not suffered silently in legal limbo. In some ways,
he has hardly suffered at all. His business as a security consultant and
political adviser to some of the most powerful elected officials and
businessmen in the country has been lucrative.
"He is like one of those guys who went to Vietnam," said Antonio Tavel,
president of Xerox in Honduras. "He had an ugly job to do once upon a time,
and now he's a regular family guy."
Mr. Joya is the son of a businessman who helped start several successful
companies in Honduras but gambled away more money than he made. Mr. Joya,
one of four children, said he enrolled in the military academy at 14, mostly
as a way to gain early independence.
He was expelled from the academy, he said, when a teacher caught him
cheating on an exam. But instead of giving up his dream to be a soldier, he
enlisted as a private and within two years had risen to become the youngest
sergeant in the army.
Mr. Joya joined the military police, and in 1981 - as the Reagan
administration spent tens of millions of dollars to turn this impoverished
country into the principal staging area for a covert war against the region's
left-wing guerrilla groups - Mr. Joya said that he and 12 other Honduran
soldiers received six weeks of training in the United States.
He acknowledged that he went on to become a member of Battalion 316. But
that's where his version of events diverges from those of his accusers. He
has been charged with 27 crimes, including illegal detention, torture and
murder.
The most noteworthy case involved the illegal detention and torture of the
six university students in April 1982. The students said they were held in a
series of secret jails for eight days. During that time, the students
testified, they were kept blindfolded and naked, denied food and water, and
subjected to beatings and psychological torture.
Among those detained was Milton Jiménez, who later became a lawyer and a
member of Mr. Zelaya's cabinet. In 1995, Mr. Jiménez told The Baltimore Sun
that officers from the battalion stood him before a firing squad and
threatened to shoot him.
"They said they were finishing my grave," he said at the time. "I was
convinced I was going to die."
Edmundo Orellana, the former Honduran attorney general who was the first to
try to prosecute human rights crimes, said it was "absurd" that Mr. Joya
remained free.
"Billy Joya is proof that civilian rule has been a cruel hoax on the
Honduran people," Mr. Orellana said. "He shows that ignorance and complicity
still reign inside our courts, especially when it comes to the armed
forces."
Absurd, Mr. Joya countered, are the charges against him. After his
television appearance, he said he received so many threats that he took his
wife and youngest daughter to the United States. Now he returns to Honduras
only intermittently to meet with clients.
PORING over dozens of newspaper clippings and court dockets during an
interview, he argued that Battalion 316 was not established until two years
after Mr. Jiménez's detention, and that it was a technical unit specializing
in arms interdiction, not counterinsurgency.
He also argued that the former students' testimony against him is rife with
contradictions. He said Mr. Jiménez, for example, later recanted his charge
that Mr. Joya was involved in his interrogations.
"It was never my responsibility to detain people, to torture people or to
disappear people," Mr. Joya said. "But if those had been my orders, I am
sure I would have obeyed them, because I was trained to obey orders.
"The policy at that time was, 'The only good Communist is a dead Communist, " he continued. "I supported the policy."
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Where is Cornel West?
by Michael Munk
Sat, Aug 8, 2009
|
Will any "Progressive" members of Congress stand up against Obama's
disgraceful deal with to preserve profits for Big Pharma? He worked
primarily through Nancy-Ann DeParle, his chosen aide to oversee the health
care overhaul. DeParle was evidently selected because of her lucrative
connections with the medical industrial complex. She turned her time in the
Clinton adminsitraon into a $6 million career as director of several health
related companies that faced federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits
and other regulatory actions, including Accredo Health Inc., Boston
Scientific, Cerner Corp., DaVita, Guidant, Medco Health Solutions,
Speciality Laboratories, Triad Hospitals and CCMP Capital. Most of them
stand to profit from the health "reform" she is leading.
Too many Obama "hopers" are turning into "realists" and trying to ignore or
justify what is happening in broad daylight. Where, oh where, is Cornel West
and his ilk (like me)? We famously declared during the campaign that we
hoped Obama would be elected, after which we pledged to "become his fiercest
critic."
Obama's $80 Billion Deal with Pharma Is a Very Bad Deal for Us
By William Greider, The Nation. August 8, 2009.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/greider
So now we know why the president wants everyone to make nice in the
healthcare debate. His White House has cut a deal with Big Pharma that
smells like the same old rotten politics that candidate Obama regularly
denounced and promised to end. The drug industry agrees to deliver $80
billion in future savings and the president promises the government will not
use its awesome purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices.
Wow. This is roughly the same deal that George W. Bush cut with the drug
makers when he was legislating Medicare's new coverage of drug purchases. It
is the same bargain that Democrats in Congress universally condemned as
wasteful and corrupt. The deal does not smell any better now that a
Democratic president is embracing it.
In effect, Obama wants to give away one of the principal objectives of
strong reform. The details were spelled out in today's New York Times and
revealed by Big Pharma's top-dog lobbyist, Billy Tauzin, a former Republican
congressman who leads the industry association. Tauzin called it a
"rock-solid deal," and the White House did not dispute as much. But that is
not the last word.
People who believe in real healthcare reform should not be nice about this.
They must rise up and rebel against our popular new president's outrageous
concession. They must demand that Congress declare the private deal-making
null and void. If Congress lacks the nerve to do this, then this exercise in
reform begins to look more and more like previous attempts that were
eviscerated by the clout of the corporate interests.
The fate of healthcare reform may depend not on the Senate or the White
House but on Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority in the House of
Representatives. What prompted Billy Tauzin to spill the beans on his
deal-making with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was the House
measure that specifies government's right to bargain for lower prices. No,
no, no! Tauzin said. We've got a deal with the president, who says that
won't be allowed.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi simply responds that the House is not bound
by any deals made with the Senate or the White House. Her caucus must back
up her words. They should pass the House bill, which will allow the
government to do what any major customer would do in the same
circumstances -- use its leverage to demand lower prices.
If House Democrats stand their ground, then they will force a debate they
can win with the American public. President Obama will have to choose
between standing with the drug manufacturers or defending the original
purpose of healthcare reform.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Media spin unemployment numbers
by Michael Munk
Fri, Aug 7, 2009
|
A little rationality injected: the rate went down because fewer people told
interviewers they were looking for work during the survey week, because the
actual number of people with jobs continued to drop. If the Labor
Department would count those who didn't look because they did not believe
they could find work and those working parttime involuntarily, the correct
rate would remain about 20%.
Not as Bad, but Not Good
by Floyd Norris
New York Times, August 7, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/business/global/index.html
There are clear signs that world economy is turning up, or at least not
sinking further, but today's jobs report is not a bright spot. The
unemployment rate went down, from 9.5 percent to 9.4 percent, but that is
statistically unimportant given the sampling error in the household survey.
In any case, it fell not because more people said they had jobs - employment
was down in that survey - but because fewer people were still looking for
work.
I'll get back to dissecting the job figures in a moment, but first I want to
reprint part of a release from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development today.
OECD composite leading indicators (CLIs) for June 2009 point to stronger
signs of improvement in the economic outlook of OECD economies compared with
last month's release. This is typified by stronger recovery signals in Italy
and France and clearer signals of troughs in Canada, Germany, the United
Kingdom and the United States. In Japan tentative signs of improvement have
also emerged. Troughs can also be observed in China and India, with
tentative trough signals now appearing in Brazil and Russia.
It is clear that business fell too far off the cliff last fall, in the wake
of the Lehman Brothers collapse. Final sales fell, but not nearly as far as
production and shipments. People were scared at all levels of the supply
process, and in some cases importers simply could not get credit.
That made an inventory-led bounce inevitable, and we are seeing it in
recovering exports around the world. But there is as yet little indication
that final sales are picking up in this country. A double-dip recession, or
a very slow recovery, remain possible.
Now, back to the employment report.
As I went over the numbers, the one that leaped out at me was that the auto
manufacturing business had added 28,200 workers. Added? That sure is not the
impression you'd get from the reports coming from Detroit.
It turns out those are seasonally adjusted numbers. Before seasonal
adjustment, the number of auto workers fell by 8,600. I doubt the seasonal
adjustment factors have much to do with current trends.
Still, it is clear that things are getting worse slowly. Fewer people are
losing their jobs. But long-term unemployment is higher than ever.
The number of unemployed people who have been unemployed for 14 weeks or
less was 6.79 million in July, the lowest figure for that group since
December. But the number unemployed for 15 weeks or more was 7.88 million,
up 74 percent since December and the highest figure ever.
For the first time ever - or at least since the government started counting
the figures in 1948 - more than a third of the unemployed have been out of
work for at least 27 weeks. The average unemployed person had been jobless
for less than 20 weeks at the end of last year. Now the figure is over 25
weeks.
Is it good news that fewer people are losing their jobs? Yes. Is it bad news
that the number of long-term unemployed is rising? Yes.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Venezuelan plotter turns to Honduras
by Michael Munk
Fri, Aug 7, 2009
|
|
Support for Obama's war keeps dropping
by Michael Munk
Thu, Aug 6, 2009
|
54% oppose (+6); 41% support (-9). And only Feingold stands up against it?
CNN Poll: Support for Afghanistan war drops
August 6th, 2009
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/06/cnn-poll-support-for-afghanistan-war-drops/
WASHINGTON (CNN) - A new national poll indicates that support among
Americans for the war in Afghanistan has hit a new low.
Forty-one percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation
survey released Thursday say they favor the war in Afghanistan - down 9
points from May, when CNN polling suggested that half of the public
supported the war. Fifty-four percent say they oppose the war in
Afghanistan, up 6 points from May.
"Afghanistan is almost certainly the Obama policy that Republicans like the
most," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Nearly two-thirds of
Republicans support the war in Afghanistan. Three-quarters of Democrats
oppose the war."
A record 44 United States troops were killed in Afghanistan in July, and 11
have been killed so far this month.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted 7/31-8/3, with 1,136
adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus
or minus 3 percentage points
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
US /Malaki stop vote on US withdrawal
by Michael Munk
Wed, Aug 5, 2009
|
Postponing Iraqi Public Opinion
05 August 2009 http://www.truthout.org/080509A
by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report
After a news conference at the White House, President Barack Obama (R) and
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki (L) walk away together. Though they
discussed the US withdrawal deadline, neither Obama nor Maliki mentioned the
Iraqi public vote to determine whether that deadline will stand. (Photo:
Reuters)
When Iraq's Parliament ratified its security pact with the US last year,
allowing the presence of US troops until the end of 2011, it built in a
provision for a public referendum vote to take place. This would let the
Iraqi people decide the ultimate future of the pact. If the public voted to
negate it, the US withdrawal deadline would have been shifted up to next
summer.
The vote, scheduled to take place by July 30, never happened.
No formal delay was enacted, but the missed deadline came after
persistent urging from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who advocated a
postponement until January 2010. Iraq's Parliament - now led by a new
speaker sympathetic to Maliki - cooperated, neglecting to bring the
procedural law governing the vote's terms to the floor.
American interests likely played a significant role in the missed vote.
The postponement came a week after Maliki's White House visit, during which
both he and President Obama reiterated the December 2011 deadline for
withdrawal. Neither mentioned the referendum.
Moreover, a mid-June New York Times article stated, "American diplomats
are quietly lobbying the government not to hold the referendum," and
suggested that any delay in voting might be "in deference to American
concerns."
Last Thursday's deadline slipped by quietly, with most Iraqi leaders
staying mute on the subject. However, Tariq al-Hashemi, one of Iraq's two
vice presidents, summed up the frustrations of many.
"This date had been carefully chosen to provide the necessary time to
have a tangible result," Hashemi said in a public statement. "Failure to
meet the date is a delay that denies the Iraqi people their rights."
Withdrawal Deadline Tug-of-War
The pro-occupation elements of Iraq's government had reason to be scared
of a referendum. If Iraqis had cast their votes last Thursday, they may well
have rejected the security pact (otherwise known as Status of Forces
Agreement, or SOFA).
In an extensive March ABC/BBC poll, a plurality of Iraqis said they'd
prefer a quicker timetable for US withdrawal than the one specified in the
SOFA.
A rejection of the SOFA would have accelerated the US withdrawal
deadline to a year from the vote's date: July 30, 2010. The vote's
postponement means that even if the SOFA is negated in January, US troops
will stay six months longer than they would have if the vote had been held
in July.
The skipped referendum vote was in large part a time grab, according to
Joseph Gerson, author of "The Sun Never Sets: Confronting the Network of
Foreign Military Bases."
"As the saying has it, military occupiers, like dead fish, begin to
stink after three days," Gerson told Truthout. "Had the vote been held as
scheduled, the most likely result would have been that the Iraqi people
would have insisted that US forces leave before the 2011 date. It was a
matter of buying time."
The bought time is a boon for the Pentagon, which to date has not made
public any back-up plans for an accelerated withdrawal, should the
referendum fail. With 130,000 troops and 132,000 contractors still in Iraq,
a rejection of the SOFA would leave the US flailing.
For Maliki, whose government is heavily dependent on US support, the
delay also means six more months to convince Iraqis that the SOFA is a good
idea. Iraq's executive branch is well aware of the issues that would swing a
vote against the SOFA, and is hoping that some of those factors improve
before the postponed referendum vote takes place, according to Jim Fine,
legislative secretary for foreign policy at the Friends Committee on
National Legislation.
"Concern over continued US detention of Iraqis, continued appearances of
US forces in Iraqi cities and towns despite the withdrawal of 'combat
troops' from populated areas, and Iraq's continued subjection to UN
sanctions stemming from the First Gulf War are factors that influence Iraqi
public opinion," Fine told Truthout. "Some months from now, these factors
may be at least partly resolved, making it more likely that the public will
approve the agreement."
An Uncertain Future
Meanwhile, a mixture of silence and confusion surrounds the referendum
vote's prospects for January. Although Maliki recommended setting the vote
to coincide with Iraq's elections, no firm date has been set.
The executive branch's hedging on the referendum is symptomatic of a
larger rift between the Maliki government and the Iraqi people, according to
Gerson.
"I think it demonstrates that the authoritarian government that the US
has created in Iraq does not reflect popular Iraqi opinion, and that the
government is quite afraid and is working hard to manage and contain the
popular will of Iraqis," Gerson told Truthout.
These "management" efforts tend to yield uncertainty more often than
unconditional support, according to Ali al-Fadhily, an independent
correspondent living in Baghdad, who says that Iraqis are being kept in the
dark about the facts of a US withdrawal.
"The picture is vague and Iraqis are divided, and as confused as their
leaders want them to be," al-Fadhily told Truthout.
The progress of the SOFA - and how well the two governments are abiding
by its terms - is not clear on the US side, either. During the late July
meeting between Maliki and Obama, the president spoke of a "full transition
to Iraqi responsibility," but when it comes to what that transition means,
details are shaky and oversight is lacking.
In the lead-up to the signing of the SOFA, the House Subcommittee on
International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight held a series of
hearings on the questionable legality of the pact. Currently, further
hearings are on hold, according to the office of Rep. Bill Delahunt
(D-Massachusetts), chairman of the committee.
"We are interested in taking another look at this issue, but nothing has
been firmed up," Delahunt's press secretary told Truthout.
A crucial factor in the future of the SOFA is the Iraqi elections,
coming up in January. If the referendum and the elections are held
simultaneously, and Maliki wins another term in office, he could
theoretically ignore the referendum results and stick to the SOFA, according
to Raed Jarrar, Iraq consultant for the American Friends Service Committee.
The matter would then be sent to Iraq's supreme court, prompting an even
further delay.
Alternately, the January polls could veer in the opposite direction,
ousting Maliki and bringing a pro-withdrawal administration to power.
"If the anti-occupation groups win - and I think they will - they might
cancel the SOFA either way, even if it gets a 'yes' vote," Jarrar told
Truthout. "If the pro-occupation groups win, they'll pull every possible
trick to keep the US as long as they can. So whoever wins the next elections
will decide what will happen."
However, the elections may not prove a one-day affair. After Iraq's
December 2005 election, five months passed before a Cabinet and prime
minister were determined.
Iraq's SOFA referendum may well be relegated to a similar fate: an
indefinite conclusion.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Obama; Hope for eventual change--or not
by Michael Munk
Wed, Aug 5, 2009
|
=20
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
Watch Weiner stand up for single payer
by Michael Munk
Mon, Aug 3, 2009
|
|
Another Iraq war lie exposed
by Michael Munk
Sun, Aug 2, 2009
|
Americans forget that Iraq turned out to be telling the truth when it
insisted against US claims that it had WMDs. Now, finally, another US claim
turns out the be false and confirms Iraq was again telling the truth: The
attacking US pilot was indeed killed when his plane was shot down and he was
NOT held prisoner.
.Remains of first U.S. Gulf War casualty found
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090802/ts_nm/us_iraq_usa_speicher_3 .
By Jim Wolf August 3, 2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The remains of a U.S. Navy pilot have been found and
positively identified, more than 18 years after he was shot down over Iraq
and became the first U.S. casualty of the first Gulf War, the U.S. Defense
Department said on Sunday.
The Pentagon's announcement resolved questions about the fate of Captain
Michael Scott Speicher, who some believed had survived his shoot-down and
been taken prisoner by Iraq.
Bone fragments and skeletal remains were recovered in the desert last week
by U.S. Marines stationed in Iraq's Anbar province, thanks to a tip from an
Iraqi citizen, the department said. It said they were identified as
Speicher's by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Speicher's F/A-18 Hornet fighter was shot down over west-central Iraq on
January 17, 1991, the first night of the first Gulf War, which eventually
drove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
An official Navy history identified Speicher as the first American casualty
of the conflict. Some reports had emerged that Speicher, 33 when he was
downed, might have survived and become a captive of Saddam.
On January 11, 2001, Speicher's status was changed from killed in action to
missing in action.
The U.S. intelligence community had concluded that Baghdad could account for
Speicher's fate but was concealing information, according to an unclassified
summary of its findings released in March 2001.
Then-president George W. Bush, in a September 12, 2002, speech to the U.N.
General Assembly, had cited Speicher's possible detention as part of his
case for post-September 11 action against Iraq, along with allegations that
Saddam was developing banned weapons of mass destruction and was sponsoring
terrorism.
The Iraqi government had maintained from the start that Speicher died in the
crash, although his remains had gone unrecovered, fueling conspiracy
theories.
The Iraqi who told Marines about the remains said he knew of two Iraqi
citizens who recalled a U.S. jet crashing in the desert. One said he had
been present when Speicher was found dead at the site and buried there by
Bedouin tribesmen. The Iraqis led the Marines to the crash site.
"Positive identification was made by comparing Captain Speicher's dental
records with the jawbone recovered at the site," a Pentagon statement said.
"The teeth are a match, both visually and radiographically."
Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of Naval Operations, said: "Our Navy will never
give up looking for a shipmate, regardless of how long or how difficult that
search may be."
"We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Captain Speicher and his family
for the sacrifice they have made for our nation and the example of strength
they have set for all of us," he said in the statement put out by the
Pentagon.
visit my website www.michaelmunk.com
|
How single payer came back on the table
by Michael Munk
Sat, Aug 1, 2009
|
As it looks to me, here's a brief sumnmary of the politics that led to the
promised House vote on 676 next month. Waxman's Energy & Commerce
committee was the scene of the showdown.
The seven Blue Dog Democrats on the committee had held up reform for the
past several weeks.With a push from Obama whip Emanuel (enabler of many of
the Dogs in the last congressional campaign) Waxman struck a deal with
four of them --their leader Mike Ross (ARK), Bart Gordon (TN), Baron Hill
(IN) and Zack Space (OH). In return for their votes, the deal would (1)
delay the full House vote past August, (2) weaken the bill's public health
care option and (3) cut $100 billion from health care spending over 10
years, much of it from insurance premium subsidies to uninsured middle
income families.
Those outrageous concessions finally produced some outrage from House
progressives, 57 of whom signed a letter to House leadership threatening
to vote against a weak bill. In response, Waxman renegotiated his deal on
behalf of Obama with his committee's Blue Dogs and progressives that
would (1) delink the public option from Medicare and force it to negotiate
its own reimbursement rates, (2) restore the middle-income subsidies by
shifting funds from existing federal health care programs and (3) reduce
the limit of premiums for the uninsured from 12% to 11% of a household's
annual income.
But now Waxman faced another challenge from the Left. Rep. Anthony Weiner
(D-N.Y.) proposed a single payer amendment that would have forced every
member of the committee to vote it up or down--a possible embarrasment to
progressive members (including Waxman who was a co-signer of 676 last year
but took his name off this year).With the support of Tammy Baldwin
(D-Wis.), Mike Doyle (D-Penn.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky
(D-Ill.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Weiner offered to withdraw his amendment
IF Pelosi promised to bring 676 to a floor debate and vote. She agreed and
Waxman and Weiner sealed the committee vote at 31-28.
In that vote, only three of the original Blue Dogs (Jim Matheson of Utah,
Charlie Melancon of Louisiana and Bart Stupak of Michigan) and two other
Democrats
(John Barrow of Georgia a |
|